Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 164: 80-87, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35182925

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs), adjuvant phase III studies (BCAT in Japan, PRODIGE 12 in France) failed to show benefit, possibly owing to fewer patients (n = 225 and n = 194) compared with the adjuvant capecitabine BILCAP trial (n = 447). We performed a combined analysis of both gemcitabine-based chemotherapy adjuvant studies. METHODS: We performed individual patient data meta-analysis of all patients included in BCAT and PRODIGE 12. BCAT study randomised patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma to single-agent gemcitabine or observation. PRODIGE 12 randomised patients with all BTC subtypes to gemcitabine-oxaliplatin combination or observation. Combined analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and a Cox regression model stratified on the trial. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve versus 207 patients were randomised in the gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus observation arms. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. The median follow-up was 5.5 years. After 258 relapse-free survival (RFS) events, there was no difference in RFS (log-rank p = 0.45; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.16]; p = 0.46). RFS rates at five years were 40.8% (95%CI: 33.9%-47.5%) for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus 36.6% (95%CI: 29.8%-43.4%) for observation. After 201 deaths, there was no difference in overall survival (OS) (log-rank p = 0.83; HR = 1.03 [95%CI: 0.78-1.35]; p = 0.85). OS rates at five years were 50.5% (95%CI: 43.1%-57.4%) for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus 49.3% (95%CI: 41.6%-56.5%) for observation. CONCLUSION: With 419 patients included, this analysis did not show significant improvement in RFS and no trend in improvement in OS. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy should not be used as an adjuvant treatment for BTC.


Subject(s)
Bile Duct Neoplasms , Biliary Tract Neoplasms , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bile Duct Neoplasms/drug therapy , Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic/pathology , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/pathology , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Gemcitabine
2.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0248222, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34555031

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This first-in-human study was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between HD204 and the European Union (EU)-sourced bevacizumab, between HD204 and the United States of America (US)-sourced bevacizumab, and between EU-sourced and US-sourced bevacizumab (NCT03390673). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 3-way parallel group, single-dose comparative PK study, healthy male subjects were randomized to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous dose of HD204, EU-sourced bevacizumab or US-sourced bevacizumab. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods. PK equivalence was determined using the pre-defined equivalence margin of 0.8-1.25 in terms of AUC(0-∞) for the pairwise comparisons. FINDINGS: Baseline demographics for the 119 randomized subjects were similar across the three groups. The 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of HD204 to US-sourced bevacizumab, HD204 to EU-sourced bevacizumab, and EU-sourced to US-sourced bevacizumab were all within the interval of 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, thus demonstrating equivalency in the PK properties for all three treatment groups. Similarly, the ratio of the geometric means for AUC0-last and Cmax were all within the 80% and 125% margins, supporting the robustness of the primary findings. All other PK parameters, including the half-life (t1/2) clearance (CL), volume of distribution (Vd) and time of maximum concentration (tmax), were comparable. There was no difference between the 3 treatment arms in terms of vital signs, laboratory tests and adverse events. None of the subjects treated with HD204 had positive ADA results. IMPLICATIONS: HD204 demonstrates equivalent pharmacokinetic profiles compared to those of both US-sourced and EU-sourced bevacizumab. (NCT03390673).


Subject(s)
Bevacizumab/pharmacokinetics , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/pharmacokinetics , Adolescent , Adult , Area Under Curve , Bevacizumab/adverse effects , Bevacizumab/blood , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/adverse effects , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/blood , Double-Blind Method , European Union , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States , Young Adult
3.
J Clin Oncol ; 37(8): 658-667, 2019 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30707660

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: No standard adjuvant treatment currently is recommended in localized biliary tract cancer (BTC) after surgical resection. We aimed to assess whether gemcitabine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy (GEMOX) would increase relapse-free survival (RFS) while maintaining health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients who undergo resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial in 33 centers. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) within 3 months after R0 or R1 resection of a localized BTC to receive either GEMOX (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on day 1 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 infused on day 2 of a 2-week cycle) for 12 cycles (experimental arm A) or surveillance (standard arm B). Primary end points were RFS and HRQOL. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and February 2014, 196 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. After a median follow-up of 46.5 months (95% CI, 42.6 to 49.3 months), 126 RFS events and 82 deaths were recorded. There was no significant difference in RFS between the two arms (median, 30.4 months in arm A v 18.5 months in arm B; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.25; P = .48). There was no difference in time to definitive deterioration of global HRQOL (median, 31.8 months in arm A v 32.1 months in arm B; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.26; log-rank P = .39). Overall survival was not different (median, 75.8 months in arm A v 50.8 months in arm B; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.66; log-rank P = .74). Maximal adverse events were grade 3 in 62% (arm A) versus 18% (arm B) and grade 4 in 11% versus 3% ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of adjuvant GEMOX in resected BTC despite adequate tolerance and delivery of the regimen.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/drug therapy , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/surgery , Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage , Watchful Waiting , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/mortality , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/pathology , Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/mortality , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage , Deoxycytidine/adverse effects , Female , France , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxaliplatin/adverse effects , Progression-Free Survival , Quality of Life , Time Factors , Gemcitabine
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...