Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens

  • Authors:
    • Masaru Oba
    • Keisho Chin
    • Yoshimasa Kawazoe
    • Koichi Takagi
    • Mariko Ogura
    • Eiji Shinozaki
    • Mitsukuni Suenaga
    • Satoshi Matsusaka
    • Nobuyuki Mizunuma
    • Kiyohiko Hatake
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: January 20, 2011     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.242
  • Pages: 241-245
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The optimal regimen of chemotherapy for gastric cancer in a second-line setting remains to be clarified. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan treatment. A total of 134 patients with gastric cancer who had received prior chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine-based regimens were treated with irinotecan (150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15) alone every 4 weeks (Arm I) or irinotecan (70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15) plus cisplatin (80 mg/m2 on day 1) every 4 weeks (Arm IP) between April, 2004 and March, 2009. Patient characteristics, response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety were investigated. Of 134 patients with recurrent or unresectable gastric cancer, 92 were treated in Arm I and 42 patients in Arm IP. Overall response rate in Arm I was 8.1%, compared with 20.0% in Arm IP (P=0.65). Median progression-free survival (Arm I vs. IP; 2.6 vs. 2.7 months, P=0.73) and median overall survival (Arm I vs. IP; 9.8 vs. 8.0 months, P=0.67) did not differ between the two treatment groups. Neutropenia, leukopenia and anorexia were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events, occurring significantly more frequently in Arm IP than in Arm I (P<0.05). Irinotecan may be a key agent, and serial irinotecan monotherapy is more beneficial as compared to irinotecan plus cisplatin in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in second-line settings. Irinotecan monotherapy is beneficial compared to irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line settings for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

March-April 2011
Volume 2 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Oba M, Chin K, Kawazoe Y, Takagi K, Ogura M, Shinozaki E, Suenaga M, Matsusaka S, Mizunuma N, Hatake K, Hatake K, et al: Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. Oncol Lett 2: 241-245, 2011
APA
Oba, M., Chin, K., Kawazoe, Y., Takagi, K., Ogura, M., Shinozaki, E. ... Hatake, K. (2011). Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. Oncology Letters, 2, 241-245. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.242
MLA
Oba, M., Chin, K., Kawazoe, Y., Takagi, K., Ogura, M., Shinozaki, E., Suenaga, M., Matsusaka, S., Mizunuma, N., Hatake, K."Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens". Oncology Letters 2.2 (2011): 241-245.
Chicago
Oba, M., Chin, K., Kawazoe, Y., Takagi, K., Ogura, M., Shinozaki, E., Suenaga, M., Matsusaka, S., Mizunuma, N., Hatake, K."Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens". Oncology Letters 2, no. 2 (2011): 241-245. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.242