Gastrointestinal cancer: Rationale for metronomic chemotherapy in phase III trials

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 313-314

  Kerbel, Robert S ^a   Grothey, Axel ^b  

^a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre   (Canada)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEVACIZUMAB; CAPECITABINE; FLUOROPYRIMIDINE; OXALIPLATIN; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; BONE MARROW PROGENITOR CELL; BONE MARROW SUPPRESSION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER STEM CELL; CELL PROLIFERATION; DIARRHEA; DISEASE COURSE; DOSAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON; DRUG EFFICACY; HAND FOOT SYNDROME; HUMAN; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER; METRONOMIC CHEMOTHERAPY; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; NONHUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK REDUCTION; SHORT SURVEY; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR GROWTH; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; MALE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 84930181366     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.89     Document Type: Short Survey

References (10)

1. Browder, T. et al. Antiangiogenic scheduling of chemotherapy improves efficacy against experimental drug-resistant cancer. Cancer Res. 60, 1878-1886 (2000).
2. Klement, G. et al. Continuous low-dose therapy with vinblastine and VEGF receptor-2 an tibody induces sustained tumor regression without overt toxicity. J. Clin. Invest. 105, R15-R24 (2000).
3. Pasquier, E., Kavallaris, M. & André, N. Metronomic chemotherapy: new rationale for new directions. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7, 455-465 (2010).
4. Pietras, K. & Hanahan, D. A multitargeted, metronomic, and maximum-tolerated dose " chemo-switch" regimen is antiangiogenic, producing objective responses and survival benefit in a mouse model of cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 939-952 (2005).
5. Francia, G., Cruz-Munoz, W., Man, S., Xu, P. & Kerbel, R. S. Mouse models of advanced spontaneous metastasis for experimental therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11, 135-141 (2011).
6. Simkens, L. H. et al. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAIRO3): A phase 3 randomised controlled trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Lancet http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62004-3 (2015).
7. Hubbard, J. M. & Grothey, A. Colorectal cancer in 2014: Progress in defining first-line and maintenance therapies. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12, 73-74 (2015).
8. Amiri-Kordestani, L. & Fojo, T. Why do phase III clinical trials in oncology fail so often? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104, 568-569 (2012).
9. Cunn ingham, D. et al. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 14, 1077-1085 (2013).
10. Gligorov, J. et al. Maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after initial first-line bevacizumab and docetaxel for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (IMELDA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15, 1351-1360 (2014).