CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Mechanism Of Action
Irinotecan is a derivative of camptothecin. Camptothecins
interact specifically with the enzyme topoisomerase I, which relieves torsional
strain in DNA by inducing reversible single-strand breaks. Irinotecan and its
active metabolite SN-38 bind to the topoisomerase I-DNA complex and prevent
religation of these single-strand breaks. Current research suggests that the cytotoxicity
of irinotecan is due to double-strand DNA damage produced during DNA synthesis when
replication enzymes interact with the ternary complex formed by topoisomerase
I, DNA, and either irinotecan hydrochloride or SN-38. Mammalian cells cannot
efficiently repair these double-strand breaks.
Pharmacodynamics
Irinotecan serves as a water-soluble precursor of the
lipophilic metabolite SN-38. SN-38 is formed from irinotecan by
carboxylesterase-mediated cleavage of the carbamate bond between the
camptothecin moiety and the dipiperidino side chain. SN-38 is approximately
1000 times as potent as irinotecan as an inhibitor of topoisomerase I purified
from human and rodent tumor cell lines. In vitro cytotoxicity assays show that
the potency of SN-38 relative to irinotecan varies from 2- to 2000-fold; however,
the plasma area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) values for
SN-38 are 2% to 8% of irinotecan and SN-38 is 95% bound to plasma proteins compared
to approximately 50% bound to plasma proteins for irinotecan [see Pharmacokinetics]. The precise contribution of SN-38 to the activity of
CAMPTOSAR is thus unknown. Both irinotecan and SN-38 exist in an active lactone
form and an inactive hydroxy acid anion form. A pH-dependent equilibrium exists
between the two forms such that an acid pH promotes the formation of the
lactone, while a more basic pH favors the hydroxy acid anion form.
Administration of irinotecan has resulted in antitumor
activity in mice bearing cancers of rodent origin and in human carcinoma
xenografts of various histological types.
Pharmacokinetics
After intravenous infusion of irinotecan in humans,
irinotecan plasma concentrations decline in a multiexponential manner, with a
mean terminal elimination half-life of about 6 to 12 hours. The mean terminal
elimination half-life of the active metabolite SN-38 is about 10 to 20 hours.
The half-lives of the lactone (active) forms of irinotecan and SN-38 are
similar to those of total irinotecan and SN-38, as the lactone and hydroxy acid
forms are in equilibrium.
Over the recommended dose range of 50 to 350 mg/m², the
AUC of irinotecan increases linearly with dose; the AUC of SN-38 increases less
than proportionally with dose. Maximum concentrations of the active metabolite
SN-38 are generally seen within 1 hour following the end of a 90-minute
infusion of irinotecan. Pharmacokinetic parameters for irinotecan and SN-38 following
a 90-minute infusion of irinotecan at dose levels of 125 and 340 mg/m²
determined in two clinical studies in patients with solid tumors are summarized
in Table 9:
Table 9: Summary of Mean (±Standard Deviation)
Irinotecan and SN-38 Pharmacokinetic Parameters in Patients with Solid Tumors
Dose (mg/m²) |
Irinotecan |
SN-38 |
C max (ng/mL) |
AUC0-24 (ng•h/mL) |
t½ (h) |
Vz (L/m²) |
CL (L/h/m²) |
Cmax (ng/mL) |
AUC0-24 (ng•h/mL) |
t½ (h) |
125 (N=64) |
1,660 ± 797 |
10,200 ± 3,270 |
5.8a ± 0.7 |
110 ± 48.5 |
13.3 ± 6.01 |
26.3 ± 11.9 |
229 ± 108 |
10.4a ± 3.1 |
340 (N=6) |
3,392 ± 874 |
20,604 ± 6,027 |
11.7b ± 1.0 |
234 ± 69.6 |
13.9 ± 4.0 |
56.0 ± 28.2 |
474 ± 245 |
21.0b ± 4.3 |
Cmax - Maximum plasma concentration
AUC0-24 - Area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time
0 to 24 hours after the end of the 90-minute infusion
t½ - Terminal elimination half-life
Vz - Volume of distribution of terminal elimination phase
CL - Total systemic clearance
a Plasma specimens collected for 24 hours following the end of the
90-minute infusion.
b Plasma specimens collected for 48 hours following the end of the
90-minute infusion. Because of the longer collection period, these values
provide a more accurate reflection of the terminal elimination half-lives of
irinotecan and SN-38. |
Distribution
Irinotecan exhibits moderate plasma protein binding (30%
to 68% bound). SN-38 is highly bound to human plasma proteins (approximately
95% bound). The plasma protein to which irinotecan and SN-38 predominantly
binds is albumin.
Metabolism
Irinotecan is subject to extensive metabolic conversion
by various enzyme systems, including esterases to form the active metabolite
SN-38, and UGT1A1 mediating glucuronidation of SN-38 to form the inactive
glucuronide metabolite SN-38G. Irinotecan can also undergo CYP3A4- mediated
oxidative metabolism to several inactive oxidation products, one of which can
be hydrolyzed by carboxylesterase to release SN-38. In vitro studies indicate
that irinotecan, SN-38 and another metabolite aminopentane carboxylic acid
(APC), do not inhibit cytochrome P-450 isozymes. UGT1A1 activity is reduced in
individuals with genetic polymorphisms that lead to reduced enzyme activity
such as the UGT1A1*28 polymorphism. Approximately 10% of the North American
population is homozygous for the UGT1A1*28 allele (also referred to as UGT1A1
7/7 genotype). In a prospective study, in which irinotecan was administered as
a single-agent (350 mg/m²) on a once-every-3-week schedule, patients with the
UGT1A1 7/7 genotype had a higher exposure to SN-38 than patients with the
wild-type UGT1A1 allele (UGT1A1 6/6 genotype) [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
and DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION]. SN-38 glucuronide had 1/50 to 1/100 the
activity of SN-38 in cytotoxicity assays using two cell lines in vitro.
Excretion
The disposition of irinotecan has not been fully
elucidated in humans. The urinary excretion of irinotecan is 11% to 20%; SN-38,
< 1%; and SN-38 glucuronide, 3%. The cumulative biliary and urinary excretion
of irinotecan and its metabolites (SN-38 and SN-38 glucuronide) over a period of
48 hours following administration of irinotecan in two patients ranged from
approximately 25% (100 mg/m²) to 50% (300 mg/m²).
Effect Of Age
The pharmacokinetics of irinotecan administered using the
weekly schedule was evaluated in a study of 183 patients that was prospectively
designed to investigate the effect of age on irinotecan toxicity. Results from
this trial indicate that there are no differences in the pharmacokinetics of
irinotecan, SN-38, and SN-38 glucuronide in patients < 65 years of age compared
with patients ≥ 65 years of age. In a study of 162 patients that was not
prospectively designed to investigate the effect of age, small (less than 18%)
but statistically significant differences in dose-normalized irinotecan
pharmacokinetic parameters in patients < 65 years of age compared to patients
≥ 65 years of age were observed. Although dose-normalized AUC0-24 for
SN-38 in patients ≥ 65 years of age was 11% higher than in patients
< 65 years of age, this difference was not statistically significant. No
change in the starting dose is recommended for geriatric patients receiving the
weekly dosage schedule of irinotecan [see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION].
Effect Of Gender
The pharmacokinetics of irinotecan do not appear to be
influenced by gender.
Effect Of Race
The influence of race on the pharmacokinetics of
irinotecan has not been evaluated.
Effect Of Hepatic Impairment
Irinotecan clearance is diminished in patients with
hepatic impairment while exposure to the active metabolite SN-38 is increased
relative to that in patients with normal hepatic function. The magnitude of
these effects is proportional to the degree of liver impairment as measured by elevations
in total bilirubin and transaminase concentrations. However, the tolerability
of irinotecan in patients with hepatic dysfunction (bilirubin greater than 2
mg/dl) has not been assessed sufficiently, and no recommendations for dosing
can be made [see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION, WARNINGS AND
PRECAUTIONS and Use In Specific Populations].
Effect Of Renal Impairment
The influence of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics
of irinotecan has not been evaluated. Therefore, caution should be undertaken
in patients with impaired renal function. CAMPTOSAR is not recommended for use
in patients on dialysis [see Use in Specific Populations].
Drug Interactions
Dexamethasone, a moderate CYP3A4 inducer, does not appear
to alter the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan.
Clinical Studies
Irinotecan has been studied in clinical trials in
combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) and as a single
agent [see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION]. When given as a component of
combination-agent treatment, irinotecan was either given with a weekly schedule
of bolus 5-FU/LV or with an every-2-week schedule of infusional 5-FU/LV. Weekly
and onceevery- 3-week dosage schedules were used for the single-agent
irinotecan studies. Clinical studies of combination and single-agent use are
described below.
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
First Line Therapy In Combination With 5-FU/LV: Studies 1
And 2
Two phase 3, randomized, controlled, multinational
clinical trials support the use of CAMPTOSAR Injection as first-line treatment
of patients with metastatic carcinoma of the colon or rectum. In each study,
combinations of irinotecan with 5-FU and LV were compared with 5-FU and LV
alone. Study 1 compared combination irinotecan/bolus 5-FU/LV therapy given
weekly with a standard bolus regimen of 5-FU/LV alone given daily for 5 days
every 4 weeks; an irinotecan-alone treatment arm given on a weekly schedule was
also included. Study 2 evaluated two different methods of administering
infusional 5-FU/LV, with or without irinotecan. In both studies, concomitant medications
such as antiemetics, atropine, and loperamide were given to patients for
prophylaxis and/or management of symptoms from treatment. In Study 2, a 7-day
course of fluoroquinolone antibiotic prophylaxis was given in patients whose
diarrhea persisted for greater than 24 hours despite loperamide or if they
developed a fever in addition to diarrhea. Treatment with oral fluoroquinolone
was also initiated in patients who developed an absolute neutrophil count (ANC)
< 500/mm³, even in the absence of fever or diarrhea. Patients in both studies
also received treatment with intravenous antibiotics if they had persistent
diarrhea or fever or if ileus developed.
In both studies, the combination of irinotecan/5-FU/LV
therapy resulted in significant improvements in objective tumor response rates,
time to tumor progression, and survival when compared with 5-FU/LV alone. These
differences in survival were observed in spite of second-line therapy in a majority
of patients on both arms, including crossover to irinotecan-containing regimens
in the control arm. Patient characteristics and major efficacy results are
shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Combination Dosage Schedule: Study Results
|
Study 1 |
Study 2 |
Irinotecan + Bolus 5-FU/LV weekly x 4 every 6 weeks |
Bolus 5-FU/LV daily x 5 every 4 weeks |
Irinotecan weekly x 4 every 6 weeks |
Irinotecan + Infusional 5-FU/LV |
Infusional 5-FU/LV |
Number of patients |
231 |
226 |
226 |
198 |
187 |
Demographics and treatment administration |
Female/Male (%) |
34/65 |
45/54 |
35/64 |
33/67 |
47/53 |
Median age in years (range) |
62 (25-85) |
61 (19-85) |
61 (30-87) |
62 (27-75) |
59 (24-75) |
Performance status (%) |
0 |
39 |
41 |
46 |
51 |
51 |
1 |
46 |
45 |
46 |
42 |
41 |
2 |
15 |
13 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
Primary tumor (%) |
Colon |
81 |
85 |
84 |
55 |
65 |
Rectum |
17 |
14 |
15 |
45 |
35 |
Median time from diagnosis to randomization |
1.9 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
4.5 |
2.7 |
(months, range) |
(0-161) |
(0-203) |
(0.1-185) |
(0-88) |
(0-104) |
Prior adjuvant 5-FU therapy (%) |
No |
89 |
92 |
90 |
74 |
76 |
Yes |
11 |
8 |
10 |
26 |
24 |
Median duration of study treatmenta (months) |
5 5 |
4 1 |
3 9 |
5 6 |
4 5 |
Median Relative Dose Intensity (%)a |
Irinotecan |
72 |
— |
75 |
87 |
— |
5-FU |
71 |
86 |
— |
86 |
93 |
Efficacy Results |
Confirmed objective tumor response rateb (%) |
39 |
21 |
18 |
35 |
22 |
(p < 0.0001)c |
|
(p < 0.005)c |
Median time to tumor progressiond(months) |
7.0 |
4.3 |
4.2 |
6.7 |
4.4 |
(p=0.004)d |
(p < 0.001)d |
Median survival (months) |
14.8 |
12.6 |
12.0 |
17.4 |
14.1 |
(p < 0.05)d |
(p < 0.05)d |
a Study 1: N=225 (irinotecan/5-FU/LV),N=219
(5-FU/LV),N=223 (irinotecan) Study 2: N=199 (irinotecan/5-FU/LV),N=186
(5-FU/LV)
b Confirmed ≥ 4 to 6 weeks after first evidence of objective
response
c Chi-square test
d Log-rank test |
Improvement was noted with irinotecan-based combination
therapy relative to 5-FU/LV when response rates and time to tumor progression
were examined across the following demographic and disease-related subgroups
(age, gender, ethnic origin, performance status, extent of organ involvement
with cancer, time from diagnosis of cancer, prior adjuvant therapy, and
baseline laboratory abnormalities). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the Kaplan-Meier
survival curves for the comparison of irinotecan/5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV in
Studies 1 and 2, respectively.
Figure 1: Survival First-Line Irinotecan/5-FU/LV vs
5-FU/LV Study 1
Figure 2: Survival First-Line Irinotecan/5-FU/LV vs
5-FU/LV Study 2
Second-Line Therapy After 5-FU-Based Treatment
4 Weekly Doses on a 6-Week Cycle: Studies 3, 4, and 5
Data from three open-label, single-agent, clinical
studies, involving a total of 304 patients in 59 centers, support the use of
CAMPTOSAR in the treatment of patients with metastatic cancer of the colon or
rectum that has recurred or progressed following treatment with 5-FU-based therapy.
These studies were designed to evaluate tumor response rate and do not provide information
on effects on survival and disease-related symptoms. In each study, CAMPTOSAR was
administered in repeated 6-week cycles consisting of a 90-minute intravenous
infusion once weekly for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period. Starting
doses of CAMPTOSAR in these trials were 100, 125, or 150 mg/m², but the
150-mg/m² dose was poorly tolerated (due to high rates of grade 4 late diarrhea
and febrile neutropenia). Study 3 enrolled 48 patients and was conducted by a
single investigator at several regional hospitals. Study 4 was a multicenter study
conducted by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. All 90 patients enrolled
in Study 4 received a starting dose of 125 mg/m². Study 5 was a multicenter
study that enrolled 166 patients from 30 institutions. The initial dose in
Study 5 was 125 mg/m² but was reduced to 100 mg/m² because the toxicity seen at
the 125-mg/m² dose was perceived to be greater than that seen in previous
studies. All patients in these studies had metastatic colorectal cancer, and the
majority had disease that recurred or progressed following a 5-FU-based regimen
administered for metastatic disease. The results of the individual studies are
shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Weekly Dosage Schedule: Study Results
|
Study |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Number of Patients |
48 |
90 |
64 |
102 |
Starting Dose (mg/m²/week x 4) |
125a |
125 |
125 |
100 |
Demographics and Treatment Administration |
Female/Male (%) |
46/54 |
36/64 |
50/50 |
51/49 |
Median Age in years (range) |
63 (29-78) |
63 (32-81) |
61 (42-84) |
64 (25-84) |
Ethnic Origin (%) |
|
|
|
|
White |
79 |
96 |
81 |
91 |
African American |
12 |
4 |
11 |
5 |
Hispanic |
8 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
Oriental/Asian |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Performance Status (%) |
0 |
60 |
38 |
59 |
44 |
1 |
38 |
48 |
33 |
51 |
2 |
2 |
14 |
8 |
5 |
Primary Tumor (%) |
Colon |
100 |
71 |
89 |
87 |
Rectum |
0 |
29 |
11 |
8 |
Unknown |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
Prior 5-FU Therapy (%) |
For Metastatic Disease |
81 |
66 |
73 |
68 |
≤ 6 months after Adjuvant |
15 |
7 |
27 |
28 |
> 6 months after Adjuvant |
2 |
16 |
0 |
2 |
Classification Unknown |
2 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
Prior Pelvic/Abdominal Irradiation (%) |
Yes |
3 |
29 |
0 |
