Introduction: Standard chemotherapy (CT) regimens for AGC includes a fluoropyrimidine, usually 5F... more Introduction: Standard chemotherapy (CT) regimens for AGC includes a fluoropyrimidine, usually 5FU with or without leucovorin and a platinum, usually CIS while Docetaxel (DOC) has relatively recently become an important compound of the active triplet known as TPF. However, the combination is associated with increased although acceptable toxicity and frequent as well as prolonged hospitalizations are required, leading to compromised patient convenience and compliance. We report on a subgroup of patients treated in our department with [DOC/CB/X]. Methods: One hundred twenty five out of 168 patients (pts) with AGC consecutively treated between 2006 and 2011 in our department were selected based on treatment schedule and retrospectively studied. 1) Fifty five pts treated during the last 2 years (2010-2011) with DOC: 75mg/m 2 D1, CB: AUC5 D1 and X: 2g/m 2 D1-D14 recycled q3w; three of them, with HER2 overexpression, received also Trastuzumab. Therapy was administered in Day Clinic (D1) and outpatient (X) 2) Seventy pts treated during the previous 4 years (2006-2009) had received regimens based to DOC, CIS and 5FU continuous IV infusion X3days (a typical TPF, q3w); all sessions required a 4-5days hospitalization. Results: A clear difference in toxicity in favor of the [DOC/CB/X] is emerging; moreover, with the exception of gastric discomfort associated with X, the latter regimen is clearly more convenient for patients while its resource sparing compared to the TPF is obvious (outpatient vs inpatient, 3hours vs >3days IV drugs, antiemetics, growth factors, etc.). Yet, efficacy of both regimens seems equivalent and comparable to that of the literature for TPF. However, definitive statistical analysis particularly concerning efficacy results is not mature. Conclusion: The [DOC/CB/X] regimen seems to be a good alternative to typical TPF thanks to its improved toxicity, convenience, resource sparing and probably equivalent efficacy in the dismal prognosis group of patients with AGC.
Introduction: Standard chemotherapy (CT) regimens for AGC includes a fluoropyrimidine, usually 5F... more Introduction: Standard chemotherapy (CT) regimens for AGC includes a fluoropyrimidine, usually 5FU with or without leucovorin and a platinum, usually CIS while Docetaxel (DOC) has relatively recently become an important compound of the active triplet known as TPF. However, the combination is associated with increased although acceptable toxicity and frequent as well as prolonged hospitalizations are required, leading to compromised patient convenience and compliance. We report on a subgroup of patients treated in our department with [DOC/CB/X]. Methods: One hundred twenty five out of 168 patients (pts) with AGC consecutively treated between 2006 and 2011 in our department were selected based on treatment schedule and retrospectively studied. 1) Fifty five pts treated during the last 2 years (2010-2011) with DOC: 75mg/m 2 D1, CB: AUC5 D1 and X: 2g/m 2 D1-D14 recycled q3w; three of them, with HER2 overexpression, received also Trastuzumab. Therapy was administered in Day Clinic (D1) and outpatient (X) 2) Seventy pts treated during the previous 4 years (2006-2009) had received regimens based to DOC, CIS and 5FU continuous IV infusion X3days (a typical TPF, q3w); all sessions required a 4-5days hospitalization. Results: A clear difference in toxicity in favor of the [DOC/CB/X] is emerging; moreover, with the exception of gastric discomfort associated with X, the latter regimen is clearly more convenient for patients while its resource sparing compared to the TPF is obvious (outpatient vs inpatient, 3hours vs >3days IV drugs, antiemetics, growth factors, etc.). Yet, efficacy of both regimens seems equivalent and comparable to that of the literature for TPF. However, definitive statistical analysis particularly concerning efficacy results is not mature. Conclusion: The [DOC/CB/X] regimen seems to be a good alternative to typical TPF thanks to its improved toxicity, convenience, resource sparing and probably equivalent efficacy in the dismal prognosis group of patients with AGC.
Uploads
Papers by Despina Geka