scholarly journals Single-agent capecitabine as maintenance therapy after induction of XELOX (or FOLFOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1074-1081 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.Y. Luo ◽  
Y.H. Li ◽  
W. Wang ◽  
Z.Q. Wang ◽  
X. Yuan ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14552-e14552
Author(s):  
Naomi Hayashi ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Toyohisa Yaguchi ◽  
...  

e14552 Background: XELOX plus bevacizumab (BEV) is an established first line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin often requires therapy to be discontinued while the patient is still responding. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of XELOX plus BEV with oxaliplatin stop and go strategy. Methods: Fifty four patients with unresectable mCRC were enrolled as first line treatment. They were treated with four cycles of XELOX plus BEV, followed by maintenance therapy with capecitabine (Cape) plus BEV. Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was scheduled after eight cycles of Cape plus BEV or upon tumor progression. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results: Forty nine patients (90%) achieved to the maintenance therapy and thirty two patients (59%) were reintroduced oxaliplatin. After a median follow-up time of 24.2 months, median PFS was 13.4 months (95%CI: 11.7-15.1), median duration of disease control was 13.8 months (95%CI: 11.6-16.0) and median overall survival was 29.0 months (95%CI: 23.1-34.9). The response rate and disease control rate were 57.4% and 96.3% in the initial XELOX plus BEV therapy, 6.1% and 73.5% in Cape plus BEV maintenance therapy, and 0% and 72.4% in reintroduced XELOX plus BEV therapy. The incidence of neuropathy was 38% in initial therapy, 33% in maintenance therapy and 43% in reintroduced therapy. Conclusions: XELOX plus bevacizumab therapy with oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy was feasible to maintain long disease control without increasing severe neurotoxicity in first-line treatment for mCRC. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006478.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 564-564
Author(s):  
Takuya Watanabe ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Naomi Hayashi ◽  
Toyohisa Yaguchi ◽  
...  

564 Background: XELOX plus bevacizumab (BEV) is an established first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin often requires therapy to be discontinued while the patient is still responding. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of XELOX plus BEV with oxaliplatin stop and go strategy. Methods: Fifty four patients with unresectable mCRC were enrolled as first-line treatment. They were treated with four cycles of XELOX plus BEV, followed by maintenance therapy with capecitabine (Cape) plus BEV. Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was scheduled after eight cycles of Cape plus BEV or upon tumor progression. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results: Forty nine patients (90%) achieved to the maintenance therapy and thirty one patients (59%) were reintroducted oxaliplatin. The response rates and disease control rates were 57% and 96% in the initial XELOX plus BEV, 6.1% and 73% in Cape plus BEV maintenance therapy. Median PFS in initial XELOX plus BEV was 11.0 months (95%CI: 7.8-14.1). One year survival rate was 86%. Conclusions: XELOX plus BEV was feasible as a first line treatment with mCRC. The most cases achieved disease control during Cape plus BEV maintenance therapy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006478.


2022 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175883592110687
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Zhang ◽  
Ran Duan ◽  
Yusheng Wang ◽  
Xin Liu ◽  
Wen Zhang ◽  
...  

Background: FOLFIRI [irinotecan, folinic acid (CF), and fluorouracil] is considered a standard second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens. However, it remains unknown whether fluorouracil is still necessary in this case. This trial was designed to test the superiority of FOLFIRI over single-agent irinotecan as a second-line treatment for patients with mCRC. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in five hospitals in China. From 4 November 2016 to 17 January 2020, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed unresectable mCRC and who had failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens were screened and enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either FOLFIRI or irinotecan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 172 patients with mCRC were randomly treated with FOLFIRI ( n = 88) or irinotecan ( n = 84). The median PFS was 104 and 112 days (3.5 and 3.7 months) in the FOLFIRI and irinotecan groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.084, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7911–1.485; p = 0.6094], and there was also no significant difference in OS and ORR between the two groups. The incidence of the following adverse events (AEs) was significantly higher in the FOLFIRI group than in the irinotecan group: any grade AEs including leucopenia (73.9% versus 55.4%), neutropenia (72.7% versus 56.6%), thrombocytopenia (31.8% versus 18.1%), jaundice (18.2% versus 7.2%), mucositis (40.9% versus 14.5%), vomiting (37.5% versus 21.7%), and fever (19.3% versus 7.2%) and grade 3–4 neutropenia (47.7% versus 21.7%). Conclusion: This is the first head-to-head trial showing that single-agent irinotecan yielded PFS, OS, and ORR similar to FOLFIRI, with a more favorable toxicity profile; therefore, it might be a more favorable standard chemotherapy regimen for mCRC patients who failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens. Trial registration: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02935764, registered 17 October 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02935764 .


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. v63
Author(s):  
D. Gridnev ◽  
A. Popov ◽  
E. Vozny ◽  
V. Makarov ◽  
D. Islamova ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document