Phase III trial comparing XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin plus capecitabine) versus EOX regimen (epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: EXELOX trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4014-4014
Author(s):  
Weijian Guo ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
Mingzhu Huang ◽  
Yusheng Wang ◽  
Zhiyu Chen ◽  
...  

4014 Background: At present, there is no standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and there is no consensus whether the three-drug combination is better than two-drug combination in first-line treatment. Both of XELOX regimen and EOX regimen are widely recommended as firs-line chemotherapy regimens for AGC. In this EXELOX trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EOX and XELOX regimens. Methods: EXELOX is an open-label, multicenter, prospective, randomized phase III trial that enrolled 448 previously untreated patients with histologically confirmed advanced gastric adenocarcinoma from 7 hospitals in China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 d1; xeloda 1000mg/m2 bid d1-14) or EOX regimen (epirubicin 50mg/m2 d1; oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 d1; xeloda 1000mg/m2 bid d1-14) in this study. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, patient death, withdrawal of informed consent, or up to eight cycles, followed by xeloda single-agent maintenance. We stratified randomization by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, extent of disease(locally advanced/metastatic) and clinical trial center. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio (HR). The clinical trial was a non-inferiority study that was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT02395640. The study is ongoing, but no longer recruit new participants. Results: Between Apr 10,2015 and Aug 20,2020, a total of 448 AGC patients were randomized to receive XELOX (n = 222) or EOX (n = 226). In ITT basis, the median PFS was 5.0 months (95%CI 4.5-6.0) in XELOX group and 5.5 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in EOX group (HR 0.989, 95%CI 0.812-1.203; Pnon-inferiority= 0.0032). In Per-protocol population (n = 428), the median PFS was 5.0 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in XELOX group and 5.5 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in EOX group (HR 0.983, 95%CI 0.807-1.198; Pnon-inferiority= 0.0028). The incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) was 42.2% (90/213) in XELOX group and 72.5(156/215) in EOX group ( p= 0.001). The most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (affecting 13.1% (28/213) in XELOX group and 48.4%(104/215) in EOX group ( p= 0.000). The incidence of chemotherapy dose reduction was 35% (75/213) in XELOX group and 55% (120/215) in EOX group( p= 0.009). One treatment-related death (lung infection) was observed in EOX group, and none in XELOX group. Conclusions: XELOX regimen is noninferior to EOX regimen in PFS with a better safety profile as first-line treatment for AGC patients, therefore XELOX is a more favorable choice and might be one of the standard first-line chemotherapy regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02395640.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4024-LBA4024
Author(s):  
Min-Hee Ryu ◽  
Eishi Baba ◽  
Kyung Hee Lee ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
Young Iee Park ◽  
...  

LBA4024 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June, 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wasaburo Koizumi ◽  
Hiroyuki Narahara ◽  
Takuo Hara ◽  
Akinori Takagane ◽  
Toshikazu Akiya ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15788-e15788
Author(s):  
Yan Shi ◽  
Huan Yan ◽  
Quanli Han ◽  
Yongkang Nie ◽  
Yao Lv ◽  
...  

e15788 Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX showed survival advantage comparing to gemcitabine monotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer (PAC). However, the objective response rates (ORR) were about 30% and still unmet clinical expectation. S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative showed comparable and superior clinical benefit in treatment of unresectable and postoperative PAC comparing to gemcitabine. Since nab-paclitaxel and S-1 provided additional clinical benefits in PAC, we conducted a single-arm, phase II trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced and metastatic PAC. Methods: Nab-paclitaxel was given at 120 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 and 8, in combination with S-1 which was orally administered (80-120 mg/d according to the body surface area) on day 1-14 of each 21-day cycle, for 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was ORR, secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Sixty patients including 5 locally advanced and 55 metastatic PAC received a median of 4 cycles (range from 2 to 6). The ORR by either blinded independent review or investigator assessment was 50.0% (Table). Median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (95%CI, 4.9 to 6.6 m) and 9.3 months (95%CI, 8.3 to 10.3 m), respectively. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, sensory neuropathy, and nausea/vomiting. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia were 22.3% and 11.7%, grade 3 sensory neuropathy was 5%. The patients with grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, and those with biochemical response (50% reduction of CA19-9) achieved better ORR (75% and 76.7%, respectively). Of 52 patients with elevated CA19-9 at baseline, 32 patients (61.5%) had biochemical response showed a better median OS than those without the biochemical response (15.9 m versus 5.7 m, P=0.029). Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 showed encouraging ORR and being tolerated. Future phase III randomized clinical trial in advanced PAC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02124317. [Table: see text]


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1288-1293 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.J.M. Kwakman ◽  
L.H.J. Simkens ◽  
J.M. van Rooijen ◽  
A.J. van de Wouw ◽  
A.J. ten Tije ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document