Back to Authors

Morris, Jeffrey S.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8520-6088

Mayo Clinic

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Citations 2

An international randomised trial of celecoxib versus celecoxib plus difluoromethylornithine in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis
Lynch, Patrick M, Burke, Carol A. , Phillips, Robin, Morris, Jeffrey S. , Slack, Rebecca, Wang, Xuemei , Liu, Jun , Patterson, Sherri, Rodrı́guez-Bigas, Miguel A. , Half, Elizabeth , Bülow, Steffen, Latchford, Andrew , Clark, Sue, Ross, William A., Malone, Bonnie, Hasson, Hennie, Hawk, Ernest T. , Lynch, Patrick M, Sinicrope, Frank A. , Richmond, Ellen S. , Burke, Carol A

Gut | March 20, 2015 | Volume: 65 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 286-295

10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307235 Get It

Background and aim Although Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce colorectal adenoma burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), the utility of combining chemopreventive agents in FAP is not known. We conducted a randomised trial of celecoxib (CXB) versus CXB+diflouromethylornithine (DFMO) to determine the synergistic effect, if any. Methods The primary endpoint was % change in adenoma count in a defined field. Secondary endpoints were adenoma burden (weighted by adenoma diameter) and video review of entire colon/rectal segments. Adverse event (AEs) were monitored by National Cancer Institution toxicity criteria. Results 112 subjects were randomised: 60 men and 52 women at a mean age of 38 years. For the 89 patients who had landmark-matched polyp counts available at baseline and 6 months, the mean % change in adenoma count over the 6 months of trial was −13.0% for CXB+DFMO and −1.0% for CXB (p=0.69). Mean % change in adenoma burden was −40% (CXB+DFMO) vs −27% (CXB) (p=0.13). Video-based global polyp change was −0.80 for CXB+DFMO vs −0.33 for CXB (p=0.03). Fatigue was the only significant AE, worse on the CXB arm (p=0.02). Conclusions CXB combined with DFMO yielded moderate synergy according to a video-based global assessment. No significant difference in adenoma count, the primary endpoint, was seen between the two study arms. No evidence of DFMO-related ototoxicity was seen. There were no adverse cardiovascular outcomes in either trial arm and no significant increase in AEs in the CXB+DFMO arm of the trial. Differences in outcomes between primary and secondary endpoints may relate to sensitivity of the endpoint measures themselves. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov number N01-CN95040.
Multi-Institutional Trial of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Potentially Resectable Gastric Carcinoma
Mansfield, Paul F. , Janjan, Nora A., Morris, Jeffrey S. , Pisters, Peter W. T., Lynch, Patrick M. , Feig, Barry W. , Myerson, Robert J., Nivers, R., Cohen, Deborah S., Gunderson, Leonard L., Ajani, Jaffer A.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | July 14, 2004 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 14 | Pages: 2774-2780

10.1200/jco.2004.01.015 Get It

Purpose In the West, curative (R0) resection is achieved in approximately 50% of patients with localized gastric carcinoma, and more than 60% die of cancer following an R0 resection. A multi-institutional study of preoperative chemoradiotherapy was done to assess the R0 resection rate, pathologic complete response (pathCR) rate, safety, and survival in patients with resectable gastric carcinoma. Patients and Methods Operable patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma were eligible. Staging also included a laparoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Patients received up to two 28-day cycles of induction chemotherapy of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin, followed by 45 Gy of radiation plus concurrent fluorouracil. Patients were then staged and surgery was attempted. Results Thirty-four patients were registered at three institutions. One ineligible patient was excluded. Most patients had a promixal cancer and EUST3N1 designation. Twenty-eight (85%) of 33 patients underwent surgery. The R0 resection rate was 70% and pathCR rate was 30%. A pathologic partial response (< 10% residual carcinoma in the primary) occurred in eight patients (24%). EUS T plus N and postsurgery T plus N correlation showed significant downstaging (P = < .01). The median survival time for 33 patients was 33.7 months. Patients achieving a pathCR or pathPR had a significantly longer median survival time (63.9 months) than those achieving less than pathPR (12.6 months; P = .03). There were two treatment-related deaths. Conclusion Our data suggest that the three-step strategy of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy resulted in substantial pathologic response that resulted in durable survival time. This strategy is worthy of a direct comparison with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.