ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Phase I study of capecitabine combined with radioembolization using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres) in patients with advanced cancer.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04339036 (UPCC 04219 Phase 2 Study of Capecitabine-Temozolomide), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
UPCC 04219 Phase 2 Study of Capecitabine-Temozolomide(CapTem) With Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in the Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Metastatic Grade 2/3 Neuroendocrine Tumors
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Capecitabine-Temozolomide with Radioembolization for Liver-Dominant G2 NETs: Long-Term Outcomes of a Single-Institution Retrospective Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Article
- Phase I prospective trial of TAS-102 (trifluridine and tipiracil) and radioembolization withBMC cancer · 2022Article
- Radioembolization in the Setting of Systemic Therapies.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2021Review
- Safety of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres combined with systemic anticancer agents: expert consensus.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2017Review
- Yttrium-90 hepatic radioembolization: clinical review and current techniques in interventional radiology and personalized dosimetry.The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis was a prospective single-centre, phase I study to document the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and the recommended phase II dose for future study of capecitabine in combination with radioembolization.
methodsPatients with advanced unresectable liver-dominant cancer were enrolled in a 3+3 design with escalating doses of capecitabine (375-1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d.) for 14 days every 21 days. Radioembolization with (90)Y-resin microspheres was administered using a sequential lobar approach with two cycles of capecitabine.
resultsTwenty-four patients (17 colorectal) were enrolled. The MTD was not reached. Haematologic events were generally mild. Common grade 1/2 non-haematologic toxicities included transient transaminitis/alkaline phosphatase elevation (9 (37.5%) patients), nausea (9 (37.5%)), abdominal pain (7 (29.0%)), fatigue (7 (29.0%)), and hand-foot syndrome or rash/desquamation (7 (29.0%)). One patient experienced a partial gastric antral perforation with a capecitabine dose of 750 mg/m(2). The best response was partial response in four (16.7%) patients, stable disease in 17 (70.8%) and progression in three (12.5%). Median time to progression and overall survival of the metastatic colorectal cancer cohort was 6.4 and 8.1 months, respectively.
conclusionsThis combined modality treatment was generally well tolerated with encouraging clinical activity. Capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. is recommended for phase II study with sequential lobar radioembolization.
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.