Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2019
Multicenter open-label randomized phase II study of second-line panitumumab and irinotecan with or without fluoropyrimidines in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (PACIFIC study).
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a Split Esterase for Protein-Protein Interaction-Dependent Small-Molecule Activation.ACS central science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This phase II clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan and panitumumab treatment (IRI + Pmab) with that of irinotecan, fluoropyrimidines and panitumumab treatment (control) in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. In addition, early predictive markers of treatment efficacy were explored. Eighty patients were planned to be recruited. Due to a slow accrual rate, only 48 patients were recruited from 2012 to 2016, of which 23 were allocated to the control group and 25 were allocated to the IRI + Pmab group. The median progression-free survival was 254 days (95% confidence interval, 159-306) for control, and 190 days (95% confidence interval, 159-213) for IRI + Pmab (log-rank test, P = 0.26). The response rate without confirmation was 21.7% (5/23) for control and 40.0% (10/25) for IRI + Pmab. Neutropenia, leukopenia, and anorexia were the most common Grade 3/4 adverse events, and several early drop-outs from the treatment protocol were observed in the control group. As for the biomarkers, carcinoembryonic antigen and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) smoothly declined immediately after the initial dosing in patients with a partial response or stable disease. After starting treatment, LDH-1 and - 2 increased, while LDH-4 and - 5 decreased, irrespective of tumor response. However, exceptions were frequent. In conclusion, this study failed to prove the safety and efficacy of irinotecan and panitumumab treatment due to insufficient patient accrual. Although LDH and its isozymes changed after initiation of treatment, their ability to predict the tumor response may not surpass that of carcinoembryonic antigen levels.The University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000007658.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31020480What 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.