Single Arm Study: Study 6
Data from an open-label, single-agent, single-arm, multicenter, clinical study involving a total of 132 patients support a once every-3-week dosage schedule of irinotecan in the treatment of patients with metastatic cancer of the colon or rectum that recurred or progressed following treatment with 5-FU. Patients received a starting dose of 350 mg/m2 given by 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks. Among the 132 previously treated patients in this trial, the intent-to-treat response rate was 12.1% (95% CI, 7.0% to 18.1%).
Randomized Studies: Studies 7 and 8
Two multicenter, randomized, clinical studies further support the use of irinotecan given by the once-every-3-week dosage schedule in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose disease has recurred or progressed following prior 5-FU therapy. In Study 7, second-line irinotecan therapy plus best supportive care was compared with best supportive care alone. In Study 8, second-line irinotecan therapy was compared with infusional 5-FU-based therapy. In both studies, irinotecan was administered intravenously at a starting dose of 350 mg/m2 over 90 minutes once every 3 weeks. The starting dose was 300 mg/m2 for patients who were 70 years and older or who had a performance status of 2. The highest total dose permitted was 700 mg. Dose reductions and/or administration delays were permitted in the event of severe hematologic and/or nonhematologic toxicities while on treatment. Best supportive care was provided to patients in both arms of Study 7 and included antibiotics, analgesics, corticosteroids, transfusions, psychotherapy, or any other symptomatic therapy as clinically indicated. In both studies, concomitant medications such as antiemetics, atropine, and loperamide were given to patients for prophylaxis and/or management of symptoms from treatment. If late diarrhea persisted for greater than 24 hours despite loperamide, a 7-day course of fluoroquinolone antibiotic prophylaxis was given. Patients in the control arm of the Study 8 received one of the following 5-FU regimens: (1) LV, 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours; followed by 5-FU, 400 mg/m2 IV bolus; followed by 5-FU, 600 mg/m2 continuous IV infusion over 22 hours on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks; (2) 5-FU, 250 to 300 mg/m2/day protracted continuous IV infusion until toxicity; (3) 5-FU, 2.6 to 3 g/m2 IV over 24 hours every week for 6 weeks with or without LV, 20 to 500 mg/m2/day every week IV for 6 weeks with 2-week rest between cycles. Patients were to be followed every 3 to 6 weeks for 1 year.
A total of 535 patients were randomized in the two studies at 94 centers. The primary endpoint in both studies was survival. The studies demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage for irinotecan compared with best supportive care (p=0.0001) and infusional 5-FU-based therapy (p=0.035) as shown in Figures 3 and 4. In Study 7, median survival for patients treated with irinotecan was 9.2 months compared with 6.5 months for patients receiving best supportive care. In Study 8, median survival for patients treated with irinotecan was 10.8 months compared with 8.5 months for patients receiving infusional 5-FU-based therapy. Multiple regression analyses determined that patients' baseline characteristics also had a significant effect on survival. When adjusted for performance status and other baseline prognostic factors, survival among patients treated with irinotecan remained significantly longer than in the control populations (p=0.001 for Study 7 and p=0.017 for Study 8). Measurements of pain, performance status, and weight loss were collected prospectively in the two studies; however, the plan for the analysis of these data was defined retrospectively. When comparing irinotecan with best supportive care in Study 7, this analysis showed a statistically significant advantage for irinotecan, with longer time to development of pain (6.9 months versus 2.0 months), time to performance status deterioration (5.7 months versus 3.3 months), and time to > 5% weight loss (6.4 months versus 4.2 months). Additionally, 33.3% (33/99) of patients with a baseline performance status of 1 or 2 showed an improvement in performance status when treated with irinotecan versus 11.3% (7/62) of patients receiving best supportive care (p=0.002). Because of the inclusion of patients with non-measurable disease, intent-to-treat response rates could not be assessed.
