Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29769385›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2018

Phase II Study of Irinotecan Plus Panitumumab as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Harry Yoon, Lilit Karapetyan, Anita Choudhary, Ramla Kosozi, Gurvinder Singh Bali, Ali H Zaidi, Ajlan Atasoy, Arlene A Forastiere, Michael K Gibson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Targeting EGFR in Esophagogastric Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020
    Review
  5. Review
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Harry YoonMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lilit KarapetyanDepartment of Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Anita ChoudharyWayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Ramla KosoziVanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Gurvinder Singh BaliWayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Ali H ZaidiAllegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ajlan AtasoyBristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Arlene A ForastiereJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael K GibsonVanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA mike.gibson.1@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1500-9281
Vanderbilt University · USWayne State University · USAllegheny Health Network · USJohns Hopkins University · USMayo Clinic · USMichigan State University · USThe Bristol-Myers Squibb Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

lesson learnedPanitumumab plus irinotecan is not active for the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

backgroundEsophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a lethal cancer with increasing incidence. Panitumumab (Pa) is a fully humanized IgG2 monoclonal antibody against human EGFR. Cetuximab (Cx) combined with irinotecan (Ir) is active for second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. This phase II study was designed to evaluate Pa plus Ir as second-line therapy for advanced EAC.

methodsThe primary endpoint was response rate (RR). Patients with one prior treatment were given Pa 9 mg/m

resultsTwenty-four patients were enrolled; 18 were eligible and evaluable. These patients were all white, with a median age of 62.5 years (range, 33-79 years), and included 15 men and 3 women. The median number of cycles was 3.5. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, anemia, leukopenia, and hypoalbuminemia. Grade 3-4 adverse events included hematologic, gastrointestinal, electrolyte, rash, fatigue, and weight loss. The median follow-up was 7.2 months (range, 2.3-14 months). There were no complete remissions. The partial response rate was 6% (1/18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.26). The clinical benefit (partial response [PR] plus stable disease [SD]) rate was 50%. The median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.1-8.9) with an 11.1% 1-year survival rate. The median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.6-5.3).

conclusionIrinotecan and panitumumab as second-line treatment for advanced EAC are not active.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIrinotecanMaleMiddle AgedPanitumumabIrinotecanPanitumumab

Identifiers

PMID29769385
PMCPMC6192615
OpenAlexW2804194728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.