A randomized, multicenter phase III trial of bevacizumab plus capecitabine as maintenance treatment after initial treatment with bevacizumab plus XELOX in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 474-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Yalcin ◽  
R. Uslu ◽  
F. Dane ◽  
U. Yilmaz ◽  
N. Zengin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

474 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies, second to breast cancer in women and third to lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. The aim of this study in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was to achieve a better progression-free survival (PFS) and less risk of toxicity by administrating bevacizumab (BEV) + capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) for 6 cycles, stop oxaliplatin and go with maintenance therapy (BEV + capecitabine) until progression. Methods: BEV (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) were administered until progression (Arm A) or 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX followed by BEV + capecitabine were administered until progression (Arm B). PFS was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A sample size of 118 patients (pts) was calculated to achieve 80% power to detect an increase of 1.5 months in median PFS between Arm A (9.5 months) and Arm B (11.0 months) with a standard deviation of 3.9 months and significance level of 0.05 using a 10% drop-out rate. Results: A total of 122 pts were randomized. No significant differences were found in demographic characteristics between the two arms. Median treatment period was 6.1 (range 0.7–13.4) and 6.8 (range 0.7–12.4) months in Arms A and B, respectively. Interim analysis showed no statistically significant differences in median PFS and ORR between arms (see table). Tolerability was also acceptable in both arms with grade 3/4 diarrhoea in 7.7% vs. 8.2%, weakness in 15.2% vs. 8.4%, hand-foot syndrome in 6.3% vs. 9.4%, and neuropathy in 2.8% vs. 4.6% of pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Conclusions: BEV + capecitabine as maintenance therapy following induction BEV + XELOX is non-inferior to continuous BEV + XELOX until progression. While this study is ongoing, these interim findings suggest that maintenance therapy with BEV + capecitabine is an appropriate option following induction BEV + XELOX in pts with mCRC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Bevacizumab (BEV) plus capecitabine as maintenance therapy after initial treatment with BEV plus XELOX in previously untreated patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Mature data from STOP and GO, a phase III, randomized, multicenter study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3565-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suayib Yalcin ◽  
Ruchan Uslu ◽  
Faysal Dane ◽  
Ugur Yilmaz ◽  
Nurullah Zengin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

3565 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies, second after breast cancer in women and third after lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between two arms: Arm A is a combination of BEV + XELOX; Arm B is a combination of BEV + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by maintenance BEV + capecitabine as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods: BEV (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) were administered until progression (Arm A) or 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX followed by BEV + capecitabine were administered until progression (Arm B). PFS was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A sample size of 118 pts was required to detect with 80% power an increase of 1.5 months in median PFS between two arms with a standard deviation of 3.9 months and significance level of 0.05 (10% drop-out rate). Results: A total of 123 pts were randomized. Demographic characteristics were balanced between the arms. Median treatment period was 7.5 (range 0.5–13.9) and 8.1 (range 0.1–20.7) months in Arms A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in median PFS between arms, although there was no significant difference in ORR and OS (see table). Tolerability was acceptable in both arms with the following grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs): Arm A 48.4%; Arm B 34.4% (p=0.116). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea occurred in 9.7% vs. 3.3%, weakness in 8.1% vs. 8.2%, hand-foot syndrome in 3.2% vs. 1.6%, and neuropathy in 4.8% vs. 3.3% of pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that maintenance therapy with BEV + capecitabine following induction with 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX may be superior to continuous BEV + XELOX until progression inpts with previously untreated mCRC. [Table: see text]

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2006-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Cassidy ◽  
Stephen Clarke ◽  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).Patients and MethodsThe initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

The efficacy and safety of CapeOX plus bevacizumab therapy with a planned oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A multi-center, single-arm, phase II study (CCOG-0902 study).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 795-795
Author(s):  
Yuuki Sunakawa ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Stop And Go ◽  
Grade 3

