1 Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy; 2 Szt Margarit Hospital, Budapest, Hungary; 3 III Med. Klinik, Munich, Germany; 4 All Union CRC, Moscow, Russia; 5 Estonian Oncology Center, Tallin, Estonia; 6 Hielkoskopie Centrum, Poznan, Poland; 7 Moscow Oncological Center, Moscow, Russia; 8 Aventis Pharma, Antony; 9 Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France
* Correspondence to: Dr C. Barone, Medical Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo Francesco Vito, 1.00168 Rome, Italy. Tel: +39-06-3015-4844; Fax: +39-06-3017-334; Email: carlobarone{at}rm.unicatt.it
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patients and methods: Patients were randomized to receive irinotecan [80 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.)], FA (500 mg/m2 i.v.) and a 22-h infusion of 5-FU (2000 mg/m2 i.v.), weekly for 6 weeks with a 1-week rest, or irinotecan (200 mg/m2 i.v.) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2 i.v.), on day 1 for 3 weeks.
Results: A total of 115 patients were eligible for analysis in the per-protocol population. The overall response rate in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm (n=59) was 42.4%, with a complete response rate of 5.1%. Corresponding figures for the irinotecan/cisplatin arm (n=56) were 32.1% and 1.8%, respectively. The median time to progression was 6.5 months (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) and 4.2 months (irinotecan/cisplatin) (P < 0.0001), with median survival times of 10.7 and 6.9 months, respectively (P=0.0018). The major toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenia, which was more pronounced with irinotecan/cisplatin than with irinotecan/5-FU/FA (65.7% versus 27%). Diarrhea was the main grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity with both irinotecan/5-FU/FA (27.0%) and irinotecan/cisplatin (18.1%).
Conclusions: Both combinations were active, with acceptable safety profiles. Irinotecan/5-FU/FA was selected as the most effective combination for investigation in a phase III trial in advanced gastric cancer.
Key words: advanced gastric cancer, cisplatin, 5-FU/FA, irinotecan, phase II
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Despite a number of years of controversy, the weight of evidence now supports the use of chemotherapy to improve outcome in both advanced [24
] and resectable [5
] disease. Adjuvant therapy may be particularly useful for patients with resected disease and poor prognostic factors [6
, 7
]. Established agents showing activity in gastric cancer include 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, methotrexate, doxorubicin, epirubicin and mitomycin [8
]. Although 5-FU was for many years the standard treatment choice for advanced cancer, attempts to improve response rates led to the use of combination therapy. The combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin and mitomycin (FAM) was used widely until 5-FU, doxorubicin and high-dose methotrexate (FAMTX) was shown to be superior, in terms of both response rate and survival [9
]. Subsequently, a randomized trial showed that the cisplatin-based combination of etoposide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (EAP), which had produced promising results in a number of small studies, was no more effective than FAMTX, and led to significantly greater toxicity [10
]. More recently, a randomized trial in patients with previously untreated advanced esophagogastric cancer demonstrated that the cisplatin-based combination of epirubicin and cisplatin coupled with protracted venous infusion of 5-FU (ECF) was associated with improved response rates (46% versus 21%; P=0.00003) and 2-year survival rates (14% versus 5%; P=0.03) compared with FAMTX [11
]. The superiority of a combination of cisplatin, epirubicin and bolus 5-FU/FA (PELF) over FAMTX has also been suggested in another randomized trial in advanced gastric cancer [12
]. However, a randomized phase III trial showed that there were no significant differences in response rate and survival rate between three cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-containing regimens [etoposide, leucovorin, 5-FU (ELF), infusional 5-FU plus cisplatin (FUP) and FAMTX] [13
]. Furthermore, all three combinations demonstrated only modest activity in advanced gastric cancer, with median survival times of <9 months. These trials highlight the urgent need for novel strategies to improve the outcome of patients with advanced gastric disease.
