thymine has been researched along with Adenocarcinoma, Basal Cell in 28 studies
Excerpt | Relevance | Reference |
---|---|---|
"A previous phase I/II C-TASK FORCE study of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) showed promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile." | 9.30 | Retrospective cohort study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. ( Bando, H; Horasawa, S; Kaneko, A; Kawazoe, A; Kojima, T; Kotani, D; Kuboki, Y; Nakamura, Y; Shitara, K; Taniguchi, H; Tsuji, A; Yoshino, T, 2019) |
"Purpose Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) was effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase II Japanese trial." | 9.27 | Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) Monotherapy in Asian Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TERRA Study. ( Ahn, JB; Bai, Y; Bi, F; Guo, W; Han, SW; Kim, TW; Li, J; Li, Q; Lin, D; Liu, T; Ma, D; Pan, H; Park, YS; Qin, S; Shen, L; Shi, C; Sriuranpong, V; Wu, C; Xu, J; Xu, R, 2018) |
"To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer(mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma(GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece." | 8.12 | Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece. ( Androulakis, N; Beletsi, A; Boukovinas, I; Chotzagiannoglou, V; Gourzoulidis, G; Karamouzis, M; Koulentaki, M; Koumarianou, A; Kourlaba, G; Papakotoulas, P; Samadas, E; Souglakos, J; Xynogalos, S, 2022) |
"In later-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), trifluridine/tipiracil is often selected because regorafenib is difficult to use in patients with comorbidities such as thrombosis, hemorrhage, or cardiac events." | 8.02 | Clinical Outcomes Following Trifluridine/Tipiracil Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Ineligible for Regorafenib Treatment. ( Denda, T; Esaki, T; Fukuoka, S; Hatachi, Y; Kajiwara, T; Kumekawa, Y; Makiyama, A; Masuishi, T; Moriwaki, T; Niisato, Y; Shimada, Y; Sugimoto, N; Suto, T; Takashima, A; Yamazaki, K, 2021) |
"This study compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TFTD) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are refractory to standard chemotherapy, because despite their clinical approval, it still remains unclear which of these two drugs should be used as initial treatment." | 7.88 | Propensity Score Analysis of Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy (REGOTAS): A Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study. ( Baba, E; Denda, T; Enomoto, M; Esaki, T; Fukuoka, S; Gosho, M; Ishikawa, T; Kajiwara, T; Kashiwada, T; Komatsu, Y; Kumekawa, Y; Makiyama, C; Moriwaki, T; Okuyama, H; Sakai, D; Satake, H; Shimada, Y; Sugimoto, N; Sugiyama, M; Suto, T; Takashima, A; Tamura, T; Taniguchi, H; Watanabe, T; Yamashita, K; Yamazaki, K, 2018) |
"This study assessed the efficacy and safety of biweekly trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (TAS-102) with bevacizumab combination therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)." | 5.41 | Prospective Multicenter Phase II Study of Biweekly TAS-102 and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. ( Enomoto, M; Ishizaki, T; Kasahara, K; Katsumata, K; Kawakita, H; Matsudo, T; Mazaki, J; Nagakawa, Y; Shigoka, M; Tsuchida, A, 2021) |
"A previous phase I/II C-TASK FORCE study of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) showed promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile." | 5.30 | Retrospective cohort study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. ( Bando, H; Horasawa, S; Kaneko, A; Kawazoe, A; Kojima, T; Kotani, D; Kuboki, Y; Nakamura, Y; Shitara, K; Taniguchi, H; Tsuji, A; Yoshino, T, 2019) |
"Purpose Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) was effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase II Japanese trial." | 5.27 | Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) Monotherapy in Asian Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TERRA Study. ( Ahn, JB; Bai, Y; Bi, F; Guo, W; Han, SW; Kim, TW; Li, J; Li, Q; Lin, D; Liu, T; Ma, D; Pan, H; Park, YS; Qin, S; Shen, L; Shi, C; Sriuranpong, V; Wu, C; Xu, J; Xu, R, 2018) |
"In patients with heavily treated metastatic colorectal cancer, TAS-102-a combination of trifluridine and tipiracil-has shown a significant overall survival benefit compared with placebo." | 5.24 | TAS-102 plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard therapies (C-TASK FORCE): an investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 1/2 study. ( Doi, T; Kajiwara, T; Kuboki, Y; Matsumoto, T; Mochizuki, N; Nishina, T; Nomura, S; Ohtsu, A; Okamoto, W; Sato, A; Shinozaki, E; Shitara, K; Tsushima, T; Yamazaki, K; Yoshino, T, 2017) |
"Early clinical trials conducted primarily in Japan have shown that TAS-102, an oral agent that combines trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride, was effective in the treatment of refractory colorectal cancer." | 5.20 | Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. ( Benedetti, F; Boucher, E; Cleary, JM; Falcone, A; Garcia-Carbonero, R; Hochster, H; Ito, M; Komatsu, Y; Lenz, HJ; Makris, L; Mayer, RJ; Mizuguchi, H; Mizunuma, N; Ohtsu, A; Peeters, M; Prenen, H; Shimada, Y; Sobrero, A; Tabernero, J; Tran, B; Van Cutsem, E; Yamazaki, K; Yoshino, T; Zaniboni, A, 2015) |