795 Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CapeOX plus bevacizumab with a planned oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Patients with untreated mCRC were treated with 4 cycles of CapeOX plus bevacizumab therapy, followed by capecitabine plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy. Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was scheduled after 8 cycles of maintenance therapy or upon tumor progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate to each treatment, reintroduction rate of oxaliplatin, frequency of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), and safety. Results: The 52 patients who received the protocol treatment were included in the evaluation of efficacy and safety. Median PFS and OS were 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0–14.8) and 30.6 months (95% CI, 27.6–33.5), respectively. The objective response rates were 55.8% for the initial CapeOX plus bevacizumab therapy, 17.8% for capecitabine plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy, and 31.0% for reintroduced CapeOX plus bevacizumab therapy. The frequency of PSN was 63.5%, including 3.8% of patients with grade 3 PSN. No patients required treatment discontinuation because of PSN during the induction or maintenance therapy. Conclusions: CapeOX plus bevacizumab therapy with a planned oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy is a feasible first-line treatment for Japanese patients with mCRC. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006478.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Either Sunitinib or Placebo in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Phase III Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1341-1347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Carrato ◽  
Anna Swieboda-Sadlej ◽  
Marzanna Staszewska-Skurczynska ◽  
Robert Lim ◽  
Laslo Roman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose This double-blind, phase III study aimed to demonstrate that sunitinib plus FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) was superior to placebo plus FOLFIRI in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI and either sunitinib (37.5 mg per day) or placebo (4 weeks on treatment, followed by 2 weeks off [schedule 4/2]) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. The correlation between genotype and clinical outcomes was also analyzed. Results In all, 768 patients were randomly assigned to sunitinib plus FOLFIRI (n = 386) or placebo plus FOLFIRI (n = 382). Following a second prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped because of potential futility of sunitinib plus FOLFIRI. Final results are reported. The PFS hazard ratio was 1.095 (95% CI, 0.892 to 1.344; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .807), indicating a lack of superiority for sunitinib plus FOLFIRI. Median PFS for the sunitinib arm was 7.8 months (95% CI, 7.1 to 8.4 months) versus 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2 months) for the placebo arm. Sunitinib plus FOLFIRI was associated with more grade ≥ 3 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities than placebo (especially diarrhea, stomatitis/oral syndromes, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and febrile neutropenia). More deaths as a result of toxicity (12 v four) and significantly more dose delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations occurred in the sunitinib arm. Conclusion Sunitinib 37.5 mg per day (schedule 4/2) plus FOLFIRI is not superior to FOLFIRI alone and has a poorer safety profile. This combination regimen is not recommended for previously untreated mCRC.

Phase III Multicenter Randomized Trial of Oxaliplatin Added to Chronomodulated Fluorouracil–Leucovorin as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Giacchetti ◽  
B. Perpoint ◽  
R. Zidani ◽  
N. Le Bail ◽  
R. Faggiuolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
First Line ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

PURPOSE: To study how adding oxaliplatin (l-OHP) to chronomodulated fluorouracil (5-FU)–leucovorin (LV) affected the objective response rate, as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients from 15 institutions in four countries were randomly assigned to receive a 5-day course of chronomodulated 5-FU and LV (700 and 300 mg/m2/d, respectively; peak delivery rate at 0400 hours) with or without l-OHP on the first day of each course (125 mg/m2, as a 6-hour infusion). Each course was repeated every 21 days. Response was assessed by extramural review of computed tomography scans. RESULTS: Grade 3 to 4 toxicity from 5-FU–LV occurred in ≤ 5% of the patients (≤ 1% of the courses). Grade 3 to 4 diarrhea occurred in 43% of the patients given l-OHP (10% of the courses), and less than 2% of the patients had severe hematotoxicity. Thirteen percent of the patients had moderate functional impairment from peripheral sensory neuropathy. Sixteen percent of the patients receiving 5-FU–LV had an objective response (95% confidence interval [CI], 9% to 24%), compared with 53% of those receiving additional l-OHP (95% CI, 42% to 63%) (P < .001). The median progression-free survival time was 6.1 months with 5-FU–LV (range, 4.1 to 7.4 months) and 8.7 months (7.4 to 9.2 months) with l-OHP and 5-FU–LV (P = .048). Median survival times were 19.9 and 19.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: By chronomodulating 5-FU–LV, we were able to add l-OHP without compromising dose-intensities. l-OHP significantly improved the antitumor efficacy of this regimen.

Phase III Trial of Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) Compared With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) As First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (13) ◽  
pp. 1670-1676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Falcone ◽  
Sergio Ricci ◽  
Isa Brunetti ◽  
Elisabetta Pfanner ◽  
Giacomo Allegrini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Peripheral Neurotoxicity ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Resection ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose The Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest (GONO) conducted a phase III study comparing fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI [irinotecan 165 mg/m2 day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 day 1, fluorouracil 3,200 mg/m2 48-hour continuous infusion starting on day 1, every 2 weeks]) with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Methods Selection criteria included unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. The primary end point was response rate (RR). Results A total of 244 patients were randomly assigned. An increase of grade 2 to 3 peripheral neurotoxicity (0% v 19%; P < .001), and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (28% v 50%; P < .001) were observed in the FOLFOXIRI arm. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (3% v 5%) and grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (12% v 20%) were not significantly different. Responses, as assessed by investigators, were, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively, complete, 6% and 8%; and partial, 35% and 58%, (RR, 41% v 66%; P = .0002). RR confirmed by an external panel was 34% versus 60% (P < .0001). The R0 secondary resection rate of metastases was greater in the FOLFOXIRI arm (6% v 15%; P = .033, among all 244 patients; and 12% v 36%; P = .017 among patients with liver metastases only). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were both significantly improved in the FOLFOXIRI arm (median PFS, 6.9 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0006; median OS, 16.7 v 22.6 months; HR, 0.70; P = .032). Conclusion The FOLFOXIRI regimen improves RR, PFS, and OS compared with FOLFIRI, with an increased, but manageable, toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with favorable prognostic characteristics. Further studies of FOLFOXIRI in combination with targeted agents and in the neoadjuvant setting are warranted.

Apatinib combined with Raltitrexed in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of standard therapy (AHEAD-311): A single-arm phrase II pilot trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15008-e15008
Author(s):  
Haiyan Si ◽  
Miaomiao Gou ◽  
Yong Zhang ◽  
Huan Yan ◽  
Niansong Qian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Grade 3

e15008 Background: To assess the safety and efficacy of apatinib, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 inhibitor, combined with thymidylate synthase inhibitor raltitrexed in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as a third- or later-line therapy. Methods: Patients with mCRC after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy were enrolled whenever they previously treated with bevacizumab or not. Apatinib was given orally at 250mg or 500mg daily. Raltitrexed was administered intravenously at 3 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS). The second endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: From August 2017 to November 2018, thirty-one patients were enrolled in Chinese PLA General Hospital. After a median follow-up of 6.4 months, the median treatment cycle was 4. four patient achieved partial response(PR), and 11 patients achieved stable disease (SD) and 16 achieved progression disease (PD) in accordance with RECIST version 1.0, illustrating a DCR of 48.4% and an ORR of 12.9% .The Median PFS was 2.4 months and the median OS was 6.4 months. The most common adverse events were hypertension (n=12, 38.7%), nausea and vomiting (n=11, 33.8%), myelosuppression (n=9, 29.0%). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were hypertension (n=2, 6.4%) and hand-foot syndrome (n=2, 6.4%). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities were rare. One patient died from cardiac arrest after three days treatment. There was no significantly association between PFS or OS, and clinical features including tumor location, KRAS status, and prior surgery or not, and number of metastatic organs. There was no trend showing patients who experienced had hypertension or myelosuppression had longer PFS and OS. Compared to the patients never received bevacizumab, the patients who had previously bevacizumab had the similar PFS and OS (3.9 versus 2.3months, P=0.787; 6.1 versus 6.4months, P=0.287). Grade1-2 nausea and vomiting and age <57 were independent predictors for longer PFS and OS. Conclusions: Apatinib combined with raltitrexed had efficacy but had limited survival benefit in mCRC refractory to standard chemotherapy. This regime showed us a higher risk of adverse event incidence and warrant further exploring of benefit population. Clinical trial information: NCT03344614 .

Response-Independent Survival Benefit in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of N9741 and AVF2107

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Eric E. Hedrick ◽  
Robert D. Mass ◽  
Somnath Sarkar ◽  
Sam Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Tumor Response ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Study

PurposeIn the phase III study AVF2107g, bevacizumab (BV) demonstrated a survival benefit when added to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In a parallel phase III study, Intergroup N9741, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) also demonstrated a survival benefit compared with IFL. As these two superior therapies have differing mechanisms of action, we explored whether the improved survival associated with the superior therapy was dependent on tumor response.Patients and MethodsFor these retrospective, exploratory analyses, patients were defined as responders or nonresponders by whether complete or partial response was achieved with first-line therapy.ResultsCompared with IFL alone, BV plus IFL and FOLFOX each demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) regardless of objective tumor response. BV-treated nonresponders had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (P = .0001) for PFS and 0.76 (P = .0188) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. FOLFOX-treated nonresponders had an HR of 0.75 (P = .0029) for PFS and 0.74 (P = .0030) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders.ConclusionIn both AVF2107g and N9741, objective response did not predict the magnitude of PFS or OS benefit from the superior therapy; nonresponders, despite a poorer prognosis than responders, achieved extended PFS and OS from BV plus IFL or FOLFOX compared with IFL. On the basis of these data, tumor response in metastatic colorectal cancer is not a necessary factor for a therapy to provide benefit to an individual patient.

scholarly journals Comparison between the three oxaliplatin-based regimens with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 687-687
Author(s):  
Yoshihito Ohhara ◽  
Mitsukuni Suenaga ◽  
Satoshi Matsusaka ◽  
Eiji Shinozaki ◽  
Nobuyuki Mizunuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Treatment ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