Although improvements in outcome have been made with chemotherapy, sustained responses are still elusive, and ways to improve the outcome of patients with gastric cancer are constantly being sought. In addition to novel combinations of established agents, the use of newer agents, such as irinotecan (CPT-11, Campto®; Aventis Pharma, Antony, France), is under investigation [14]. Irinotecan is a semi-synthetic, water-soluble derivative of the plant alkaloid camptothecin. Following conversion to its active metabolite, SN-38, irinotecan acts by inhibiting DNA topoisomerase-I, thereby interfering with DNA replication and cell division. Single-agent irinotecan after 5-FU failure has been shown to prolong the survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer [15
, 16
], and irinotecan in combination with infusional or bolus 5-FU [5-FU/folinic acid (FA)] is now standard first-line therapy for this disease [17
, 18
]. In early phase trials in advanced gastric cancer, single-agent irinotecan demonstrated efficacy in both first- and second-line treatment settings [19
22
]. The unique activity of irinotecan means that it can be combined effectively with other chemotherapeutic agents without cross-resistance, and promising activity in esophagogastric malignancies has been shown for irinotecan in combination with a number of agents, most notably cisplatin [23
26
] and 5-FU [27
29
].
In view of the results of previous studies with irinotecan in gastric cancer, and the benefits of irinotecan/5-FU/FA in colorectal cancer, a phase II/III study to evaluate the efficacy of an irinotecan-based combination in advanced gastric cancer was designed. This paper reports the results of the phase II part of the study in which the efficacy and tolerability of two test arms, irinotecan/continuous infusion 5-FU (5-FU/FA) [18] and irinotecan/cisplatin [30
], were compared in order to select the most effective combination for investigation in a subsequent phase III study.
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patient selection and randomization
Patients aged 1875 years, with histologically confirmed metastatic gastric or esophagealgastric junction adenocarcinoma and measurable and/or evaluable metastatic disease (locally recurrent disease was acceptable if there was at least one measurable lymph node) were eligible for inclusion in the study. Other inclusion criteria included: Karnofsky performance status >70%; satisfactory hematopoietic (hemoglobin 10 g/dl; neutrophils
2 x 109/l; platelets
100 x 109/l), renal [creatinine
1.25x the upper normal limit (UNL) or
120 µmol/l] and hepatic [total bilirubin
1.5x UNL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)
2.5x UNL; alkaline phosphatase
5x UNL] function; prothrombin time
0.5x the lower normal value; no previous palliative chemotherapy (previous adjuvant and/or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed provided a 12-month interval had elapsed since the end of therapy); a period of at least 6 weeks since radiotherapy and 3 weeks since surgery; and provision of written informed consent.
Exclusion criteria were: cancer other than adenocarcinoma; previous treatment with camptothecins; previous receipt of a cumulative dose of cisplatin >300 mg/m2 (adjuvant or neoadjuvant); bowel obstruction or subobstruction; history of inflammatory enteropathy or extensive intestinal resection; symptomatic peripheral neuropathy National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) grade 2; symptomatic or history of brain metastasis; active uncontrolled infection; active disseminated intravascular coagulation; previous or concurrent other malignancy, except non-melanoma skin cancer or in situ cervix carcinoma curatively treated; any severe medical conditions (e.g. myocardial infarction in the last 6 months); pregnant or lactating patients; and concurrent treatment with any other anticancer therapy. To be eligible for inclusion, a patient should have had no major protocol deviations from the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
In this study, a minimization method was used to stratify randomization according to: center, liver and/or peritoneal metastases (yes versus no), prior gastrectomy (yes versus no) and disease type (measurable versus evaluable only lesions).
Treatment
Patients were randomized to one of the following two treatment arms: irinotecan/5-FU/FA or irinotecan/cisplatin. Treatment in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm consisted of a 30-min infusion of irinotecan [80 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.)] and a 2-h infusion of FA (500 mg/m2 i.v.), followed immediately by a 22-h infusion of 5-FU (2000 mg/m2 i.v.), once weekly for 6 weeks (on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36) followed by a 1-week rest. Cycles were repeated every 7 weeks. Treatment in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm consisted of irinotecan (200 mg/m2 i.v.) administered first as a 30-min infusion on day 1, followed on the same day by hyperhydration (1 l normal saline during the first hour), then a 4-h infusion of cisplatin (60 mg/m2 i.v.) followed by 1.5 l normal saline over 3 h. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. No further antitumor therapy was to be given after the end of treatment until disease progression was documented, unless requested by the patient or deemed necessary by the investigator. Further chemotherapy with taxanes or camptothecins was not recommended.
Management of vomiting and diarrhea
Pre-chemotherapy antiemetic medication was mandatory for both arms and comprised ondansetron (8 mg i.v.) and dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.). The use of metoclopramide was at the discretion of the investigator. Diarrhea was treated promptly.
At the first liquid stool or abnormal bowel movement, patients had to receive loperamide orally (4 mg initial dose and then 2 mg every 2 h for at least 12 h and up to 12 h after the last liquid stool, without exceeding a total treatment duration of 48 h). Oral rehydration with large volumes of water and electrolytes was to be prescribed during the whole diarrhea episode. Diarrhea persisting for >48 h, despite loperamide, required hospitalization, broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment (fluoroquinolone) and replacement of loperamide by another antidiarrheal agent. Oral fluoroquinolones were also administered for any grade 4 diarrhea, diarrhea with concomitant grade 3/4 neutropenia without fever, and diarrhea with fever. Concomitant diarrhea and vomiting, fever or Karnofsky performance status <70% required hospitalization for i.v. rehydration.
Dose modification for toxicity
In the case of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <1.5 x 109/l) or thrombocytopenia (platelets <100 x 109/l) or diarrhea grade >1, treatment was delayed by 12 weeks, followed by dose reduction if the condition persisted. In all arms, dose reduction was applied to any toxicity grade >2 if medically appropriate (except for alopecia and anemia). Dose reductions were mandatory in the following cases: a second episode of isolated febrile neutropenia or grade 3/4 neutropenia lasting >7 days, despite granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (dose reduction of irinotecan); grade 4 diarrhea, diarrhea with concomitant grade 3/4 neutropenia without fever, and diarrhea with fever or infection (dose reduction of irinotecan and/or 5-FU); grade 3 stomatitis lasting >48 h (5-FU dose reduction); grade 2 peripheral neuropathy (cisplatin dose reduction). A maximum of two dose reductions were allowed, as follows: irinotecan/5-FU/FA (irinotecan 80 then 65 then 50 mg/m2; 5-FU 2000 then 1750 then 1500 mg/m2); irinotecan/cisplatin (irinotecan 200 then 175 then 150 mg/m2; cisplatin 60 then 50, then 40 mg/m2). Patients with grade 3 peripheral neuropathy or ototoxicity stopped treatment.
Treatment assessment
Patients were evaluable for response if they had received at least five infusions (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) or two cycles (irinotecan/cisplatin) and had a tumor assessment performed at least 5 weeks (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) or 4 weeks (irinotecan/cisplatin) from the start of treatment and before any further antitumor therapy. Tumor response was assessed every 8 weeks (56 days) during therapy, irrespective of the treatment cycle duration, until disease progression. This 8-week treatment period was a means of assessing the 6-weekly cycle (every 7 weeks) (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) and the 3-week cycle (irinotecan/cisplatin) over the same period of time, thereby helping to avoid bias. Response was recorded according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Patients who had disease progression were followed every 3 months until death. Patients who finished treatment but who had not progressed were followed every 8 weeks after the end of treatment until documented progression and every 3 months thereafter. An external response review committee reviewed radiological and clinical documentation for all patients in the study. All adverse events were evaluated and graded according to NCIC CTG criteria.