"To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer(mGC), including gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma(GEJ), who have received at least two prior therapies for metastatic disease and are eligible for third-line treatment, in Greece." | 4.12 | Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece. ( Androulakis, N; Beletsi, A; Boukovinas, I; Chotzagiannoglou, V; Gourzoulidis, G; Karamouzis, M; Koulentaki, M; Koumarianou, A; Kourlaba, G; Papakotoulas, P; Samadas, E; Souglakos, J; Xynogalos, S, 2022) |
"In later-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), trifluridine/tipiracil is often selected because regorafenib is difficult to use in patients with comorbidities such as thrombosis, hemorrhage, or cardiac events." | 4.02 | Clinical Outcomes Following Trifluridine/Tipiracil Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Ineligible for Regorafenib Treatment. ( Denda, T; Esaki, T; Fukuoka, S; Hatachi, Y; Kajiwara, T; Kumekawa, Y; Makiyama, A; Masuishi, T; Moriwaki, T; Niisato, Y; Shimada, Y; Sugimoto, N; Suto, T; Takashima, A; Yamazaki, K, 2021) |
"This study compared the efficacy of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TFTD) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are refractory to standard chemotherapy, because despite their clinical approval, it still remains unclear which of these two drugs should be used as initial treatment." | 3.88 | Propensity Score Analysis of Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy (REGOTAS): A Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study. ( Baba, E; Denda, T; Enomoto, M; Esaki, T; Fukuoka, S; Gosho, M; Ishikawa, T; Kajiwara, T; Kashiwada, T; Komatsu, Y; Kumekawa, Y; Makiyama, C; Moriwaki, T; Okuyama, H; Sakai, D; Satake, H; Shimada, Y; Sugimoto, N; Sugiyama, M; Suto, T; Takashima, A; Tamura, T; Taniguchi, H; Watanabe, T; Yamashita, K; Yamazaki, K, 2018) |
"Ferric nitrilotriacetate (Fe-NTA) induces renal proximal tubular damage associated with lipid peroxidation and oxidative DNA base modifications that finally leads to a high incidence of renal adenocarcinoma in rodents." | 3.69 | Treatment of Wistar rats with a renal carcinogen, ferric nitrilotriacetate, causes DNA-protein cross-linking between thymine and tyrosine in their renal chromatin. ( Dizdaroglu, M; Hiai, H; Mori, T; Toyokuni, S, 1995) |
" Common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutrophil count decreased (27 [82%] in cohort A and 23 [74%] in cohort B), white blood cell count decreased (eight [24%] and seven [23%]), and platelet count decreased (eight [24%] and four [13%])." | 3.01 | Safety and activity of trifluridine/tipiracil and ramucirumab in previously treated advanced gastric cancer: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. ( Amagai, K; Ando, T; Fujita, J; Fujitani, K; Hosaka, H; Kawazoe, A; Koeda, K; Nishikawa, K; Ogata, K; Shitara, K; Watanabe, K; Yamamoto, Y, 2021) |
"Oesophageal cancer is the fifth most frequent cause of cancer death world wide and most of these cancers occur in developing countries." | 2.40 | Molecular precursor lesions in oesophageal cancer. ( Hainaut, P; Montesano, R, 1998) |
" The favorable safety profile of trifluridine/tipiracil renders it a suitable option to be combined with other local therapies for metastatic lesions." | 1.56 | Trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with local therapy may be a favorable option for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A case report. ( Lin, BR; Lin, YL; Liu, KL, 2020) |
"DNA samples were isolated from 60 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients." | 1.36 | Comparison of two different screening methods for the KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer. ( Chang, JG; Chang, TJ; Chang, YS; Er, TK; Yeh, KT, 2010) |
"Established prostate cancer-derived cell lines LnCAP, DU-145, and PC-3 demonstrated NQO1 wild-type genotype." | 1.30 | 609 C --> T polymorphism in NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase gene in patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma or benign prostatic hyperplasia. ( Borkowsi, M; Hillenbrand, M; Schuff-Werner, P; Seiter, H; Steiner, M, 1999) |
Timeframe | Studies, this research(%) | All Research% |
---|---|---|
pre-1990 | 3 (10.71) | 18.7374 |
1990's | 5 (17.86) | 18.2507 |
2000's | 4 (14.29) | 29.6817 |
2010's | 10 (35.71) | 24.3611 |
2020's | 6 (21.43) | 2.80 |
Authors | Studies |
---|---|
Kotani, D | 1 |
Kuboki, Y | 2 |
Horasawa, S | 1 |
Kaneko, A | 1 |
Nakamura, Y | 1 |
Kawazoe, A | 2 |
Bando, H | 1 |
Taniguchi, H | 2 |
Shitara, K | 5 |
Kojima, T | 1 |
Tsuji, A | 1 |
Yoshino, T | 3 |
Tabernero, J | 3 |
Alsina, M | 2 |
Doi, T | 3 |
Dvorkin, M | 2 |
Mansoor, W | 2 |
Arkenau, HT | 2 |
Prokharau, A | 2 |
Ghidini, M | 2 |
Faustino, C | 2 |
Gorbunova, V | 2 |
Zhavrid, E | 2 |
Nishikawa, K | 3 |
Ando, T | 2 |
Yalçın, Ş | 2 |
Van Cutsem, E | 2 |
Sabater, J | 1 |
Skanji, D | 1 |
Leger, C | 1 |
Amellal, N | 1 |
Ilson, DH | 2 |
Lin, YL | 1 |
Liu, KL | 1 |
Lin, BR | 1 |
Hosaka, H | 1 |
Fujita, J | 1 |
Koeda, K | 1 |
Amagai, K | 1 |
Fujitani, K | 2 |
Ogata, K | 1 |
Watanabe, K | 1 |
Yamamoto, Y | 1 |
Ishizaki, T | 1 |
Mazaki, J | 1 |
Enomoto, M | 2 |
Shigoka, M | 1 |
Kasahara, K | 1 |
Matsudo, T | 1 |
Kawakita, H | 1 |
Nagakawa, Y | 1 |
Katsumata, K | 1 |
Tsuchida, A | 1 |
Niisato, Y | 1 |
Moriwaki, T | 2 |
Fukuoka, S | 2 |
Masuishi, T | 1 |
Takashima, A | 2 |
Kumekawa, Y | 2 |
Kajiwara, T | 3 |
Yamazaki, K | 4 |
Esaki, T | 2 |
Makiyama, A | 1 |
Denda, T | 2 |
Hatachi, Y | 1 |
Suto, T | 2 |
Sugimoto, N | 2 |
Shimada, Y | 3 |
Gourzoulidis, G | 1 |
Koulentaki, M | 1 |
Koumarianou, A | 1 |
Samadas, E | 1 |
Androulakis, N | 1 |
Xynogalos, S | 1 |
Papakotoulas, P | 1 |
Boukovinas, I | 1 |
Karamouzis, M | 1 |
Souglakos, J | 1 |
Chotzagiannoglou, V | 1 |
Beletsi, A | 1 |
Kourlaba, G | 1 |
Nishina, T | 1 |
Shinozaki, E | 1 |
Okamoto, W | 1 |
Matsumoto, T | 2 |
Tsushima, T | 1 |
Mochizuki, N | 1 |
Nomura, S | 1 |
Sato, A | 1 |
Ohtsu, A | 2 |
Makiyama, C | 1 |
Satake, H | 1 |
Ishikawa, T | 1 |
Kashiwada, T | 1 |
Sugiyama, M | 1 |
Komatsu, Y | 2 |
Okuyama, H | 1 |
Baba, E | 1 |
Sakai, D | 1 |
Watanabe, T | 1 |
Tamura, T | 2 |
Yamashita, K | 1 |
Gosho, M | 1 |
Xu, J | 1 |
Kim, TW | 1 |
Shen, L | 1 |
Sriuranpong, V | 1 |
Pan, H | 1 |
Xu, R | 1 |
Guo, W | 1 |
Han, SW | 1 |
Liu, T | 1 |
Park, YS | 1 |
Shi, C | 1 |
Bai, Y | 1 |
Bi, F | 1 |
Ahn, JB | 1 |
Qin, S | 1 |
Li, Q | 1 |
Wu, C | 1 |
Ma, D | 1 |
Lin, D | 2 |
Li, J | 1 |
Hosokawa, A | 1 |
Beretta, GD | 1 |
Cutsem, EV | 1 |
Winkler, RE | 1 |
Makris, L | 2 |
Chung, FH | 1 |
Chiang, YR | 1 |
Tseng, AL | 1 |
Sung, YC | 1 |
Lu, J | 1 |
Huang, MC | 1 |
Ma, N | 1 |
Lee, HC | 1 |
Mayer, RJ | 2 |
Falcone, A | 1 |
Garcia-Carbonero, R | 1 |
Mizunuma, N | 1 |
Sobrero, A | 1 |
Boucher, E | 1 |
Peeters, M | 1 |
Tran, B | 1 |
Lenz, HJ | 1 |
Zaniboni, A | 1 |
Hochster, H | 1 |
Cleary, JM | 1 |
Prenen, H | 1 |
Benedetti, F | 2 |
Mizuguchi, H | 2 |
Ito, M | 1 |
Bendell, JC | 1 |
Rosen, LS | 1 |
Goldman, JW | 1 |
Infante, JR | 1 |
Zergebel, C | 1 |
Patel, MR | 1 |
Overman, MJ | 1 |
Kopetz, S | 1 |
Varadhachary, G | 1 |
Fukushima, M | 1 |
Kuwata, K | 1 |
Mita, A | 1 |
Wolff, RA | 1 |
Hoff, P | 1 |
Xiong, H | 1 |
Abbruzzese, JL | 1 |
Yan, L | 1 |
Yanan, D | 1 |
Donglan, S | 1 |
Na, W | 1 |
Rongmiao, Z | 1 |
Zhifeng, C | 1 |
Er, TK | 1 |
Chang, YS | 1 |
Yeh, KT | 1 |
Chang, TJ | 1 |
Chang, JG | 1 |
Saito, T | 1 |
Mitomi, H | 1 |
Izumi, H | 1 |
Suehara, Y | 1 |
Okubo, T | 1 |
Torigoe, T | 1 |
Takagi, T | 1 |
Kaneko, K | 1 |
Sato, K | 1 |
Yao, T | 1 |
Koyama, T | 1 |
Nakamura, T | 1 |
Komoto, C | 1 |
Sakaeda, T | 1 |
Taniguchi, M | 1 |
Okamura, N | 1 |
Aoyama, N | 1 |
Kamigaki, T | 1 |
Kuroda, Y | 1 |
Kasuga, M | 1 |
Kadoyama, K | 1 |
Okumura, K | 1 |
Hong, YS | 1 |
Lee, HJ | 1 |
You, CH | 1 |
Roh, MS | 1 |
Kwak, JY | 1 |
Lee, MJ | 1 |
Kim, JY | 1 |
Toyokuni, S | 1 |
Mori, T | 1 |
Hiai, H | 1 |
Dizdaroglu, M | 1 |
Kobayashi, K | 1 |
Sumi, S | 1 |
Kidouchi, K | 1 |
Mizuno, I | 1 |
Mohri, N | 1 |
Fukui, T | 1 |
Akamo, Y | 1 |
Takeyama, H | 1 |
Manabe, T | 1 |
Steiner, M | 1 |
Hillenbrand, M | 1 |
Borkowsi, M | 1 |
Seiter, H | 1 |
Schuff-Werner, P | 1 |
Majeed, GS | 1 |
Glew, S | 1 |
Bidwell, J | 1 |
Montesano, R | 1 |
Hainaut, P | 1 |
Deng, GR | 1 |
Lu, YY | 1 |
Chen, SM | 1 |
Miao, J | 1 |
Lu, GR | 1 |
Li, H | 1 |
Cai, H | 1 |
Xu, XL | 1 |
E, Z | 1 |
Liu, PN | 1 |
Wolberg, WH | 1 |
Dipple, A | 1 |
Heidelberger, C | 1 |
Trial | Phase | Enrollment | Study Type | Start Date | Status | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TACTIC: a Phase II Study of TAS-102 Monotherapy and Thalidomide Plus TAS-102 as Third-line Therapy and Beyond in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma[NCT05266820] | Phase 2 | 120 participants (Anticipated) | Interventional | 2021-10-01 | Recruiting | ||
Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 Study Evaluating TAS-102 Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Cancer Refractory to Standard Treatments[NCT02500043] | Phase 3 | 507 participants (Actual) | Interventional | 2016-02-24 | Completed | ||
Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of TAS-102 Versus Placebo in Asian Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory or Intolerable to Standard Chemotherapies[NCT01955837] | Phase 3 | 406 participants (Actual) | Interventional | 2013-09-30 | Completed | ||
Phase II Trial of TAS-102 in Patients With Advanced, Refractory Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma[NCT04923529] | Phase 2 | 28 participants (Anticipated) | Interventional | 2021-03-01 | Recruiting | ||
NIVOLUMAB Plus IPILIMUMAB and TEMOZOLOMIDE in Combination in Microsatellite Stable (MSS), MGMT Silenced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): the MAYA Study[NCT03832621] | Phase 2 | 135 participants (Actual) | Interventional | 2019-03-25 | Completed | ||
Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 Study of TAS-102 Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapies[NCT01607957] | Phase 3 | 800 participants (Actual) | Interventional | 2012-06-17 | Completed | ||
[information is prepared from clinicaltrials.gov, extracted Sep-2024] |
DCR was defined as the proportion of participants with a best overall response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). The assessment of DCR was based on Investigator review of radiologic images and following RECIST criteria (version 1.1, 2009). (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: From the date of randomization to the cut-off date (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months), assessed every 8 weeks
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) |
---|---|
TAS-102+BSC | 44.1 |
Placebo+BSC | 14.5 |
"Overall response rate was defined as the percentage of participants with objective evidence of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR).~CR was defined as the disappearance of all target or non-target lesions. Any pathological lymph nodes for target lesions or all lymph nodes for non-target lesions were non-pathological morphologically that was reduced in size in short axis to < 10 mm.~PR was defined as target lesions with at least 30% decrease in the sum of diameters, taking baseline sum diameters as reference." (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: From the date of randomization to the cut-off date (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months), assessed every 8 weeks
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) |
---|---|
TAS-102+BSC | 4.5 |
Placebo+BSC | 2.1 |
OS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death due to any cause. Participants without documented death were censored at last follow-up or cut-off date, whichever comes first. OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: From the date of randomization to the data cut-off date (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102+BSC | 5.7 |
Placebo+BSC | 3.6 |
PFS was defined as the time from randomization until the date of first occurrence of investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever came first. Disease progression as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) for target lesions were defined as target lesions with at least 20 % relative increase in the sum of diameters with reference to the smallest sum on study, including the baseline sum and this sum demonstrated an absolute increase of at least 5 millimeter (mm) or the appearance of one or more new lesions or Unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions. All alive participants with no disease progression as of the analysis cut-off date were censored at the last tumor assessment. PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: From the date of randomization to the cut-off date (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102+BSC | 2.0 |
Placebo+BSC | 1.8 |
The ECOG performance status was used to evaluate participant's disease progression and the effect of the disease on the participant's activities of daily living. It ranges on the scale from 0-5 (0 = normal activity; 1= symptoms but ambulatory; 2= in bed for < 50% of the time; 3= in bed for > 50% of the time; 4= 100% bedridden; 5= dead). Time to definitive deterioration in ECOG performance status score from baseline was defined as a change from 0, 1 to >=2, or from 2 to >=3. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: At the time of randomization (Day 1 Cycle 1) and within 24 hours prior to start of study treatment in every cycle (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102+BSC | 4.3 |
Placebo+BSC | 2.3 |
EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a cancer-specific instrument with 30 questions for evaluation of new chemotherapy and provides an assessment of participant reported outcome dimensions. First 28 questions used 4-point scale (1=not at all,2=a little,3=quite a bit,4=very much) for evaluating 5 functional scales (physical,role,emotional,cognitive,social), 3 symptom scales (fatigue,nausea/vomiting,pain) and other single items. For each item,high score represented high level of symptomatology/problem. Last 2 questions represented participant's assessment of overall health and QoL, coded on 7-point scale (1=very poor to 7=excellent). EORTC QLQ-C30 observed values and change from baseline for global health status (scoring of questions 29 and 30) and 5 functional scales, 3 symptom scales and other single items (scoring of questions 1 to 28). Answers were converted into grading scale, with values between 0 and 100. A high score represented a favorable outcome with a best QoL for participant. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: Baseline, Day 1 Cycle 2 up to end of treatment (EOT) (within 30 days of last study treatment) and 30-Day safety follow-up visit (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | units on a scale (Mean) | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | Cycle 5 | Cycle 6 | Cycle 7 | Cycle 8 | Cycle 9 | Cycle 10 | Cycle 11 | Cycle 12 | Cycle 13 | Last Collection Cycle | Safety Follow-Up | |
