Tumor growth rate during re-challenge chemotherapy with previously used agents as salvage treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
06
04
2021
accepted:
06
09
2021
entrez:
24
9
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
18
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In clinical practice, the same chemotherapeutic agents are occasionally reused (re-challenge) after failure of all available standard chemotherapy options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the benefits of re-challenge chemotherapy (Re-Cx) are unclear. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of Re-Cx, focusing on the tumor growth rate (TGR). The study included mCRC patients with measurable lesions who received Re-Cx from November 2011 to October 2018 at National Cancer Center Hospital. Re-Cx was defined as re-administration of agents which had been used in prior lines of chemotherapy and discontinued due to disease progression. We compared the TGR immediately after initiating Re-Cx regimens with that observed at the time of disease progression during prior chemotherapy (Prior-Cx) immediately before Re-Cx. Of the 25 patients who received Re-Cx, five patients received two Re-Cx regimens. Therefore, a total of 30 cases of Re-Cx were analyzed in this study. The regimens of Re-Cx were oxaliplatin based (19 cases), irinotecan based (8 cases), and others (3 cases). Although the objective response rate to Re-Cx was 0%, the disease control rate was 60% (18 cases), and 40% (12 cases) showed some tumor shrinkage. We compared the effects of Re-Cx and Prior-Cx by the TGR and found that the TGR of Re-Cx was slower than that recorded in Prior-Cx in 26 of 30 cases (87%). In particular, the ratio of% TGR <0, which indicates tumor shrinkage, was obtained in 13 of 30 cases (43.3%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival after Re-Cx were 3.8 and 6.57 months, respectively. We found that Re-Cx may have some anti-tumor efficacy as salvage treatment for mCRC and these results also suggested the clinical benefits of Re-Cx.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In clinical practice, the same chemotherapeutic agents are occasionally reused (re-challenge) after failure of all available standard chemotherapy options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the benefits of re-challenge chemotherapy (Re-Cx) are unclear. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of Re-Cx, focusing on the tumor growth rate (TGR).
METHODS
The study included mCRC patients with measurable lesions who received Re-Cx from November 2011 to October 2018 at National Cancer Center Hospital. Re-Cx was defined as re-administration of agents which had been used in prior lines of chemotherapy and discontinued due to disease progression. We compared the TGR immediately after initiating Re-Cx regimens with that observed at the time of disease progression during prior chemotherapy (Prior-Cx) immediately before Re-Cx.
RESULTS
Of the 25 patients who received Re-Cx, five patients received two Re-Cx regimens. Therefore, a total of 30 cases of Re-Cx were analyzed in this study. The regimens of Re-Cx were oxaliplatin based (19 cases), irinotecan based (8 cases), and others (3 cases). Although the objective response rate to Re-Cx was 0%, the disease control rate was 60% (18 cases), and 40% (12 cases) showed some tumor shrinkage. We compared the effects of Re-Cx and Prior-Cx by the TGR and found that the TGR of Re-Cx was slower than that recorded in Prior-Cx in 26 of 30 cases (87%). In particular, the ratio of% TGR <0, which indicates tumor shrinkage, was obtained in 13 of 30 cases (43.3%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival after Re-Cx were 3.8 and 6.57 months, respectively.
CONCLUSION
We found that Re-Cx may have some anti-tumor efficacy as salvage treatment for mCRC and these results also suggested the clinical benefits of Re-Cx.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34559818
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257551
pii: PONE-D-21-11295
pmc: PMC8462714
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0257551Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Adv Pharm Bull. 2017 Sep;7(3):339-348
pubmed: 29071215
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Jan 1;20(1):246-52
pubmed: 24240109
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jul;25(7):1346-1355
pubmed: 24718886
Lancet. 2013 Jan 26;381(9863):303-12
pubmed: 23177514
Anticancer Res. 2010 Oct;30(10):4209-17
pubmed: 21036743
Ann Oncol. 2013 Sep;24(9):2342-9
pubmed: 23852309
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Dec;49(18):3813-20
pubmed: 24011937
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Nov;47(17):2512-6
pubmed: 21763126
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 1;23(15):4242-4250
pubmed: 28351930
Ann Oncol. 1998 Jan;9(1):105-8
pubmed: 9541691
Cancer Treat Rev. 2019 Feb;73:41-53
pubmed: 30616224
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16
pubmed: 10655437
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 22;351(4):337-45
pubmed: 15269313
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23(9):2313-2318
pubmed: 22396447
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 14;372(20):1909-19
pubmed: 25970050
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 20;26(12):2006-12
pubmed: 18421053
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Sep;7(8):778-831
pubmed: 19755046
Semin Oncol. 1998 Apr;25(2 Suppl 5):23-31
pubmed: 9609105
Ann Oncol. 2004 Aug;15(8):1210-4
pubmed: 15277260
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
Med Oncol. 2018 Apr 5;35(5):65
pubmed: 29623500
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan;25(1):1-42
pubmed: 31203527
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):713-20
pubmed: 23993162
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959