Palmer P A, Atzpodien J, Philip T, Negrier S, Kirchner H, Von der Maase H, Geertsen P, Evers P, Loriaux E, Oskam R
EuroCetus B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cancer Biother. 1993 Summer;8(2):123-36. doi: 10.1089/cbr.1993.8.123.
To compare 2 treatment modalities with recombinant Interleukin-2 (rIL-2) for patients with advanced Renal Cell carcinoma (RCC): continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) alone versus subcutaneous (s/c) rIL-2 + Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha).
Data have been collected on 425 patients with RCC, treated CIV rIL-2 alone, (225 patients), or rIL-2 by the s/c route (200 patients). Patients receiving s/c rIL-2 also received s/c IFN-alpha both drugs being administered on an outpatient basis. Patients receiving CIV rIL-2 were treated as inpatients. Patient eligibility criteria were similar on all studies, and included patients with progressive, advanced disease, but with an ambulatory performance status.
The overall response rate for the CIV schedules was not significantly different from the s/c regimens: 15% (95% confidence limits (CL) 10-20%) vs 20% (95%CL 14-26%) with 4% CR in both approaches. Durable responses were seen in both CIV and s/c schedules and there was no evidence of a significant difference in survival in multivariate analysis. There was however an important shift in the toxicity profile. The s/c regimens do not induce a clinically detectable capillary leak syndrome, which is the dose limiting toxicity for CIV regimens.
Although the introduction of CIV regimens of rIL-2 was a major step forward compared to high-dose bolus, because most patients could be treated in a normal oncology ward, the s/c schedule of rIL-2 + IFN-alpha offers the possibility of outpatient (home) therapy, with no evidence of a reduction in efficacy.
比较两种使用重组白细胞介素-2(rIL-2)治疗晚期肾细胞癌(RCC)患者的方法:单纯持续静脉输注(CIV)与皮下(s/c)注射rIL-2加α干扰素(IFN-α)。
收集了425例RCC患者的数据,其中225例患者接受单纯CIV rIL-2治疗,200例患者接受皮下注射rIL-2治疗。接受皮下注射rIL-2的患者还接受皮下注射IFN-α,两种药物均在门诊给药。接受CIV rIL-2治疗的患者作为住院患者治疗。所有研究的患者入选标准相似,包括疾病进展、晚期但能走动的患者。
CIV方案的总体缓解率与皮下注射方案无显著差异:分别为15%(95%置信区间(CL)10 - 20%)和20%(95%CL 14 - 26%),两种方法的完全缓解率均为4%。CIV和皮下注射方案均出现持久缓解,多因素分析中无生存差异的证据。然而,毒性特征有重要变化。皮下注射方案不会诱发临床可检测到的毛细血管渗漏综合征,而这是CIV方案的剂量限制性毒性。
尽管与大剂量推注相比,引入CIV rIL-2方案是一大进步,因为大多数患者可在普通肿瘤科病房接受治疗,但皮下注射rIL-2 + IFN-α方案提供了门诊(居家)治疗的可能性,且无疗效降低的证据。