Statistical analysis
The main aim of the study was to select the better of the two irinotecan-based combination treatment arms. This was assessed using the primary end point of complete response (CR). Assuming a true CR rate difference of 10% between the two test arms, 30 evaluable patients per test arm were necessary to ensure a 90% probability to rank correctly the two test arms on efficacy, according to their observed CR rate. With this rationale, the test arm with the highest observed CR rate would be identified as the most efficacious test arm. However, this efficacy did not in itself determine the optimal test arm, but rather provided one input into an overall benefitrisk analysis of the efficacy and safety of the test arms. Secondary end points included safety, time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Accrual was continued during analysis.
The response rate was calculated for both the full analysis and per-protocol populations. The full analysis population was defined as the population of all treated patients analyzed according to the randomization arm; the per-protocol population was defined as all randomized and treated patients who were eligible and evaluable for response and who had no major protocol deviations. TTP and OS were estimated by the KaplanMeier method and the two arms were compared using a two-sided log-rank test with an error of 5%.
An independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) selected the best test arm, based on guidelines issued at the time of protocol writing and agreed by the IDMC. The final decision was made independently of the sponsor.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
Dose reduction and/or delay
Dose reduction was required for at least one infusion in 48.6% of patients treated with irinotecan/5-FU/FA compared with 22.2% of those receiving irinotecan/cisplatin. Corresponding figures for at least one infusion delay were 79.7% and 55.6%.
The primary reason for treatment dose reduction and/or delay in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm was neutropenia (8.3%/25% of all patients). In the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm, diarrhea was the primary reason for treatment dose reduction and/or delay (16.2%/29.7% of all patients).
Treatment discontinuation
During the first cycle (irinotecan/5-FU/FA) or first two cycles (irinotecan/cisplatin), two patients (2.7% of the treated population) receiving irinotecan/5-FU/FA and two (2.8%) receiving irinotecan/cisplatin discontinued treatment due to toxicity or toxic death, and five (6.8%) and none, respectively, discontinued due to withdrawal of consent. Overall, the main reasons for study discontinuation in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA and irinotecan/cisplatin arms, respectively, were: progressive disease (54.1% versus 58.3%), adverse events unrelated to the study drug (6.8% versus 6.9%), toxicity (8.1% versus 5.6%), patient consent withdrawn (17.6% versus 8.3%) and death (6.8% versus 11.1%). Similar numbers of patients in both arms died due to malignant disease (2.7% versus 2.8%). There was one toxic death during the study, in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm; this was due to grade 4 diarrhea with concomitant grade 4 neutropenia, which was not managed properly.
Over one-third (34.2%) of all patients treated over both arms received additional therapy following discontinuation of study treatment.
Efficacy
The per-protocol population most accurately reflects the effects of treatment in patients meeting the eligibility criteria and was therefore considered the most useful indicator of treatment efficacy in this study. Analysis of restricted populations is not uncommon in this disease [31]. For completeness, results for the full analysis population are also presented here.
In the per-protocol population, the overall response rate was 42.4% in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm and 32.1% in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm (Table 2). The number of CRs achieved were three (5.1%) and one (1.8%), respectively. The response rate followed a similar trend in the full analysis population (Table 2). The median duration of response in the per-protocol population was 9.9 months (range 4+ to 14.6) in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm and 6.6 months (range 2.88.5) in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The present study was not powered to detect survival differences between the treatment arms. However, the available data indicate that patients in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm had a longer median TTP (6.5 versus 4.2 months; P <0.0001) and median OS (10.7 versus 6.9 months; P=0.0018) than those in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm. These survival data are similar to those observed with irinotecan in combination with bolus and infusional 5-FU/FA (11.3 months) [34] in patients with previously untreated disease, and compare favorably with those reported with irinotecan in combination with bolus 5-FU (median 7.6 months) [28
]. OS with irinotecan/5-FU/FA was also higher than that reported with ECF (median 8.7 months) [11
] and PELF (7.7 months) [12
] in previously untreated advanced disease. The findings are particularly encouraging in view of the fact that >91% of the patients in each arm of the present study had metastatic disease. The relative proportion of patients with metastatic, compared with locally advanced, gastric cancer will have an impact on treatment outcome, as locally advanced gastric disease is associated with a better prognosis than metastatic disease. It is interesting to note that in the study comparing FAMTX, ELF and FUP, 84% of the patients had metastatic disease and 16% had locally advanced disease.
