Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2014
Re-challenge with catumaxomab in patients with malignant ascites: results from the SECIMAS study.
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catumaxomab: First Approval.Drugs · 2025Review
- Article
- Immune cell engagers in solid tumors: promises and challenges of the next generation immunotherapy.ESMO open · 2021Review
- Antidrug Antibody Formation in Oncology: Clinical Relevance and Challenges.The oncologist · 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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant ascites is a common phenomenon in cancer patients. It poses a great challenge to the clinician, because of limited treatment options and strong impairment of the quality of life of the often palliative patients. The SECIMAS study investigated the feasibility of a re-challenge with four catumaxomab intraperitoneal infusions in patients who had already received a first cycle of four infusions in the phase III CASIMAS study, which compared catumaxomab with and without prednisolone premedication. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least three catumaxomab infusions. Secondary endpoints included a composite safety score (CSS) summarising the worst grades for the main catumaxomab-related adverse events (pyrexia, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain), safety, efficacy and the occurrence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Eight of nine screened patients received a second catumaxomab cycle. Compliance with a catumaxomab re-challenge was high: all eight patients (100%) received all four infusions. The median CSS was 3.0 versus 3.4 in CASIMAS. The tolerability profile of the second catumaxomab cycle was comparable to that of the first cycle. Median puncture-free survival (48 days) and overall survival (407 days) were longer than in CASIMAS (35 and 103 days, respectively), although median time to next puncture was shorter (60 vs. 97 days). Of six patients sampled, all were ADA positive at screening and remained ADA positive until the end of the study. The presence of ADAs did not affect catumaxomab's safety or efficacy. The CSS and tolerability profile for catumaxomab in SECIMAS were comparable to those in CASIMAS. The majority of patients benefitted from a second cycle of catumaxomab. A re-challenge seems to be feasible and safe for selected patients with recurrent malignant ascites due to carcinoma after a first cycle of catumaxomab.
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.