MedPath

Irinotecan With or Without Panitumumab or Cyclosporine in Treating Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer That Did Not Respond to Fluorouracil

Phase 3
Completed
Conditions
Colorectal Cancer
Registration Number
NCT00389870
Lead Sponsor
University of Leeds
Brief Summary

RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as irinotecan, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. Cyclosporine may help irinotecan work better by making tumor cells more sensitive to the drug. Monoclonal antibodies, such as panitumumab, can block tumor growth in different ways. Some block the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Others find tumor cells and help kill them or carry tumor-killing substances to them. Panitumumab may also stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. It is not yet known whether irinotecan is more effective when given with or without panitumumab or cyclosporine in treating colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial is studying irinotecan to compare how well it works when given with or without panitumumab or cyclosporine in treating patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer that did not respond to fluorouracil.

Detailed Description

OBJECTIVES:

Primary

* Compare the efficacy and toxicity of single-agent irinotecan hydrochloride (Ir) vs Ir with cyclosporine (IrC) in patients with fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer.

* Compare the efficacy of single-agent Ir vs Ir with panitumumab (IrP) in these patients.

Secondary

* Correlate the toxicity of Ir and/or IrC with genetic variability in the enzymes involved in irinotecan hydrochloride's disposition pathway.

* Compare IrC to Ir and its metabolites (SN38; SN38G), in terms of pharmacokinetic profile.

* Correlate the benefit of IrP with tumor expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or its known down-stream molecules as a predictive measure.

* Correlate IrP efficacy or toxicity (specifically the severity of skin rash) with somatic alterations in the EGFR gene and/or with germline variability in related genes.

OUTLINE: This is a randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter study. Patients are stratified according to prior cetuximab (yes vs no). Patients are randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms.

* Arm I: Patients receive irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 30-90 minutes on day 1.

* Arm II: Patients receive irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 15-40 minutes on day 1 and oral cyclosporine three times a day on days 1-3.

* Arm III: Patients receive panitumumab IV over 30-90 minutes followed by irinotecan hydrochloride IV over 30-90 minutes on day 1. Single-agent panitumumab may be continued during breaks in chemotherapy treatment.

In all arms, treatment repeats every 3 weeks for 4 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients with responding or stable disease may continue treatment in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Quality of life is assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks.

After completion of study treatment, patients are followed every 12 weeks for 1 year.

Peer Reviewed and Funded or Endorsed by Cancer Research UK

PROJECTED ACCRUAL: A total of 1,269 patients will be accrued for this study.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
1198
Inclusion Criteria

Not provided

Exclusion Criteria

Not provided

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
Not specified
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Proportion of patients treated with irinotecan hydrochloride (Ir) alone vs Ir and cyclosporine (IrC) who are progression-free at 12 weeks
Overall survival of patients treated with Ir vs Ir and panitumumab (IrP) and no prior cetuximab
Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Progression-free survival in patients treated with Ir vs IrP and prior cetuximab
Proportion of patients free from treatment failure at 12 weeks in patients treated with Ir vs IrC
Overall survival in patients treated with Ir vs IrC
Nurse-assessed toxicity (all-cause mortality, diarrhea ≥ grade 3 at 12 weeks) in patients treated with Ir vs IrC
Progression-free at 12 weeks in patients treated with Ir vs IrP and no prior cetuximab
Nurse assessed toxicity (all-cause mortality) in patients treated with Ir vs IrP and no prior cetuximab
Best response at 1 year in patients treated with Ir vs IrP and prior cetuximab
Patient-assessed symptom/quality of life/acceptability scores at 12 and 24 weeks in patients treated with Ir vs IrP and prior cetuximab

Trial Locations

Locations (33)

James Cook University Hospital

🇬🇧

Middlesbrough, England, United Kingdom

Royal Marsden - Surrey

🇬🇧

Sutton, England, United Kingdom

Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

🇬🇧

Merseyside, England, United Kingdom

Gloucestershire Oncology Centre at Cheltenham General Hospital

🇬🇧

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Cookridge Hospital

🇬🇧

Leeds, England, United Kingdom

Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Woolwich

🇬🇧

London, England, United Kingdom

Dorset Cancer Centre

🇬🇧

Poole Dorset, England, United Kingdom

St. Mary's Hospital

🇬🇧

London, England, United Kingdom

South Tyneside District Hospital

🇬🇧

South Shields, England, United Kingdom

Yeovil District Hospital

🇬🇧

Yeovil, England, United Kingdom

Cancer Research Centre at Weston Park Hospital

🇬🇧

Sheffield, England, United Kingdom

Edinburgh Cancer Centre at Western General Hospital

🇬🇧

Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom

Mount Vernon Cancer Centre at Mount Vernon Hospital

🇬🇧

Northwood, England, United Kingdom

Portsmouth Oncology Centre at Saint Mary's Hospital

🇬🇧

Portsmouth Hants, England, United Kingdom

South West Wales Cancer Institute

🇬🇧

Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom

Glan Clwyd Hospital

🇬🇧

Rhyl, Denbighshire, Wales, United Kingdom

Royal Bournemouth Hospital

🇬🇧

Bournemouth, England, United Kingdom

Addenbrooke's Hospital

🇬🇧

Cambridge, England, United Kingdom

Sussex Cancer Centre at Royal Sussex County Hospital

🇬🇧

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Eastbourne District General Hospital

🇬🇧

Eastbourne, England, United Kingdom

St. Luke's Cancer Centre at Royal Surrey County Hospital

🇬🇧

Guildford, England, United Kingdom

Huddersfield Royal Infirmary

🇬🇧

Huddersfield, West Yorks, England, United Kingdom

Hinchingbrooke Hospital

🇬🇧

Huntingdon, England, United Kingdom

Airedale General Hospital

🇬🇧

Keighley, England, United Kingdom

UCL Cancer Institute

🇬🇧

London, England, United Kingdom

Peterborough Hospitals Trust

🇬🇧

Peterborough, England, United Kingdom

Great Western Hospital

🇬🇧

Swindon, England, United Kingdom

Worthing Hospital

🇬🇧

Worthing, England, United Kingdom

Velindre Cancer Center at Velindre Hospital

🇬🇧

Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

Ysbyty Gwynedd

🇬🇧

Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom

Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre

🇬🇧

Bristol, England, United Kingdom

Mid Kent Oncology Centre at Maidstone Hospital

🇬🇧

Maidstone, England, United Kingdom

Royal Liverpool University Hospital

🇬🇧

Liverpool, England, United Kingdom

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath