Effects of Combined Administration of DPD-Inhibitory Oral Fluoropyrimidine, S-1, Plus Paclitaxel on Gene Expressions of Fluoropyrimidine Metabolism-Related Enzymes in Human Gastric Xenografts

Randomized phase II study of CPT-11 versus PTX versus each combination chemotherapy with S-1 for advanced gastric cancer that is refractory to S-1 or S-1 plus CDDP: OGSG0701

BACKGROUND

To compare irinotecan-alone, paclitaxel-alone, and each combination chemotherapy with S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) that is refractory to S-1 or S-1 plus cisplatin (SP).

METHODS

Patients with AGC after first-line chemotherapy with S-1 or SP, or patients during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 26 weeks after adjuvant chemotherapy completion with S-1 with confirmed disease progression were eligible. Patients were randomly divided into four groups based on treatment: irinotecan-alone (irinotecan; 150 mg/m², day 1, q14 days), paclitaxel-alone (paclitaxel; 80 mg/m², days 1, 8, 15, q28 days), S-1 plus irinotecan (irinotecan; 80 mg/m², days 1, 15, S-1; 80 mg/m², days 1-21, q35 days), and S-1 plus paclitaxel (paclitaxel; 50 mg/m², day1, 8, S-1; 80 mg/m², days 1-14, q21 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

From July 2008 to March 2012, 127 patients were enrolled. No difference in median OS was observed in the irinotecan vs. paclitaxel groups or in the monotherapy groups vs. the S-1 combination therapy groups. Median PFS was longer in the paclitaxel group compared with the irinotecan group (4.1 vs. 3.6 months, p = 0.035), although no difference was observed when comparing monotherapy vs. S-1 combination. The most common grade 3 to 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia with no difference in incidence rate across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in OS between irinotecan and paclitaxel no in OS prolongation of S-1 combination therapy in second-line chemotherapy.

Efficacy of Paclitaxel plus TS1 against previously treated EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Later line chemotherapy (≥2nd lines) such as Docetaxel or immunotherapy is frequently used. As the life expectancy of lung cancer patients is getting longer, we need to provide more treatment options. Other treatment options are not well documented except for Doxetaxel and immunotherapy. Therefore, the efficacy of paclitaxel plus TS1 (TTS1) is warranted.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the chart records of our non-small cell lung cancer patients who were treated between 2010 and 2013. Clinical characteristics, type of tumor, EGFR mutation status, and treatment response to first-line EGFR-TKI therapy and efficacy of TTS1, were collected.

Results

Twenty eight patients were enrolled in this study. No patients archived complete response and seven patients had partial response (ORR: 25%). The disease control rate was 60.7% (17/28). The progression free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months and overall survival (OS) was 15.8 months. Of them, 17 had EGFR mutations, eight EGFR wild type, and three were unknown EGFR status. After TTS1 treatment, patients with EGFR mutations had better PFS (4.9 months vs. 1.8 months) and OS (15.5 months vs. 7.2 months) compared with those of EGFR wild type.

Conclusions

TTS1 are effective later line chemotherapy, especially in tumor EGFR mutated patients. Paclitaxel plus TS1 is another treatment of choice for NSCLC patients before a more effective treatment strategy is found.

A retrospective clinical study of comparing paclitaxel plus S-1 versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), paclitaxel plus cisplatin are considered as active and tolerable. The current clinical study was conducted to retrospectively compare the efficacy and safety of first-line paclitaxel/S-1(PS) and paclitaxel/cisplatin(TP) regimens in advanced ESCC.

RESULTS

The overall response rate of PS was slightly, but not significantly, higher (25 patients, 46%) than that of TP (23 patients, 39%, P = 0.432). Median overall survival (OS) was similar for PS and TP (11.5 months vs. 10.4 months, p = 0.37). However PS had longer median progression-free survival than TP (PFS: 5.5 months vs5.0months, p = 0.04). When compared with PS, more grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded for TP, including leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, anorexia and vomiting (P < 0.05). No treatment-related deaths were recorded in either group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2014, all patients diagnosed with advanced ESCC and treated with paclitaxel/S-1 or paclitaxel/cisplatin at Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University were analyzed retrospectively. One hundred and thirteen patients were included in this study. Disease control rates and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded. Survival analysis was calculated by using Kaplan-Meier method.

CONCLUSIONS

The PS option improves PFS and its OS is similar to TP. Moreover, the PS regimen is an effective and safe first-line treatment for ESCC with less hematological and non-hematological toxicity.

Phase II multi-institutional prospective randomized trial comparing S-1 plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel alone as second-line chemotherapy in S-1 pretreated gastric cancer (CCOG0701)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore whether a combination of S-1 and paclitaxel offers any benefit over paclitaxel alone to patients pretreated by S-1.