TAS-102+BSC | -2.7 | -5.9 | -4.1 | -3.6 | -5.9 | -8.8 | -9.5 | -4.3 | 2.4 | -14.4 | -16.7 | -8.3 | 0.0 | -8.8 | -16.5 |
EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a cancer-specific instrument with 30 questions for evaluation of new chemotherapy and provides an assessment of participant reported outcome dimensions. First 28 questions used 4-point scale (1=not at all,2=a little,3=quite a bit,4=very much) for evaluating 5 functional scales (physical,role,emotional,cognitive,social), 3 symptom scales (fatigue,nausea/vomiting,pain) and other single items. For each item,high score represented high level of symptomatology/problem. Last 2 questions represented participant's assessment of overall health and QoL, coded on 7-point scale (1=very poor to 7=excellent). EORTC QLQ-C30 observed values and change from baseline for global health status (scoring of questions 29 and 30) and 5 functional scales, 3 symptom scales and other single items (scoring of questions 1 to 28). Answers were converted into grading scale, with values between 0 and 100. A high score represented a favorable outcome with a best QoL for participant. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: Baseline, Day 1 Cycle 2 up to end of treatment (EOT) (within 30 days of last study treatment) and 30-Day safety follow-up visit (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | units on a scale (Mean) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | Cycle 5 | Cycle 6 | Cycle 7 | Cycle 8 | Cycle 9 | Cycle 10 | Cycle 11 | Cycle 12 | Cycle 13 | Cycle 14 | Cycle 15 | Last Collection Cycle | Safety Follow-Up | |
Placebo+BSC | -5.9 | -7.3 | -1.4 | -1.7 | 11.1 | 15.6 | 20.0 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | -9.8 | -8.9 |
The Quality of Life Questionnaire Stomach Cancer Module 22 (QLQ-STO22) assessed symptoms and treatment-related side effects commonly reported in participants. There are 22 questions which comprise 5 scales (dysphagia, dietary restrictions, pain QS22, reflux, and anxiety) and 4 single items (dry mouth, hair loss, taste problems, body image). Most questions use 4-point scale (1='Not at all', 2=a little, 3=quite a bit and 4='Very much'). A linear transformation was used to standardize all scores and single-items to a scale of 0 to 100, where higher score=better level of functioning or greater degree of symptoms. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: Baseline, Cycle 1 Day 1 up to end of treatment (EOT) (within 30 days of last study treatment) (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dysphagia | Dietary Restrictions | Pain QS22 | Reflux | Anxiety | Dry Mouth | Body Image | Hair Loss | Taste Problems | |
Placebo+BSC | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 78.2 |
TAS-102+BSC | 86.6 | 86.6 | 86.6 | 86.6 | 86.6 | 86.4 | 85.8 | 86.6 | 86.6 |
Any untoward medical condition that occurs in a participants while participating in a clinical study and does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the use of the study medication was considered an adverse event (AE). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. TEAEs/TESAEs were defined as events that started on or after treatment or started before treatment and worsened after the start of treatment through 30 days after the last dose of study treatment. (NCT02500043)
Timeframe: From the first dose of study treatment until 30 days after the last dose of study treatment (maximum duration: up to approximately 46 months)
Intervention | Participants (Count of Participants) | |
---|---|---|
TEAE | TESAE | |
Placebo+BSC | 151 | 70 |
TAS-102+BSC | 319 | 143 |
The assessment of DCR paralleled that of ORR, with DCR defined as the proportion of patients with objective evidence of CR, PR, or SD. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From randomization until the date of radiologic disease progression, permanent discontinuation of study treatment, or death due to any cause, assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 44.1 |
Placebo | 14.6 |
Duration of response was derived for those patients with objective evidence of PR or CR. Duration of response was defined as the time from the first documentation of response (CR or PR) to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause. Patients alive and progression free as of the analysis cut-off date were censored at their last evaluable tumor response assessment prior to initiation of any non-study cancer treatment. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From randomization until the date of radiologic disease progression, permanent discontinuation of study treatment, or death due to any cause, assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | Months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 6.6 |
Placebo | 0 |
