Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 22, No 14S (July 15 Supplement), 2004: 3621
© 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goldberg, R. M. Articles by Alberts, S. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Goldberg, R. M. Articles by Alberts, S. R.

Abstract

N9741: FOLFOX (oxaliplatin(Oxal)/ 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/ leucovorin (LV) or reduced dose R-IFL (CPT-11 + 5-FU/LV) in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC): Final efficacy data from an intergroup study

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Iowa Oncology Research Association CCOP, Des Moines, IA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, OR; University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS; St Catharine's Hospital, St Catherines, ON, Canada

3621

Background: After reducing doses of CPT-11 from 125 to 100 (doses in mg/m²) and 5FU from 500 to 400 (LV unchanged, 20 ) due to increased toxicity & early mortality (Rothenberg, JCO 2001), Intergroup N9741 concurrently randomized 355 of a planned 600 patients (pts) with CRC to FOLFOX-4 or R-IFL. Randomization was terminated early due to superior results on FOLFOX. Methods: The regimens were: FOLFOX 4 (Oxal 85 d 1 + LV 200/5-FU 400 bolus + 600 as a 22 hour infusion d 1,2 q 2 week); R-IFL (CPT-11 100 + LV 20/5FU bolus 400 weekly x 4, q 6 week. Results: Pts/arm were: FOLFOX-154, R-IFL-151. 60 day all-cause mortality was FOLFOX 2.0%, R-IFL 2.7%. Common grade 3 toxicities are below. With median follow-up of 18.0 months, median time to progression (TTP) (primary endpoint) for FOLFOX is significantly better than for R-IFL: 10.1 vs 6.5 months (mo) respectively (Logrank p<0.0001). The median survival (OS) is significantly greater for FOLFOX than R-IFL: 20.5 vs 16.3 mo (p = 0.026). Confirmed response rates (RR) were improved for FOLFOX vs. R-IFL (47% vs 32%, p=0.007). Sixty-five percent of pts received second line Rx with 75% in each arm receiving the agent not used in their first line treatment (in contrast to earlier phases of the study when access to Oxal was limited by availability). Conclusions: R-IFL lessens the toxicity burden of IFL, and results in efficacy similar to full dose IFL (median TTP 6.9 mo, RR 32%, median OS 15 months (Goldberg, JCO 2004)). FOLFOX improves RR, TTP, and OS compared to R-IFL. These results suggest that R-IFL, while not the best primary treatment option, retains activity with less toxicity than IFL, and may have utility as a platform for adding targeted therapies to IFL. Supported by NIH Grant CA25224, Pharmacia and Sanofi-Synthelabo.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]

Abstract presentation from the 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting