A multicenter, phase II trial of weekly irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with previously treated colorectal carcinoma.

作者: Mace L. Rothenberg , John V. Cox , Russell F. DeVore , John D. Hainsworth , Richard Pazdur

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990215)85:4<786::AID-CNCR5>3.0.CO;2-9

关键词:

摘要: BACKGROUND This multicenter, Phase II trial was performed to evaluate the antitumor activity and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that had recurred or progressed after 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy. METHODS CPT-11 given as a 90-minute intravenous infusion repeated 6-week (42-day) courses comprising weekly treatment for 4 consecutive weeks followed by 2-week rest. Tumor measurements were obtained every second course therapy. Toxicity assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Criteria. RESULTS A total 166 entered into trial. The first 64 received starting dose 125 mg/m2. An additional 102 enrolled at 100 mg/m2 determine whether reduction would result lower without sacrificing efficacy. Objective responses CPT-11 observed 18 (1 complete response 17 partial responses) (response rate [RR] = 10.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-15.6%). 67 (40.4%) stable disease their best response. At dose, RR 14.1% (9 patients; CI, 5.5-22.6%). Among mg/m2, 8.8% 3.3-14.3%). overall median survival 9.9 months (range, 0.3-36.8 months). most frequently Grade 3/4 toxicities gastrointestinal events (i.e., diarrhea [27.1%], nausea [15.1%], emesis [9.6%], abdominal cramping [22.2%], neutropenia [19.9%]). There no significant differences frequencies between levels except (21.9% vs. 2%; P < 0.001). Patients age ≥ 65 years twice likely (38.6% 18.8%; 0.008) develop compared younger when all therapy evaluated. However, older did not significantly predict higher incidence first-course (25.0% 14.7%; =0.106). CONCLUSIONS CPT-11 can induce tumor regression has during shortly 5-FU-based chemotherapy. Gastrointestinal common serious toxicities. Given trend toward substantially greater toxicity, been selected preferred further studies. Careful attention appropriate modification early intervention loperamide may be especially important elderly patients. 1999;85:786–95. © 1999 American Society.

参考文章(27)
P Rougier, R Bugat, J Y Douillard, S Culine, E Suc, P Brunet, Y Becouarn, M Ychou, M Marty, J M Extra, J Bonneterre, A Adenis, J F Seitz, G Ganem, M Namer, T Conroy, S Negrier, Y Merrouche, F Burki, M Mousseau, P Herait, M Mahjoubi, Phase II study of irinotecan in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in chemotherapy-naive patients and patients pretreated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 15, pp. 251- 260 ,(1997) , 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.251
M L Rothenberg, J R Eckardt, J G Kuhn, H A Burris, J Nelson, S G Hilsenbeck, G I Rodriguez, A M Thurman, L S Smith, S G Eckhardt, G R Weiss, G L Elfring, D A Rinaldi, L J Schaaf, D D Von Hoff, Phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with progressive or rapidly recurrent colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 14, pp. 1128- 1135 ,(1996) , 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.4.1128
L B Saltz, J Kanowitz, N E Kemeny, L Schaaf, D Spriggs, B A Staton, R Berkery, C Steger, M Eng, A Dietz, P Locker, D P Kelsen, Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 14, pp. 2959- 2967 ,(1996) , 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.11.2959
T R Buroker, M J O'Connell, H S Wieand, J E Krook, J B Gerstner, J A Mailliard, P L Schaefer, R Levitt, C G Kardinal, D H Gesme, Randomized comparison of two schedules of fluorouracil and leucovorin in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 12, pp. 14- 20 ,(1994) , 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.1.14
J A Conti, N E Kemeny, L B Saltz, Y Huang, W P Tong, T C Chou, M Sun, S Pulliam, C Gonzalez, Irinotecan is an active agent in untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. ,vol. 14, pp. 709- 715 ,(1996) , 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.3.709
S. L. Parker, T. Tong, S. Bolden, P. A. Wingo, Cancer statistics, 1997 CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. ,vol. 47, pp. 5- 27 ,(1997) , 10.3322/CANJCLIN.47.1.5
Sridhar Mani, Mark J. Ratain, Promising new agents in oncologic treatment Current Opinion in Oncology. ,vol. 8, pp. 525- 534 ,(1996) , 10.1097/00001622-199611000-00013
Akira Yoshida, Takanori Ueda, Yuji Wano, Toru Nakamura, DNA damage and cell killing by camptothecin and its derivative in human leukemia HL-60 cells. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research. ,vol. 84, pp. 566- 573 ,(1993) , 10.1111/J.1349-7006.1993.TB00177.X
A. Tanizawa, A. Fujimori, Y. Fujimori, Y. Pommier, Comparison of Topoisomerase I Inhibition, DNA Damage, and Cytotoxicity of Camptothecin Derivatives Presently in Clinical Trials Journal of the National Cancer Institute. ,vol. 86, pp. 836- 842 ,(1994) , 10.1093/JNCI/86.11.836
ADI Shani, MICHAEL J O'CONNELL, CHARLES G MOERTEL, ALLAN J SCHUTT, ABRAHAM SILVERS, VAY LW GO, None, Serial Plasma Carcinoembryonic Antigen Measurements in the Management of Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Annals of Internal Medicine. ,vol. 88, pp. 627- 630 ,(1978) , 10.7326/0003-4819-88-5-627