Time filter

Source Type

Fedyanin M.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Tryakin A.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Vybarava A.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Chekini D.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | And 5 more authors.
Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) | Year: 2015

A role of maintenance chemotherapy (mCT) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of mCT in pts with mCRC. There were 97/291 (33 %) pts with mCRC completed 18-20 weeks of first-line CT from 2007 to 2013 in our center. Then, pts who had no disease progression were non-randomly allocated to mCT with capecitabine ± bevacizumab (n = 35) or surveillance (n = 62). PFS was used as a primary endpoint and was calculated from the date of completion of first-line CT. Multivariate Cox stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine independent prognostic factors. Median follow-up time was 15 (range 5-60) months. Median PFS and OS were higher in pts with mCT: 7 versus 3 months (HR 0.5, 95 %CI 0.28-0.82, p = 0.007) and 29 vs 16 months (HR 0.6, 95 %CI 0.3-1.1, 0.04-Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test). Following independent negative prognostic factors was significant on multivariate analysis: CEA level >2.5 ng/ml before start of first-line CT (p = 0.02), liver metastases (p = 0.03) and number of metastatic zones >2 (p = 0.008). MCT had an independent positive impact on PFS (HR 0.5, p = 0.003). MCT prolonged PFS in pts with at least one negative prognostic factors (7 vs. 3 months, p = 0.001, HR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.22-0.68). The mCT was most beneficial in pts with negative prognostic factors: CEA level >2.5 ng/ml before start of first-line CT and/or liver metastases and/or number of metastatic zones >2.


Fedyanin M.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Tryakin A.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Vybarava A.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Chekini D.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | And 5 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2015

A role of maintenance chemotherapy (mCT) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of mCT in pts with mCRC. There were 97/291 (33 %) pts with mCRC completed 18–20 weeks of first-line CT from 2007 to 2013 in our center. Then, pts who had no disease progression were non-randomly allocated to mCT with capecitabine ± bevacizumab (n = 35) or surveillance (n = 62). PFS was used as a primary endpoint and was calculated from the date of completion of first-line CT. Multivariate Cox stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine independent prognostic factors. Median follow-up time was 15 (range 5–60) months. Median PFS and OS were higher in pts with mCT: 7 versus 3 months (HR 0.5, 95 %CI 0.28-0.82, p = 0.007) and 29 vs 16 months (HR 0.6, 95 %CI 0.3–1.1, 0.04—Gehan–Breslow–Wilcoxon test). Following independent negative prognostic factors was significant on multivariate analysis: CEA level >2.5 ng/ml before start of first-line CT (p = 0.02), liver metastases (p = 0.03) and number of metastatic zones >2 (p = 0.008). MCT had an independent positive impact on PFS (HR 0.5, p = 0.003). MCT prolonged PFS in pts with at least one negative prognostic factors (7 vs. 3 months, p = 0.001, HR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.22–0.68). The mCT was most beneficial in pts with negative prognostic factors: CEA level >2.5 ng/ml before start of first-line CT and/or liver metastases and/or number of metastatic zones >2. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.


Fedyanin M.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Polyanskaya E.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin | Tjulandin S.,Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin
Memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology | Year: 2016

It is known that tumor cells have the ability to penetrate into the bloodstream. The identification of such circulating tumor cells (CTC) determines the prognosis in several tumors, including colon cancer. Tumor DNA (ctDNA), which is only a part of the total circulating DNA obtained from the blood of cancer patients, is also further separated from plasma. This separation of the neoplastic derivatives of the primary tumor and metastases (CTC, ctDNA, RNA, proteome) in plasma is called “liquid biopsy.” CTC increasingly represents the pool of tumor cells that can initiate the growth of metastatic lesions, while the ctDNA provides the information about the whole tumor mass. Traditional tissue biopsy gives information based only on one small section of the primary tumor or metastasis, often retrieved before the start of treatment; however, liquid biopsy provides real-time information about the molecular disorders for the whole tumor mass and allows us to estimate the dynamics of the evolutionary tumor changes, the heterogeneity of the disease, and the effect of chemotherapy. With the possibility of obtaining multiple blood samples for analysis during the therapy, in contrast to traditional biopsy, it also allows us to evaluate the mechanisms of resistance to treatment, which in the future will perhaps lead to modification of the treatment in accordance with the detected molecular defects in tumors. Thus, this would facilitate implementing the principles of personalized therapy. In this literature review, we concentrate on liquid biopsy in patients with colon cancer. © 2016, Springer-Verlag Wien.


PubMed | Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) | Year: 2014

A role of maintenance chemotherapy (mCT) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of mCT in pts with mCRC. There were 97/291 (33%) pts with mCRC completed 18-20weeks of first-line CT from 2007 to 2013 in our center. Then, pts who had no disease progression were non-randomly allocated to mCT with capecitabinebevacizumab (n=35) or surveillance (n=62). PFS was used as a primary endpoint and was calculated from the date of completion of first-line CT. Multivariate Cox stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine independent prognostic factors. Median follow-up time was 15 (range 5-60) months. Median PFS and OS were higher in pts with mCT: 7 versus 3months (HR 0.5, 95%CI 0.28-0.82, p=0.007) and 29 vs 16months (HR 0.6, 95%CI 0.3-1.1, 0.04-Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test). Following independent negative prognostic factors was significant on multivariate analysis: CEA level >2.5ng/ml before start of first-line CT (p=0.02), liver metastases (p=0.03) and number of metastatic zones >2 (p=0.008). MCT had an independent positive impact on PFS (HR 0.5, p=0.003). MCT prolonged PFS in pts with at least one negative prognostic factors (7 vs. 3months, p=0.001, HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.68). The mCT was most beneficial in pts with negative prognostic factors: CEA level >2.5ng/ml before start of first-line CT and/or liver metastases and/or number of metastatic zones >2.

Loading Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin collaborators
Loading Russian Cancer Research Center Named After Nn Blokhin collaborators