687 Background: XELOX (capecitabine/L-OHP) therapy that includes orally administered fluoropyrimidine instead of infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) was approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Sep 2009 in Japan. A pivotal trial (NO16966 study) demonstrated the non-inferiority of XELOX to FOLFOX (5-FU/L-OHP/LV) and the superiority of those L-OHP-based regimens plus bevacizumab (BV) to those without in the first-line treatment of mCRC. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of XELO+BV compared with FOLFOX4 or mFOLFOX6 plus BV in the first-line treatment for mCRC patients at a single institute. Methods: Between Jun 2007 and Nov 2008, 85 patients received FOLFOX4+BV (FF4 arm), between Dec 2008 and Sep 2009, 40 patients received mFOLFOX6+BV (FF6 arm), and between Oct 2009 and Sep 2010, 60 patients received XELOX+BV (XELOX arm). The best overall responses were evaluated using RECIST 1.0 during chemotherapeutic treatment, and adverse events were graded according to CTCAE ver.3.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Characteristics of patients of FF4 arm, FF6 arm, and XELOX arm were below: median age, 60 yr vs. 62 yr vs. 60.5 yr; gender (male), 48.2 % vs. 62.5 % vs. 58.3%. The overall response rates (CR+PR) were 61.1 %, 72.5 %, and 75 % (95% CI; 50.6-71.8%, 58.0-87.0%, and 63.7-86.3%). Median PFS were 17.0 months, 15.5 months, and 14.4 months, respectively (cut-off: Aug 31, 2011). There were no statistical significances not only between FF4 arm and FF6 arm (log-rank; p=0.641), but also between XELOX arm and FF4+FF6 (FOLFOX) arm (log-rank; p=0.138). FOLFOX arm was associated with higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia than XELOX arm. Grade3 diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome (HFS) were more frequent in XELOX arm. Conclusions: This study suggests that XELOX arm was equal to FOLFOX arm, regardless of regimen, in tumor response and PFS. Further follow-up is necessary to confirm the benefit on survival.

A randomized phase III trial of S-1/oxaliplatin (SOX) plus bevacizumab versus 5-FU/l-LV/oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus bevacizmab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: The SOFT study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3519-3519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Takahari ◽  
Yasuhide Yamada ◽  
Hiroshi Matsumoto ◽  
Hideo Baba ◽  
Kazuhiro Yoshida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

3519 Background: Several studies of oxaliplatin plus S-1 combination therapy (SOX) conducted in Asia have shown promising efficacy and safety for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), suggesting the potential to replace mFOLFOX6. We performed a randomized phase III trial to determine whether SOX plus bevacizmab (SOX+Bev) is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizmab (mFOLFOX6+Bev) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: The SOFT study was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Chemotherapy-naïve patients (pts) with mCRC, an ECOG PS of 0-1, and adequate organ functions were randomized to receive either mFOLFOX6+Bev (5 mg/kg of bevacizumab, followed by 200 mg/m2 of l-leucovorin given simultaneously with 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin, followed by a 400 mg/m2 bolus of 5-FU on day 1 and then 2,400 mg/m2 of 5-FU over 46 h, every 2 weeks) or SOX+Bev (7.5 mg/kg of bevacizumab, 130 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin on day 1, and 40−60 mg of S-1 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest). The primary endpoint was PFS. A sample size of 225 pts per group was estimated to be necessary based on a median PFS of 10.0 months in each group and an 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of SOX+Bev with a 2.5-month margin (hazard ratio, HR = 1.33) and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. Results: A total of 512 pts were enrolled from February 2009 to March 2011. Data were analyzed after confirming >388 events as planned. Demographic factors were well balanced. Pts received a median of 12 cycles (1 cycle = 2 weeks) of mFOLFOX6+Bev and 8 cycles (1 cycle = 3 weeks) of SOX+Bev (range: 1−16). Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 10.7−13.2) with mFOLFOX6+Bev and 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.7−12.9) with SOX+Bev. The adjusted HR for PFS was 1.043 (95% CI: 0.860−1.266), and the p value for non-inferiority was 0.0139. Response rate was 62.7% with mFOLFOX6+Bev and 61.5% with SOX+Bev. Grade 3/4 toxicities (%) with mFOLFOX6+Bev/SOX+Bev were leukopenia 8.4/2.4, neutropenia 33.7/8.8, anorexia 1.2/5.2, and diarrhea 2.8/9.2. Conclusions: SOX+Bev is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6+Bev with respect to PFS as 1st-line treatment for mCRC and thus can replace mFOLFOX6+Bev. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-090699.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document