Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, #52 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100142, People's Republic of China.
Department of Medical Oncology, The 4th Hospital, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Gastric Cancer. 2018 Sep;21(5):782-791. doi: 10.1007/s10120-018-0809-y. Epub 2018 Feb 27.
We compared efficacy and safety of paclitaxel/capecitabine therapy followed by capecitabine for maintenance (PACX) versus cisplatin/capecitabine therapy (XP) in advanced gastric cancer.
Multicenter, randomized, phase III trial was conducted in China (December 2009-February 2014). Adults (n = 320) with histologically confirmed, untreated metastatic/unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; with ≥ 1 measureable lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 criteria; Karnofsky performance score ≥ 70 and life expectancy ≥ 3 months were randomized (1:1) to PACX or XP. PACX group received paclitaxel 80 mg/m intravenous on days 1 and 8; capecitabine 1000 mg/m orally BD on days 1-14, followed by a 7-day rest interval for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance capecitabine at same dosage/schedule until disease progression, unendurable adverse events or death. XP group received cisplatin intravenous 80 mg/m on day 1 and capecitabine at same dosage/schedule as PACX group per cycle for 6 cycles.
Median progression-free survival (5.0 versus 5.3 months; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.906; 0.706-1.164; p = 0.44) and overall survival (12.5 versus 11.8 months; hazard ratio: 0.878 [0.685-1.125]; p = 0.30) were not significantly different between PACX and XP groups. Objective response rate was significantly higher (43.1 versus 28.8%; p = 0.012) and disease control rate was similar (77.5 versus 72.5%; p = 0.75) in PACX versus XP, respectively. Quality of life was significantly improved in PACX versus XP after three treatment cycles. Many treatment-related adverse events were significantly lesser in PACX than XP.
First-line chemotherapy with PACX is effective with milder toxicities in advanced gastric cancer, but could not replace XP.
我们比较了紫杉醇/卡培他滨治疗后卡培他滨维持治疗(PACX)与顺铂/卡培他滨治疗(XP)在晚期胃癌中的疗效和安全性。
多中心、随机、III 期临床试验在中国进行(2009 年 12 月至 2014 年 2 月)。纳入组织学证实、未经治疗的转移性/不可切除胃或胃食管交界处腺癌的成年患者(n=320);根据实体瘤反应评价标准 1.0 标准,至少有 1 个可测量的病变;卡氏行为状态评分≥70 分,预期寿命≥3 个月。患者按照 1:1 比例随机分为 PACX 或 XP 组。PACX 组患者给予紫杉醇 80mg/m 静脉滴注,第 1 天和第 8 天;卡培他滨 1000mg/m 口服,每日 2 次,第 1-14 天,然后休息 7 天,4 个周期后,继续以相同剂量/方案口服卡培他滨,直至疾病进展、不能耐受的不良反应或死亡。XP 组患者给予顺铂 80mg/m 静脉滴注,第 1 天,卡培他滨剂量和方案与 PACX 组相同,每周期 6 天。
中位无进展生存期(5.0 个月与 5.3 个月;风险比[95%CI]:0.906;0.706-1.164;p=0.44)和总生存期(12.5 个月与 11.8 个月;风险比:0.878[0.685-1.125];p=0.30)在 PACX 组和 XP 组之间无显著差异。PACX 组客观缓解率显著高于 XP 组(43.1%与 28.8%;p=0.012),疾病控制率相似(77.5%与 72.5%;p=0.75)。PACX 组在接受 3 个治疗周期后生活质量显著改善。PACX 组与 XP 组相比,许多治疗相关的不良反应明显较轻。
在晚期胃癌中,一线化疗采用 PACX 治疗有效,毒性较小,但不能替代 XP。