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,&nbsp;J Atzpodien,&nbsp;T Philip,&nbsp;S Negrier,&nbsp;H Kirchner,&nbsp;H Von der Maase,&nbsp;P Geertsen,&nbsp;P Evers,&nbsp;E Loriaux,&nbsp;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.

重组白细胞介素-2连续静脉输注与皮下注射加α干扰素治疗晚期肾癌的比较
目的:比较重组白细胞介素-2 (il -2)治疗晚期肾癌(RCC)的两种治疗方式:单独持续静脉输注(CIV)与皮下(s/c) il -2 +干扰素- α (ifn - α)。患者和方法:收集了425例RCC患者的数据,225例患者单独接受CIV rIL-2治疗,或200例患者通过s/c途径接受rIL-2治疗。接受s/c rIL-2治疗的患者也接受s/c ifn - α治疗,两种药物均在门诊进行。接受CIV rIL-2治疗的患者作为住院患者治疗。所有研究的患者资格标准相似,包括进行性、晚期疾病但具有动态表现状态的患者。结果:CIV方案的总缓解率与s/c方案没有显著差异:两种方法的总缓解率均为4%,分别为15%(95%置信限(CL) 10-20%)和20%(95%置信限(CL) 14-26%)。在CIV和s/c方案中均可观察到持久的反应,并且在多变量分析中没有证据表明生存率有显著差异。然而,在毒性方面有一个重要的转变。s/c方案不会引起临床可检测的毛细血管渗漏综合征,这是CIV方案的剂量限制性毒性。结论:虽然引入rIL-2的CIV方案是向前迈出的重要一步,因为大多数患者可以在正常的肿瘤病房治疗,il -2 + ifn - α的s/c方案提供了门诊(家庭)治疗的可能性,没有证据表明疗效降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信