METHODS

Gastric cancer patients who developed progression during S-1-based first-line chemotherapy or had recurrence during postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy by S-1 were randomly assigned to receive second-line treatment either by weekly administration of paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2) three times every 4 weeks or daily oral S-1 (80 mg/m(2)) for 2 weeks plus paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2)) given on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks (S-1 plus paclitaxel). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months after the initiation of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were eligible for efficacy analyses-40 were assigned to the paclitaxel group and 38 to the S-1 plus paclitaxel group. PFS at 4 months was similar between the groups (50 % for paclitaxel vs 55 % for S-1 plus paclitaxel, P = 0.641). There were no differences between the groups either in progression-free survival (4.6 vs 4.6 months, respectively, P = 0.526), overall survival (10.0 vs 10.0 months, respectively, P = 0.464), or overall response rate (27 vs 22 %, respectively, P = 0.767). The incidences of grade 3 or 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were also equivalent between the two groups (25 vs 26 % and 24 vs 26 %, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

No benefit of S-1 administration beyond progression was shown when paclitaxel was selected as the key drug for second-line chemotherapy.

Biweekly S-1 plus paclitaxel (SPA) as second-line chemotherapy after failure from fluoropyrimidine and platinum in advanced gastric cancer: a phase II study

PURPOSE

Second-line chemotherapy is now considered a standard therapy option in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who failed from first-line chemotherapy. Single agents, such as irinotecan, docetaxel or paclitaxel, provided an overall response rate of about 10 %. However, the efficacy was not satisfactory. The authors conducted a phase II study to investigate biweekly regimen of S-1 plus paclitaxel in Chinese AGC in second-line setting, with response rate as the primary end point.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with AGC failed from first-line chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine/platinum who had measurable lesions were enrolled. Paclitaxel was administered intravenously on day 1 at a dose of 120 mg/m(2), and oral S-1 was administered twice a day from days 1 to 7, followed by a 7-day drug-free interval.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with pretreated AGC were accrued. No complete responses were observed. Partial responses were documented in 10 (33.3 %) patients. Ten (33.3 %) patients had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months and the overall survival was 7.2 months. The main toxicity was bone marrow suppression. The most frequent grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia and anemia, which were observed in 8 (26.7 %) and 6 (20 %) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity was neuropathy, which was reported in 4 (13.3 %) patients.

CONCLUSION

Biweekly S-1 plus paclitaxel showed promising activity with acceptable toxicities as second-line chemotherapy in pretreated patients with AGC. This regimen deserves further investigation in a phase III trial.

Thymidylate synthase protein expression levels remain stable during paclitaxel and carboplatin treatment in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Thymidylate synthase (TS) is a potential predictive marker for efficacy of treatment with pemetrexed. The current study aimed at investigating whether TS expression changes during non-pemetrexed chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thus making rebiopsy necessary for deciding on pemetrexed second-line treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TS immunohistochemístry was performed on biopsies and available resection specimens from 65 NSCLC patients stage T1-3N0-2 treated with preoperative carboplatin and paclitaxel [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)-group] and from 53 NSCLC patients stage T1-4N0-1 treated with surgery without preceding chemotherapy [operation (OP)-group] that served as controls. The diagnostic biopsies and subsequent resection samples were compared in order to evaluate for change in TS expression in groups treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy.

RESULTS

No statistically significant change in TS expression was observed between diagnostic biopsies and subsequent surgical resections of primary tumors in either the OP-group (p = 0.186) or the NAC-group (p = 0.542). Primary tumors were discordant between diagnostic biopsies and resection specimens when TS expression was dichotomized into high (H score ≥ 150) and low (H score < 150), in 45 and 33% in the OP-group and NAC-group, respectively (p = 0.288). The fraction of tumors which increased (19 vs. 20%; p = 0.900) and decreased (42 vs. 23%; p = 0.095) in TS expression was equal between the OP- and the NAC-group.

CONCLUSION

The discordance observed between paired serial samples likely reflects intratumoral heterogeneity of TS expression and highlights the need of sufficient representative material for TS expression analysis if this biomarker is to be used for treatment selection. TS expression in primary tumors remained unchanged, and new biopsies for deciding on second-line pemetrexed does not seem warranted based on the current results.

A retrospective study of the novel combination of paclitaxel and S1 for pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, multiple-line chemotherapy has become popular for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The survival time of patients is influenced by patient characteristics and subsequent treatments.

METHODS

The usefulness of paclitaxel plus S1 (PTX+S1) was evaluated in 46 pretreated NSCLC patients. Time from the start of individual regimens till the start of the next one (TNR) was calculated for regimens administered to the study population including PTX+S1 and analyzed by the shared frailty Cox model.

RESULTS

The response rate and the median progression-free survival time of PTX+S1 were 32.6% and 253 days, respectively. Substantial difference in TNR was observed in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and in line and type of regimens, but not in stage, age, sex, performance status and histology, by univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed that PTX+S1 was only one factor to prolong TNR.

CONCLUSION

Because of long progression-free survival and long TNR, further evaluation of PTX+S1 is necessary.