"The assessment of ORR was based on Investigator review of the images according to RECIST Version 1.1. Overall response rate was defined as the proportion of patients with objective evidence of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). At the analysis stage, the best overall response was assigned for each patient as the best response recorded from all responses recorded after study randomization. If applicable, responses recorded after disease progression or initiation of non-study cancer treatment was excluded. A patient's best response assignment of stable disease (SD) needed to be maintained for at least 6 weeks after study randomization. If a patient didn't meet this condition, best response was assigned Not evaluable." (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From randomization until the date of radiologic disease progression, permanent discontinuation of study treatment, or death due to any cause, assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 1.1 |
Placebo | 0.0 |
The primary endpoint was Overall Survival (OS), which was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of death. In the absence of confirmation of death or for patients alive at the OS cutoff date, survival time was censored at the date of last trial follow-up or the cutoff date, whichever was earlier. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Survival status should be collected for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met, whichever is later.
Intervention | Months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 7.8 |
Placebo | 7.1 |
"The primary end point was OS, which was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of death. In the absence of confirmation of death or for patients alive at the OS cutoff date, survival time was censored at the date of last trial follow-up or the cutoff date, whichever was earlier.~The OS indicated above as secondary outcome was analyzed by mutant type KRAS." (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Survival status should be collected for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met, whichever is later.
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 7.0 |
Placebo | 6.5 |
"The primary end point was OS, which was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of death. In the absence of confirmation of death or for patients alive at the OS cutoff date, survival time was censored at the date of last trial follow-up or the cutoff date, whichever was earlier.~The OS indicated above as secondary outcome was analyzed by wild type KRAS." (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Survival status should be collected for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met, whichever is later.
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 8.6 |
Placebo | 7.4 |
Tumor assessments were performed throughout the study period and analyzed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (Version 1.1, 2009). Progression-free survival was defined as the time (in months) from the date of randomization until the date of the Investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause. Patients who received non-study cancer treatment before radiologic evidence of disease progression were censored at the date of the last evaluable tumor assessment before initiation of non-study cancer treatment. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Tumor assessments will be performed until radiologic progression develops or the start of new anticancer treatment, for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met.
Intervention | Months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 2.0 |
Placebo | 1.8 |
Progression-free survival was defined as the time (in months) from the date of randomization until the date of the Investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause. Patients who received non-study cancer treatment before radiologic evidence of disease progression were censored at the date of the last evaluable tumor assessment before initiation of non-study cancer treatment. The PFS indicated above as secondary outcome was analyzed by mutant type KRAS. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Tumor assessments will be performed until radiologic progression develops or the start of new anticancer treatment, for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met.
Intervention | Months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 2.2 |
Placebo | 1.8 |
Progression-free survival was defined as the time (in months) from the date of randomization until the date of the Investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause. Patients who received non-study cancer treatment before radiologic evidence of disease progression were censored at the date of the last evaluable tumor assessment before initiation of non-study cancer treatment. The PFS indicated above as secondary outcome was analyzed by wild type KRAS. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks. Tumor assessments will be performed until radiologic progression develops or the start of new anticancer treatment, for up to 12 months after the last patient is randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) is met.
