4.6 Article

Modified FOLFOX-6 chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: Results of phase II study and comprehensive analysis of polymorphisms as a predictive and prognostic marker

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-148

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid and oxaliplatin (modified FOLFOX-6) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), as first-line palliative combination chemotherapy. We also analyzed the predictive or prognostic value of germline polymorphisms of candidate genes associated with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. Methods: Seventy-three patients were administered a 2 hour infusion of oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) and folinic acid (100 mg/m(2)) followed by a 46 hour continuous infusion of 5-FU (2,400 mg/m(2)). Genomic DNA from the patients' peripheral blood mononuclear cells was extracted. Ten polymorphisms within five genes were investigated including TS, GSTP, ERCC, XPD and XRCC. Results: The overall response rate (RR) was 43.8%. Median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 months and 12.6 months, respectively. Toxicities were generally tolerable and manageable. The RR was significantly higher in patients with a 6-bp deletion homozygote (-6 bp/-6 bp) in TS-3'UTR (55.0% vs. 30.3% in +6 bp/+6 bp or +6 bp/-6 bp, p = 0.034), and C/A or A/ A in XPD156 (52.0% vs. 26.1% in C/C, p = 0.038). The-6 bp/-6 bp in TS-3'UTR was significantly associated with a prolonged TTP and OS. In a multivariate analysis, the 6-bp deletion in TS-3'UTR was identified as an independent prognostic marker of TTP (hazard ratio = 0.561, p = 0.032). Conclusion: Modified FOLFOX-6 chemotherapy appears to be active and well tolerated as first line chemotherapy in AGC patients. The 6-bp deletion in TS-3'UTR might be a candidate to select patients who are likely to benefit from 5-FU based modified FOLFOX-6 in future large scale trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据