Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29663379›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of cancer2018

Phase Ib/II study of safety and efficacy of low-dose decitabine-primed chemoimmunotherapy in patients with drug-resistant relapsed/refractory alimentary tract cancer.

Meixia Chen, Jing Nie, Yang Liu, Xiang Li, Yan Zhang, Malcolm V Brock, Kaichao Feng, Zhiqiang Wu, Xiaolei Li, Lu Shi and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Homozygous deletion of theAnnals of translational medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Meixia ChenDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jing NieDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yang LiuDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiang LiDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yan ZhangDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Malcolm V BrockDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Kaichao FengDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhiqiang WuDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaolei LiDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Lu ShiDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Suxia LiDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Mingzhou GuoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Qian MeiDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Weidong HanDepartment of Molecular Biology and Bio-therapeutic, Institute of Basic Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-3207-3899
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CNJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pressing need for improved therapeutic outcomes provides a good rationale for identifying effective strategies for alimentary tract (AT) cancer treatment. The potential re-sensitivity property to chemo- and immunotherapy of low-dose decitabine has been evident both preclinically and in previous phase I trials. We conducted a phase Ib/II trial evaluating low-dose decitabine-primed chemoimmunotherapy in patients with drug-resistant relapsed/refractory (R/R) esophageal, gastric or colorectal cancers. Forty-five patients received either the 5-day decitabine treatment with subsequent readministration of the previously resistant chemotherapy (decitabine-primed chemotherapy, D-C cohort) or the aforementioned regimen followed by cytokine-induced killer cells therapy (D-C and cytokine-induced killer [CIK] cell treatment, D-C + CIK cohort) based on their treatment history. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11 (24.4%) of 45 patients. All AEs were controllable, and no patient experienced a treatment-related death. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 24.44% and 82.22%, respectively, including two patients who achieved durable complete responses. Clinical response could be associated with treatment-free interval and initial surgical resection history. ORR and DCR reached 28% and 92%, respectively, in the D-C + CIK cohort. Consistently, the progression-free survival (PFS) of the D-C + CIK cohort compared favorably to the best PFS of the pre-resistant unprimed therapy (p = 0.0001). The toxicity and ORRs exhibited were non-significantly different between cancer types and treatment cohort. The safety and efficacy of decitabine-primed re-sensitization to chemoimmunotherapy is attractive and promising. These data warrant further large-scale evaluation of drug-resistant R/R AT cancer patients with advanced stage disease.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, NeoplasmImmunotherapySalvage TherapyAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Squamous CellCells, CulturedCohort StudiesCytokine-Induced Killer CellsDecitabineDigestive SystemDigestive System NeoplasmsDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleDecitabinealimentary tract cancerchemoimmunotherapydrug resistancehypomethylation agentrelapsed/refractory

Identifiers

PMID29663379
PMCPMC6099263
OpenAlexW2799425637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.