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 2.0 |
Placebo | 1.8 |
Time to treatment failure was defined as the time (in months) from the date of randomization until the date of radiologic disease progression, permanent discontinuation of study treatment, or death due to any cause. Censoring for TTF was also applied for those patients who were given non-study cancer treatment, with censoring at the time when the patient began the non-study cancer treatment. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From randomization until the date of radiologic disease progression, permanent discontinuation of study treatment, or death due to any cause, assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 1.9 |
Placebo | 1.8 |
An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Treatment-related AEs were events between administration of study drug and up to 30 Days that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. A serious adverse event (SAE) is an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability /incapacity; congenital anomaly. The AEs were graded for severity using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for AEs. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From the time a patient signed informed until 30 day safety follow-up visit or until initiation of new anticancer treatment, or assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | Participants (Count of Participants) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No AEs | One or more AEs | One or more TEAEs | TEAE severity by CTCAE grade:Grade1 | TEAE severity by CTCAE grade:Grade2 | TEAE severity by CTCAE grade:Grade3 | TEAE severity by CTCAE grade:Grade4 | TEAE severity by CTCAE grade:Grade5 | TEAE causality(Related) | TEAE causality(Not Related) | One or more TEAEs leading to discontinuation | One or more SAEs | One or more TESAEs | One or more TEAEs leading to death | |
Placebo | 15 | 120 | 118 | 32 | 41 | 33 | 11 | 1 | 70 | 48 | 13 | 32 | 31 | 1 |
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 2 | 269 | 269 | 23 | 84 | 127 | 30 | 5 | 244 | 25 | 27 | 63 | 63 | 5 |
All laboratory values that were out of the normal range were to be evaluated for their clinical significance before exposing the patient to the next dose of study medication. Any laboratory abnormality that was clinically significant, e.g., results in delay of study medication dosing, study discontinuation, required treatment due to abnormal values, or was considered by the Investigator to be medical important, were to be reported as an AE, unless it was considered part of clinical manifestations to a clinical diagnosis that has already been reported as an AE. (NCT01955837)
Timeframe: From the time a patient signed informed until 30 day safety follow-up visit or until initiation of new anticancer treatment, or assessed up to 30 months.
Intervention | Participants (Count of Participants) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anemia:Any Grade | Anemia:Grade >=3 | Leukopenia:Any Grade | Leukopenia:Grade >=3 | Neutropenia:Any Grade | Neutropenia:Grade >=3 | Lymphopenia:Any Grade | Lymphopenia:Grade >=3 | Thrombocytopenia:Any Grade | Thrombocytopenia:Grade >=3 | Lymphocytosis:Any Grade | Lymphocytosis:Grade >=3 | Increase in alkaline phosphatase level:Any Grade | Increase in alkaline phosphatase level:Grade >=3 | Hyperglycemia:Any Grade | Hyperglycemia:Grade >=3 | Increase in total bilirubin level:Any Grade | Increase in total bilirubin level:Grade >=3 | Hypoalbuminemia:Any Grade | Hypoalbuminemia:Grade >=3 | Hyponatremia:Any Grade | Hyponatremia:Grade >=3 | Hypocalcemia:Any Grade | Hypocalcemia:Grade >=3 | Increase in AST level:Any Grade | Increase in AST level:Grade >=3 | Increase in ALT level:Any Grade | Increase in ALT level:Grade >=3 | Hypokalemia:Any Grade | Hypokalemia:Grade >=3 | Increase in creatinine level:Any Grade | Increase in creatinine level:Grade >=3 | Hyperkalemia:Any Grade | Hyperkalemia:Grade >=3 | Hypercalcemia:Any Grade | Hypercalcemia:Grade >=3 | |
Placebo | 52 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 34 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 58 | 5 | 50 | 3 | 28 | 10 | 44 | 0 | 38 | 6 | 33 | 1 | 40 | 7 | 29 | 4 | 11 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
TAS-102(Trifluridine/Tipiracil) | 209 | 48 | 190 | 56 | 182 | 90 | 146 | 39 | 96 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 91 | 11 | 98 | 7 | 99 | 19 | 78 | 8 | 81 | 12 | 77 | 3 | 63 | 10 | 48 | 3 | 31 | 2 | 13 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 0 |
Overall survival was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of death for participants. If a participant discontinued study medication for reasons other than radiologic disease progression, the participant was followed for tumor response until radiologic disease progression or initiation of new anticancer therapy. (NCT01607957)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks, up to 12 months after the last participant was randomized or until the target number of events (deaths) was met, whichever was later. (Overall survival data was collected till 24 Jan 2014 which was date of observation of the 571st death)
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102 | 7.1 |
Placebo | 5.3 |
Tumor assessments were performed throughout the study based on RECIST, Version 1.1, 2009. Progression free survival was defined as the time (in months) from the date of randomization until the date of the investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause. For participants who were alive with no radiological disease progression as of the analysis cut-off date, their survival was censored at the date of the last tumor assessment. Participants who received non-study cancer treatment before disease progression, or participants with clinical but not radiologic evidence of progression, were censored at the date of the last radiologic evaluable tumor assessment before the non-study cancer treatment was initiated. (NCT01607957)
Timeframe: Every 8 weeks, up to 12 months after the last participant was randomized or until the date of the investigator-assessed radiological disease progression or death due to any cause,whichever was later. (Progression free survival cutoff: 31 Jan 2014)
Intervention | months (Median) |
---|---|
TAS-102 | 2.0 |
Placebo | 1.7 |
An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. Treatment-related AEs were events between administration of study drug and up to 30 Days that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. A serious adverse event (SAE) is an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability /incapacity; congenital anomaly. The AEs were graded for severity using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for AEs. (NCT01607957)
Timeframe: From the time of signing the informed consent form until the period of participant follow up (30 days following after the administration of last dose of study medication or until initiation of new antitumor therapy, whichever was earlier
Intervention | percentage of participants (Number) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Any adverse event (AE) | Any treatment-related AE | Any ≥Grade 3 AE | Any treatment-related ≥Grade 3 AE | Any serious AE (SAE) | Any AE resulting in discontinuation | Any AE with outcome of death | |
Placebo | 93.2 | 54.7 | 51.7 | 9.8 | 33.6 | 13.6 | 11.3 |
TAS-102 | 98.3 | 85.7 | 69.4 | 49.0 | 29.6 | 10.3 | 3.2 |
1 review available for thymine and Adenocarcinoma, Basal Cell
Article | Year |
---|---|
Molecular precursor lesions in oesophageal cancer.