Overall, both combinations investigated in the present study were reasonably well tolerated. Myelotoxicity was substantially higher in the irinotecan/cisplatin arm than in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm (grade 3/4 neutropenia 65.7% versus 25.7%). The incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects was similar between the two groups, with only a slightly higher incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm (25.7% versus 18.1%). Compared with the combination of irinotecan and bolus administration of 5-FU [28], continuous infusion of 5-FU was associated with a similar incidence of diarrhea but a lower incidence of neutropenia. The incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm was similar to that seen with irinotecan in combination with bolus and infusional 5-FU in metastatic gastric cancer (22%) [34
]. There was a greater incidence of dose reduction and/or delay in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm due to weekly administration. It is of note that the improved efficacy was achieved in the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm despite these dose reductions/delays.
In conclusion, this study confirms the activity of irinotecan in combination with cisplatin and with infusional 5-FU/FA in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. The difference in the CR rates (per-protocol population) between the two arms did not reach the hypothesized 10%. However, the overall per-protocol response rate was 42.4% for irinotecan/5-FU/FA and 32.1% for irinotecan/cisplatin. In addition, the secondary end points of TTP and OS were significantly in favour of irinotecan/5-FU/FA, and the safety was also better with this regimen. Therefore, according to the guidelines set out prior to commencement of the study, an independent committee selected the irinotecan/5-FU/FA arm as the best combination for investigation in a phase III trial in advanced gastric cancer on the first 60 patients randomized to each arm. These findings were confirmed by the results on the total population of 148 patients. The combination of irinotecan/5-FU/FA represents a real alternative for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer to the use of cisplatin-based regimens. The results of the phase III trial comparing this combination with cisplatin/5-FU are awaited.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
Received for publication April 22, 2004. Revision received July 14, 2004. Accepted for publication July 14, 2004.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Pyrhonen S, Kuitunen T, Nyandoto P, Kouri M. Randomised comparison of fluorouracil, epidoxorubicin and methotrexate (FEMTX) plus supportive care with supportive care alone in patients with non-resectable gastric cancer. Br J Cancer 1995; 71: 587591.[ISI][Medline]
3. Murad AM, Santiago FF, Petroianu A et al. Modified therapy with 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced gastric cancer. Cancer 1993; 72: 3741.[ISI][Medline]
4. Glimelius B, Ekstrom K, Hoffman K et al. Randomized comparison between chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 163168.[Abstract]
5. Panzini I, Gianni L, Fattori PP et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and a comparison with previous meta-analyses. Tumori 2002; 88: 2127.[ISI][Medline]
6. Bajetta E, Buzzoni R, Mariani L et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer: 5-year results of a randomised study by the Italian Trials in Medical Oncology (ITMO) Group. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 299307.
7. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 725730.
8. Meyerhardt JA, Fuchs CS. Chemotherapy options for gastric cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2002; 12: 176186.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9. Wils JA, Klein HO, Wagener DJ et al. Sequential high-dose methotrexate and fluorouracil combined with doxorubicina step ahead in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer: a trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 827831.[Abstract]
10. Kelsen D, Atiq OT, Saltz L et al. FAMTX versus etoposide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin: a random assignment trial in gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 541548.[Abstract]
11. Waters JS, Norman A, Cunningham D et al. Long-term survival after epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil for gastric cancer: results of a randomized trial. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 269272.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12. Cocconi G, Carlini P, Gamboni A et al. Cisplatin, epirubicin, leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil (PELF) is more active than 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and methotrexate (FAMTX) in advanced gastric carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 12581263.
