SWOG S1815: A Phase III Randomized Trial of Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, and Nab-Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers.

IF 42.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of Clinical Oncology Pub Date : 2025-02-10 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.1200/JCO-24-01383
Rachna T Shroff, Gentry King, Sarah Colby, Aaron J Scott, Mitesh J Borad, Laura Goff, Khalid Matin, Amit Mahipal, Aparna Kalyan, Milind M Javle, Imane El Dika, Benjamin Tan, Puneet Cheema, Anuj Patel, Renuka Iyer, R Katie Kelley, Jaykumar Thumar, Anthony El-Khoueiry, Katherine A Guthrie, E Gabriela Chiorean, Howard Hochster, Philip A Philip
{"title":"SWOG S1815: A Phase III Randomized Trial of Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, and Nab-Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers.","authors":"Rachna T Shroff, Gentry King, Sarah Colby, Aaron J Scott, Mitesh J Borad, Laura Goff, Khalid Matin, Amit Mahipal, Aparna Kalyan, Milind M Javle, Imane El Dika, Benjamin Tan, Puneet Cheema, Anuj Patel, Renuka Iyer, R Katie Kelley, Jaykumar Thumar, Anthony El-Khoueiry, Katherine A Guthrie, E Gabriela Chiorean, Howard Hochster, Philip A Philip","doi":"10.1200/JCO-24-01383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, cisplatin 25 mg/m<sup>2</sup>, and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m<sup>2</sup> and cisplatin 25 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); <i>P</i> = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); <i>P</i> = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction <i>P</i> = .14 for OS and <i>P</i> = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction <i>P</i> = .01), but not OS (interaction <i>P</i> = .28).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"536-544"},"PeriodicalIF":42.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11798714/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-01383","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs).

Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m2, cisplatin 25 mg/m2, and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle).

Results: Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28).

Conclusion: The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SWOG S1815:吉西他滨、顺铂和 Nab-Paclitaxel 与吉西他滨和顺铂治疗新诊断晚期胆道癌的 III 期随机试验。
目的:SWOG S1815是一项随机、开放标签的III期试验,评估吉西他滨、纳布-紫杉醇和顺铂(GAP)与吉西他滨和顺铂(GC)在新诊断的晚期胆道癌(BTC)患者中的应用:新确诊的局部晚期不可切除或转移性 BTC(包括肝内胆管癌(ICC)、肝外胆管癌(ECC)和胆囊癌(GBC))患者被随机分配到 2:1分配给GAP(吉西他滨800毫克/平方米、顺铂25毫克/平方米和纳布-紫杉醇100毫克/平方米,每天静脉注射一次,21天为一个周期,第1天和第8天为一个周期)或GC(吉西他滨1000毫克/平方米和顺铂25毫克/平方米,每天静脉注射一次,21天为一个周期,第1天和第8天为一个周期)。结果:在随机分配的452名参与者中,有441人符合条件并可进行分析,其中67%患有ICC,16%患有GBC,17%患有ECC。GAP与GC的总生存期(OS)无明显差异。GAP的中位OS为14.0个月(95% CI,12.4至16.1),GC为13.6个月(95% CI,9.7至16.6);危险比(HR)为0.91(95% CI,0.72至1.14);P = .41。两组的中位无进展生存期(PFS)相似,GAP 的中位 PFS 为 7.5 个月(95% CI,6.4 至 8.5),而 GC 为 6.3 个月(95% CI,4.4 至 8.2);HR 为 0.89(95% CI,0.71 至 1.12);P = .32。在探索性子集分析中,与转移性疾病相比,GAP治疗对局部晚期疾病的OS和PFS益处更大,但无统计学意义(OS的交互作用P = .14,PFS的交互作用P = .17)。此外,GAP 与 GC 相比,GBC 患者的 PFS 改善幅度大于 ICC 或 ECC 患者(交互作用 P = .01),但 OS 改善幅度不大(交互作用 P = .28):结论:在标准吉西他滨-顺铂方案的基础上,在GAP方案中增加一种类固醇并不能改善新诊断BTC患者的OS。GAP与GC相比,毒性更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal of Clinical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
8215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.
期刊最新文献
Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibition as a Novel Therapy for Peritoneal Mucinous Carcinomatosis With GNAS Mutations. Randomized Controlled Trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fatigue Interference With Functioning in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Redefining Available Therapy in Oncology Accelerated Approval Decisions. Second Primary Cancer Risks After Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers. Cost-Effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Selective Nonoperative Management for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Data From the Organ Preservation for Rectal Adenocarcinoma Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1