Figure 3. Survival Second-Line Irinotecan vs Best Supportive Care (BSC) Study 7 |
---|
|
Figure 4. Survival Second-Line Irinotecan vs Infusion 5-FU Study 8 |
---|
|
Table 12. Once-Every-3-Week Dosage Schedule: Study Results | Study 7 | Study 8 |
---|
Irinotecan | BSC* | Irinotecan | 5-FU |
---|
|
Number of patients | 189 | 90 | 127 | 129 |
Demographics and treatment administration |
Female/Male (%) | 32/68 | 42/58 | 43/57 | 35/65 |
Median age in years (range) | 59 (22–75) | 62 (34–75) | 58 (30–75) | 58 (25–75) |
Performance status (%) | | | | |
0 | 47 | 31 | 58 | 54 |
1 | 39 | 46 | 35 | 43 |
2 | 14 | 23 | 8 | 3 |
Primary tumor (%) | | | | |
Colon | 55 | 52 | 57 | 62 |
Rectum | 45 | 48 | 43 | 38 |
Prior 5-FU therapy (%) | | | | |
For metastatic disease | 70 | 63 | 58 | 68 |
As adjuvant treatment | 30 | 37 | 42 | 32 |
Prior irradiation (%) | 26 | 27 | 18 | 20 |
Duration of study treatment (median, months) (Log-rank test) | 4.1 | -- | 4.2 (p=0.02) | 2.8 |
Relative dose intensity (median %)† | 94 | -- | 95 | 81–99 |
Survival |
Survival (median, months) | 9.2 | 6.5 | 10.8 | 8.5 |
(Log-rank test) | (p=0.0001) | | (p=0.035) | |
In the two randomized studies, the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument was utilized. At the start of each cycle of therapy, patients completed a questionnaire consisting of 30 questions, such as "Did pain interfere with daily activities?" (1 = Not at All, to 4 = Very Much) and "Do you have any trouble taking a long walk?" (Yes or No). The answers from the 30 questions were converted into 15 subscales, that were scored from 0 to 100, and the global health status subscale that was derived from two questions about the patient's sense of general well being in the past week. The results as summarized in Table 13 are based on patients' worst post-baseline scores. In Study 7, a multivariate analysis and univariate analyses of the individual subscales were performed and corrected for multivariate testing. Patients receiving irinotecan reported significantly better results for the global health status, on two of five functional subscales, and on four of nine symptom subscales. As expected, patients receiving irinotecan noted significantly more diarrhea than those receiving best supportive care. In Study 8, the multivariate analysis on all 15 subscales did not indicate a statistically significant difference between irinotecan and infusional 5-FU.
Table 13. EORTC QLQ-C30: Mean Worst Post-Baseline Score*QLQ-C30 Subscale | Study 7 | Study 8 |
---|
Irinotecan | BSC | p-value | Irinotecan | 5-FU | p-value |
---|
|
Global health status | 47 | 37 | 0.03 | 53 | 52 | 0.9 |
Functional scales |
Cognitive | 77 | 68 | 0.07 | 79 | 83 | 0.9 |
Emotional | 68 | 64 | 0.4 | 64 | 68 | 0.9 |
Social | 58 | 47 | 0.06 | 65 | 67 | 0.9 |
Physical | 60 | 40 | 0.0003 | 66 | 66 | 0.9 |
Role | 53 | 35 | 0.02 | 54 | 57 | 0.9 |
Symptom Scales |
Fatigue | 51 | 63 | 0.03 | 47 | 46 | 0.9 |
Appetite loss | 37 | 57 | 0.0007 | 35 | 38 | 0.9 |
Pain assessment | 41 | 56 | 0.009 | 38 | 34 | 0.9 |
Insomnia | 39 | 47 | 0.3 | 39 | 33 | 0.9 |
Constipation | 28 | 41 | 0.03 | 25 | 19 | 0.9 |
Dyspnea | 31 | 40 | 0.2 | 25 | 24 | 0.9 |
Nausea/Vomiting | 27 | 29 | 0.5 | 25 | 16 | 0.09 |
Financial impact | 22 | 26 | 0.5 | 24 | 15 | 0.3 |
Diarrhea | 32 | 19 | 0.01 | 32 | 22 | 0.2 |