Search

Objective: To retrospectively compare docetaxel (DTX) with paclitaxel (PTX) with regard to efficacy and safety in advanced or recurrent esophageal cancer patients who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 124 advanced or recurrent esophageal cancer patients who had received platinum-based chemotherapy and then received DTX or PTX from April 2006 to November 2010. Results: Eighty-six patients (69.4%) received DTX and 38 patients (30.6%) received PTX monotherapy. Due to toxicity, dose reduction was needed in 36.0 and 27.8% of patients and treatment was discontinued in 10.5 and 2.6% of patients receiving DTX and PTX, respectively. The objective response (25.7 vs. 10.3%, p = 0.03) and disease control rates (60.0 vs. 34.6%, p = 0.01) were higher in the PTX group than in the DTX group, respectively. There were no significant differences in median progression-free survival (2.1 vs. 3.5 months) and overall survival (6.1 vs. 7.2 months) between the DTX and PTX groups, respectively. Grade 3–4 neutropenia (48.8 vs. 21.1%, p = 0.003) and febrile neutropenia (20.9 vs. 5.3%, p = 0.029) were more frequent in the DTX patients than in the PTX patients, respectively. Conclusion: Although the efficacy of DTX and PTX for advanced or recurrent esophageal cancer patients after platinum-based chemotherapy was not significantly different in terms of survival, PTX was a more feasible treatment. PTX provided similar efficacy to DTX with less febrile neutropenia.

Background: The ability of molecular targeting agents to improve overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) patients who underwent oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy remains controversial. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 331 patients with MCRC who underwent first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Treatment outcomes were compared between patients who started chemotherapy from April 2005 to March 2007 (cohort A; n = 157) and those who started it from April 2007 to March 2009 (cohort B; n = 174). To evaluate the impact of exposure to agents, we applied time-varying covariate analysis to avoid possible lead-time bias. Results: Median OS of cohorts A and B was 21.3 and 28.6 months, respectively (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, p = 0.003). Exposure to bevacizumab (25 vs. 76%), anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (18 vs. 33%) or curative surgery after chemotherapy (4 vs. 10%) was significantly higher in cohort B. According to a multivariate Cox model with exposure to each agent or treatment as a time-varying covariate, hazard ratios of death were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51–0.96; p = 0.03) for bevacizumab, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.40–0.89; p = 0.01) for anti-EGFR and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.06–0.57; p = 0.004) for surgery. Conclusions: Increased exposure to molecular targeting agents or surgery after chemotherapy appears to contribute to an improvement in OS in recent patients with MCRC who have undergone oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The prognosis of advanced gastric cancer patients, especially those with poor performance status (PS), is generally dismally poor. Patients with PS 3-4 are usually ineligible for participation in clinical studies and are managed with only best supportive care. Case Report: A 63-year-old male with advanced gastric cancer was admitted to our hospital. His PS was markedly impaired (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 4), with dyspnea secondary to lymphangitis, pleuritis and pericarditis). He also had bilateral leg paralysis due to multiple bone metastases. He was treated with chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for 14 days with pericardial drainage followed by intrapericardial infusion of cisplatin. He was also treated with radiotherapy for bone metastasis. The patient required 5 l/min oxygen therapy at the start of chemotherapy, but his dyspnea was improved by day 14 and he no longer required supplemental oxygen therapy. His leg paralysis also improved with the radiation therapy. His PS was significantly improved with this multimodal treatment modality, and he was ultimately discharged with chemotherapy with oral fluoropyrimidine. CONCLUSION: This case suggests that multimodal therapy including chemotherapy may be beneficial in advanced gastric cancer patients even in the setting of poor PS. Further study might be required to confirm the benefit of chemotherapy in this patient population.

Introduction: Cetuximab-based chemotherapy showed a statistically significantly higher response rate compared with chemotherapy such as FOLFOX. Therefore, FOLFOX plus cetuximab is suspected to be the best regimen to alleviate tumor-related symptoms with a high response rate. Case Report: Here we present the results of 8 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with poor performance status and/or severe complications who were treated with first-line FOLFOX with cetuximab. Six of 8 patients achieved an apparent clinical benefit, including radiological response and symptoms improvement. Two patients with BRAF mutation could achieve neither clinical benefit nor radiological response. Conclusion: Although an optimal line of therapy with cetuximab is unclear yet with bevacizumab in mind, we propose that patients who need a tumor response to alleviate their symptoms due to advanced disease might be candidates for first-line cetuximab-based therapy as shown in our cases. Additionally, patients with BRAF mutant tumors might be important candidates for novel targeted therapy in the future to improve their poor prognosis.

Background: The prognosis of advanced gastrointestinal cancer, especially in patients with poor performance status (PS), is generally dismal. Patients with PS 3–4 are almost ineligible for participation in clinical studies. Patients and Methods: From June 2000 to February 2007, 116 patients with poor PS (PS 3 = 73 and PS 4 = 43) were treated with chemotherapy. Retrospective analysis was performed. Results: Of the 107 patients with at least one measurable lesion, a partial response was obtained in 15 patients (14.0%). Of 65 patients with ascites and/or pleural effusion, 12 patients achieved decreased fluid accumulation. A decline in tumor markers was observed in 30 patients. As a result, 38 patients (32.7%) achieved tumor response, a decrease in fluid accumulation or a decline in tumor markers (responders), which resulted in a survival benefit compared to the other 78 patients without effect (6.9 vs. 2.2 months, p < 0.001). PS improvement was seen in 16 patients (13.8%). Conclusions: The results suggest that chemotherapy may be beneficial in gastrointestinal cancer patients with poor PS, as demonstrated by a certain degree of improvement in PS and survival in responders. Further study is required to confirm the benefit of chemotherapy in this patient population.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination regimen using irinotecan plus S-1 in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Based on the results of our previous phase I/II study in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer, we initiated a regimen with irinotecan at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 and S-1 at 80 mg/m2 starting at day 1 for 14 consecutive days, followed by a 14-day rest period. This treatment was repeated every 28 days. Results: From November 2003 to December 2006, a total of 16 patients were enrolled. All patients presented with metastatic disease. Six patients had received prior gemcitabine. The median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range 1–16) and the response rate was 43.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5–68.1). The median time to progression was 4.9 months, and the median survival time was 11.3 months. Grade 3–4 neutropenia developed in 5 of 16 patients and grade 3 diarrhea in 1 patient. Conclusions: The combination of irinotecan and S-1 is feasible and promising for pancreatic cancer. Further evaluation of this combination chemotherapy is required.