RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus gemcitabine/irinotecan in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: a randomized, phase III Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium Trial.

Cancer Journal 2010 January
PURPOSE: To compare the results of empiric first-line therapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide (PCE) versus gemcitabine/irinotecan, both followed by single-agent gefitinib, in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated carcinoma of unknown primary site were randomized to receive either PCE or gemcitabine/irinotecan. Responding and stable patients continued treatment for 4 to 6 cycles. Patients with no evidence of tumor progression at that time received single-agent gefitinib until tumor progression. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year survival rate from 20% to 30%.

RESULTS: Between September 2003 and July 2008, 198 patients entered this multicenter, community-based trial. Because of slow accrual, the trial was stopped short of its target accrual of 320 patients. Clinical characteristics were comparable for patients receiving PCE (N = 93) and gemcitabine/irinotecan (N = 105). PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan produced similar 2-year survival (15% vs. 18%), median survival (7.4 months vs. 8.5 months), median progression-free survival (3.3 months vs. 5.3 months), and response rate (18% vs. 18%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and red blood cells transfusions were more common with PCE; diarrhea was more common with gemcitabine/irinotecan. The median duration of gefitinib maintenance was 3 months, suggesting no role as a maintenance therapy in this setting.

DISCUSSION: The PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan regimens have comparable efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Gemcitabine/irinotecan is the preferable regimen, due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, the moderate efficacy of both regimens underscores the need for novel treatment approaches in this patient population.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app