Topics: Adenine; Adenocarcinoma; Base Pairing; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Clone Cells; Disease Progression; E | 1998 |
10 trials available for thymine and Adenocarcinoma, Basal Cell
Article | Year |
---|---|
Retrospective cohort study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Beva | 2019 |
Health-related quality of life associated with trifluridine/tipiracil in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer: results from TAGS.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Pro | 2020 |
Safety and activity of trifluridine/tipiracil and ramucirumab in previously treated advanced gastric cancer: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Administration, Intravenous; Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic | 2021 |
Prospective Multicenter Phase II Study of Biweekly TAS-102 and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Chemothera | 2021 |
TAS-102 plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard therapies (C-TASK FORCE): an investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 1/2 study.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Fre | 2017 |
Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) Monotherapy in Asian Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TERRA Study.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Asia; C | 2018 |
Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinat | 2018 |
Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinat | 2018 |
Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinat | 2018 |
Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinat | 2018 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Comb | 2015 |
Phase 1 study of oral TAS-102 in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antimetabolites, Antineoplasti | 2015 |
Phase I clinical study of three times a day oral administration of TAS-102 in patients with solid tumors.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Colorectal Neopl | 2008 |
17 other studies available for thymine and Adenocarcinoma, Basal Cell
Article | Year |
---|---|
Trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with local therapy may be a favorable option for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A case report.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Drug Combinations; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Neoplasm Staging; Peritoneal | 2020 |
Clinical Outcomes Following Trifluridine/Tipiracil Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Ineligible for Regorafenib Treatment.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Colorectal Neoplasms; Comorbidity; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; J | 2021 |
Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil as a third-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastrohesophageal junction, among patients previously treated in Greece.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Greece; Humans; Pyrrolidines; Quality-A | 2022 |
Propensity Score Analysis of Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Chemotherapy (REGOTAS): A Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Multicenter Observational Study.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone | 2018 |
Functional Module Connectivity Map (FMCM): a framework for searching repurposed drug compounds for systems treatment of cancer and an application to colorectal adenocarcinoma.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Algorithms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Drug Repositioning; Epistasis, Genetic; Ethacrynic | 2014 |
Polymorphisms of XRCC1 gene and risk of gastric cardiac adenocarcinoma.
Topics: Adenine; Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Arginine; Cardia; Case-Control Studies; Codon; Cytosine; DNA R | 2009 |
Comparison of two different screening methods for the KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Base Sequence; Cell Line, Tumor; Codon; Colorectal Neoplasms; DNA Mutational Analysi | 2010 |
A case of secondary malignant giant-cell tumor of bone with p53 mutation after long-term follow-up.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Arthrography; Base Sequence; Cell Transformation, Neoplastic; Cysteine; Femur; Fibro | 2011 |
MDR1 T-129C polymorphism can be predictive of differentiation, and thereby prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinomas in Japanese.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Cell Differentiation; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cytosine; DNA Primers; Gene Expression R | 2006 |
DNMT3b 39179GT polymorphism and the risk of adenocarcinoma of the colon in Koreans.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Asian People; Base Sequence; Case-Control Studies; Colonic Neoplasms; DNA (Cytosine- | 2007 |
Treatment of Wistar rats with a renal carcinogen, ferric nitrilotriacetate, causes DNA-protein cross-linking between thymine and tyrosine in their renal chromatin.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Carcinogens; Chromatin; Cross-Linking Reagents; DNA Damage; DNA, Neoplasm; | 1995 |
[A case of gastric cancer with decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity].
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP); Female; F | 1998 |
609 C --> T polymorphism in NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase gene in patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma or benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Alleles; Cytosine; Female; Genes, Neoplasm; Genotype; Humans; Male; NAD(P)H Dehydrog | 1999 |
An association between LSIL and the high secretor phenotype of IL-1beta.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma in Situ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Cytosine; Female; Humans; Interleukin-1 | 1999 |
Activated c-Ha-ras oncogene with a guanine to thymine transversion at the twelfth codon in a human stomach cancer cell line.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Amino Acid Sequence; Animals; Base Sequence; Cell Line; Cloning, Molecular; Codon; D | 1987 |
Biochemical approaches to prediction of response in solid tumors.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Antineoplastic Agents; Carbon Isotopes; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Carcinoma, Squamo | 1971 |
Fluorinated pyrimidines. 28. The synthesis of 5-trifluoromethyl-6-azauracil and 5-trifluoromethyl-6-aza-2'-deoxyuridine.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Chemistry, Organic; Culture Techniques; Escherichia coli; Female; HeLa Cell | 1966 |