OBJECTIVES:: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare 2 different chemotherapy regimens for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). METHODS:: Records of patients consecutively treated in our institution for advanced BTC from 2001 to 2006 were retrieved. Chemotherapy treatment with FOLFOX-4 regimen was routinely offered as first option; gemcitabine (GEM) as single agent was proposed as an alternative option to patients who refused central venous catheter implantation. Toxicity, overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) obtained with the 2 treatments were evaluated. RESULTS:: Twenty-two patients were treated with FOLFOX-4, whereas 18 patients received GEM. In the FOLFOX-4 group, the overall response rate was 13.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.7-33.3], with 1 complete response and 2 partial responses, and 54.5% (95% CI, 34.7-73.1) of disease control rate (complete response+partial response+stable disease). Median OS was 14.1 months (95% CI, 9.1-18.8) and median PFS 5.44 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.3). In the GEM group, we observed no objective response, whereas 27.7% (95% CI, 12.5-50.9) obtained disease control. Median OS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.7-12.9) and median PFS 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.2-5.4). Toxicity, mainly hematological, was acceptable for both treatments. On a multivariable Cox model including a propensity score, only the performance status and chemotherapy regimen were confirmed as strong predictors of OS, with an hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.24-0.99) in favor of FOLFOX-4. CONCLUSIONS:: The combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil is well tolerated and seems to provide prolonged survival than GEM alone in advanced BTC treatment, but further randomized trials are warranted

FOLFOX-4 regimen or single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.

SATOLLI, MARIA ANTONIETTA;
2013-01-01

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare 2 different chemotherapy regimens for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). METHODS:: Records of patients consecutively treated in our institution for advanced BTC from 2001 to 2006 were retrieved. Chemotherapy treatment with FOLFOX-4 regimen was routinely offered as first option; gemcitabine (GEM) as single agent was proposed as an alternative option to patients who refused central venous catheter implantation. Toxicity, overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) obtained with the 2 treatments were evaluated. RESULTS:: Twenty-two patients were treated with FOLFOX-4, whereas 18 patients received GEM. In the FOLFOX-4 group, the overall response rate was 13.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.7-33.3], with 1 complete response and 2 partial responses, and 54.5% (95% CI, 34.7-73.1) of disease control rate (complete response+partial response+stable disease). Median OS was 14.1 months (95% CI, 9.1-18.8) and median PFS 5.44 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.3). In the GEM group, we observed no objective response, whereas 27.7% (95% CI, 12.5-50.9) obtained disease control. Median OS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.7-12.9) and median PFS 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.2-5.4). Toxicity, mainly hematological, was acceptable for both treatments. On a multivariable Cox model including a propensity score, only the performance status and chemotherapy regimen were confirmed as strong predictors of OS, with an hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.24-0.99) in favor of FOLFOX-4. CONCLUSIONS:: The combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil is well tolerated and seems to provide prolonged survival than GEM alone in advanced BTC treatment, but further randomized trials are warranted
36
5
466
471
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
pancreatic cancer
Novarino AM; Satolli MA; Chiappino I; Giacobino A; Napoletano R; Ceccarelli M; Ciccone G; Schena M; Bertetto O; Ciuffreda L.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/137981
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact