A comparison of 2 modes of administration of recombinant interleukin-2: continuous intravenous infusion alone versus subcutaneous administration plus interferon alpha in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
P A Palmer, J Atzpodien, T Philip, S Negrier, H Kirchner, H Von der Maase, P Geertsen, P Evers, E Loriaux, R Oskam
{"title":"A comparison of 2 modes of administration of recombinant interleukin-2: continuous intravenous infusion alone versus subcutaneous administration plus interferon alpha in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.","authors":"P A Palmer, J Atzpodien, T Philip, S Negrier, H Kirchner, H Von der Maase, P Geertsen, P Evers, E Loriaux, R Oskam","doi":"10.1089/cbr.1993.8.123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare 2 treatment modalities with recombinant Interleukin-2 (rIL-2) for patients with advanced Renal Cell carcinoma (RCC): continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) alone versus subcutaneous (s/c) rIL-2 + Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data have been collected on 425 patients with RCC, treated CIV rIL-2 alone, (225 patients), or rIL-2 by the s/c route (200 patients). Patients receiving s/c rIL-2 also received s/c IFN-alpha both drugs being administered on an outpatient basis. Patients receiving CIV rIL-2 were treated as inpatients. Patient eligibility criteria were similar on all studies, and included patients with progressive, advanced disease, but with an ambulatory performance status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall response rate for the CIV schedules was not significantly different from the s/c regimens: 15% (95% confidence limits (CL) 10-20%) vs 20% (95%CL 14-26%) with 4% CR in both approaches. Durable responses were seen in both CIV and s/c schedules and there was no evidence of a significant difference in survival in multivariate analysis. There was however an important shift in the toxicity profile. The s/c regimens do not induce a clinically detectable capillary leak syndrome, which is the dose limiting toxicity for CIV regimens.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the introduction of CIV regimens of rIL-2 was a major step forward compared to high-dose bolus, because most patients could be treated in a normal oncology ward, the s/c schedule of rIL-2 + IFN-alpha offers the possibility of outpatient (home) therapy, with no evidence of a reduction in efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":79322,"journal":{"name":"Cancer biotherapy","volume":"8 2","pages":"123-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/cbr.1993.8.123","citationCount":"56","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer biotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.1993.8.123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56
Abstract
Purpose: To compare 2 treatment modalities with recombinant Interleukin-2 (rIL-2) for patients with advanced Renal Cell carcinoma (RCC): continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) alone versus subcutaneous (s/c) rIL-2 + Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha).
Patients and methods: Data have been collected on 425 patients with RCC, treated CIV rIL-2 alone, (225 patients), or rIL-2 by the s/c route (200 patients). Patients receiving s/c rIL-2 also received s/c IFN-alpha both drugs being administered on an outpatient basis. Patients receiving CIV rIL-2 were treated as inpatients. Patient eligibility criteria were similar on all studies, and included patients with progressive, advanced disease, but with an ambulatory performance status.
Results: The overall response rate for the CIV schedules was not significantly different from the s/c regimens: 15% (95% confidence limits (CL) 10-20%) vs 20% (95%CL 14-26%) with 4% CR in both approaches. Durable responses were seen in both CIV and s/c schedules and there was no evidence of a significant difference in survival in multivariate analysis. There was however an important shift in the toxicity profile. The s/c regimens do not induce a clinically detectable capillary leak syndrome, which is the dose limiting toxicity for CIV regimens.
Conclusion: Although the introduction of CIV regimens of rIL-2 was a major step forward compared to high-dose bolus, because most patients could be treated in a normal oncology ward, the s/c schedule of rIL-2 + IFN-alpha offers the possibility of outpatient (home) therapy, with no evidence of a reduction in efficacy.