13. Vanhoefer U, Wagner T, Lutz M et al. Randomized phase II study of weekly 24h infusion of high dose 5-FU±folinic acid (HD-FU±FA) versus HD-FU/FA/biweekly cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer. EORTC-trial 40953. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 (Suppl 6): (Abstr S27).
14. Hasham-Jiwa N, Kasakura Y, Ajani JA. Brief review of advances in the treatment of gastric carcinoma in North America and Europe, 19952001. Int J Clin Oncol 2002; 7: 219224.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Cunningham D, Pyrhonen S, James RD et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 14131418.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16. Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 14071412.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17. Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 905914.
18. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD et al. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 10411047.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19. Futatsuki K, Wakui A, Nakao I et al. Late phase II study of irinotecan hydrochloride (CPT-11) in advanced gastric cancer. CPT-11 Gastrointestinal Cancer Study Group. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1994; 21: 10331038.[Medline]
20. Hecht JR, Blanke CD, Benson AB 3rd, Lenz HJ. Irinotecan and paclitaxel in metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. Oncology (Huntingt) 2003; 17 (Suppl 8): 1315.
21. Köhne CH, Wils J, Lorenz M et al. Randomized phase III study of high-dose fluorouracil given as a weekly 24-hour infusion with or without leucovorin versus bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group Study 40952. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 37213728.
22. Li-Shin L, Hecht J. A phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal (GE) junction. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 289a (Abstr 1130).
23. Ajani JA, Baker J, Pisters PW et al. Irinotecan/cisplatin in advanced, treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Oncology (Huntingt) 2002; 16 (Suppl 5): 1618.
24. Boku N, Ohtsu A, Shimada Y et al. Phase II study of a combination of irinotecan and cisplatin against metastatic gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 319323.
25. Er O, Coskun HS, Solak Y, Altinbas M. Irinotecan plus cisplatin combination against metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of phase II study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: 124b (Abstr 2310).
26. Takiuchi H, Kurihara M, Koizumi W et al. Phase I/II study of CPT-11 plus CDDP in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 275a (Abstr 1074).
27. Assersohn L, Brown G, Cunningham D et al. Phase II study of irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with primary refractory or relapsed advanced oesophageal and gastric carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 6469.
28. Blanke CD, Haller DG, Benson AB et al. A phase II study of irinotecan with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 15751580.[Abstract]
29. Findlay MPN, Ackland S, Gebski V et al. Phase II study of irinotecan, leucovorin and 5FU (ILF) in advanced gastric cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 165a (Abstr 655).
30. de Jonge MJ, Sparreboom A, Planting AS et al. Phase I study of 3-week schedule of irinotecan combined with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 187194.
31. Ajani JA, Baker J, Pisters PW et al. CPT-11 plus cisplatin in patients with advanced, untreated gastric or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma: results of a phase II study. Cancer 2002; 94: 641646.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
32. Vanhoefer U, Rougier P, Wilke H et al. Final results of a randomized phase III trial of sequential high-dose methotrexate, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin versus etoposide, leucovorin, and fluorouracil versus infusional fluorouracil and cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer: A trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 26482657.
33. Köhne CH, Catane R, Klein B et al. Irinotecan is active in chemonaive patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a phase II multicentric trial. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: 9971001.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
34. Bouché O, Raoul JL, Giovanini M et al. Randomized phase II trial of LV5FU2, LV5FU2-cisplatinum or LV5FU2-irinotecan in patients (pts) with metastatic gastric or cardial adenocarcinoma (MGA): Final results of study FFCD 9803. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 258 (Abstr 1033).
35. Ajani JA, Fairweather J, Pisters PW, Charnsangavej C. Irinotecan and cisplatin in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Oncology (Huntingt) 2000; 14: 1921.
36. Louvet C, Andre T, Tigaud JM et al. Phase II study of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and folinic acid in locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 45434548.
37. Mai M, Sakata Y, Kanamaru R et al. A late phase II clinical study of RP56976 (docetaxel) in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer: a cooperative study group trial (group B). Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1999; 26: 487496.[Medline]