ArticleUrologic oncology2013
Commentary on "Phase II trial of cetuximab with or without paclitaxel in patients with advanced urothelial tract carcinoma." Wong YN, Litwin S, Vaughn D, Cohen S, Plimack ER, Lee J, Song W, Dabrow M, Brody M, Tuttle H, Hudes G, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: J Clin Oncol 2012;30(28):3545-51 [Epub 2012 Aug 27].
Article in Urologic oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe benefit of salvage chemotherapy is modest in metastatic urothelial cancer. We conducted a randomized, noncomparative phase II study to measure the efficacy of cetuximab with or without paclitaxel in patients with previously treated urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with metastatic urothelial cancer who received one line of chemotherapy in the perioperative or metastatic setting were randomly assigned to 4-week cycles of cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) with or without paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) per week. We used early progression as an indicator of futility. Either arm would close if seven of the initial 15 patients in that arm progressed at the first disease evaluation at 8 weeks.
resultsWe enrolled 39 evaluable patients. The single-agent cetuximab arm closed after nine of the first 11 patients progressed by 8 weeks. The combination arm completed the full accrual of 28 patients, of whom 22 patients (78.5%) had visceral disease. Twelve of 28 patients had progression-free survival greater than 16 weeks. The overall response rate was 25% (95% CI, 11% to 45%; three complete responses and four partial responses). The median progression-free survival was 16.4 weeks (95% CI, 12 to 25.1 weeks), and the median overall survival was 42 weeks (95% CI, 30.4 to 78 weeks). Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events that occurred in at least two patients were rash (six cases), fatigue (five cases), and low magnesium (three cases).
conclusionAlthough it had limited activity as a single agent, cetuximab appears to augment the antitumor activity of paclitaxel in previously treated urothelial cancers. The cetuximab and paclitaxel combination merits additional study to establish its role in the treatment of urothelial cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.