0 |
Other |
0 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
None |
97 |
62 |
98 |
96 |
Duration of Treatment with CAMPTOSAR (median, months) |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Relative Dose Intensityb(median %) |
74 |
67 |
73 |
81 |
Efficacy |
Confirmed Objective Response Rate (%)c (95% CI) |
21 (9.3 -32.3) |
13 (6.3 -20.4) |
14 (5.5 -22.6) |
9 (3.3 - 14.3) |
Time to Response (median, months) |
2.6 |
1.5 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
Response Duration (median, months) |
6.4 |
5.9 |
5.6 |
6.4 |
Survival (median, months) |
10.4 |
8.1 |
10.7 |
9.3 |
1-Year Survival (%) |
46 |
31 |
45 |
43 |
a Nine patients received 150 mg/m² as a
starting dose; two (22.2%) responded to CAMPTOSAR.
b Relative dose intensity for CAMPTOSAR based on planned dose
intensity of 100, 83.3, and 66.7 mg/m²/wk corresponding with 150, 125, and 100
mg/m² starting doses, respectively.
c Confirmed ≥ 4 to 6 weeks after first evidence of objective
response. |
In the intent-to-treat analysis of the pooled data across
all three studies, 193 of the 304 patients began therapy at the recommended
starting dose of 125 mg/m². Among these 193 patients, 2 complete and 27 partial
responses were observed, for an overall response rate of 15.0% (95% Confidence
Interval [CI], 10.0% to 20.1%) at this starting dose. A considerably lower
response rate was seen with a starting dose of 100 mg/m². The majority of responses
were observed within the first two cycles of therapy, but responses did occur
in later cycles of treatment (one response was observed after the eighth
cycle). The median response duration for patients beginning therapy at 125
mg/m² was 5.8 months (range, 2.6 to 15.1 months). Of the 304 patients treated
in the three studies, response rates to CAMPTOSAR were similar in males and
females and among patients older and younger than 65 years. Rates were also
similar in patients with cancer of the colon or cancer of the rectum and in
patients with single and multiple metastatic sites. The response rate was 18.5%
in patients with a performance status of 0 and 8.2% in patients with a performance
status of 1 or 2. Patients with a performance status of 3 or 4 have not been
studied. Over half of the patients responding to CAMPTOSAR had not responded to
prior 5-FU. Patients who had received previous irradiation to the pelvis
responded to CAMPTOSAR at approximately the same rate as those who had not
previously received irradiation.
Once-Every-3-Week Dosage Schedule
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 nonmeasurable 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: Â Once-Every-3-Week Dosage Schedule: Study
Results
|
Study 7 |
Study 8 |
Irinotecan |
BSCa |
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 %)b |
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) |
a BSC = best supportive care
b Relative dose intensity for irinotecan based on planned dose
intensity of 116.7 and 100 mg/m²/wk corresponding with 350 and 300 mg/m²
starting doses, respectively. |
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
Scorea
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 |
a For the five functional subscales and global
health status subscale, higher scores imply better functioning, whereas, on the
nine symptom subscales, higher scores imply more severe symptoms. The subscale
scores of each patient were collected at each visit until the patient dropped
out of the study. |
REFERENCES
NIOSH Alert: Preventing occupational exposures to
antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings. 2004. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004-165.
OSHA Technical Manual, TED 1-0.15A, Section VI: Chapter
2. Controlling Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Drugs. OSHA, 1999. http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_vi/otm_vi_2.html
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP
guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2006;
63:1172-1193.
Polovich, M., White, J. M., & Kelleher, L.O. (eds.)
2005. Chemotherapy and biotherapy guidelines and recommendations for practice
(2nd. ed.) Pittsburgh, PA: Oncology Nursing Society.