Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 4029
© 2007 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 Ducreux, M. Articles by Douillard, J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ducreux, M. Articles by Douillard, J.

Abstract

Efficacy and safety findings from a randomized phase III study of capecitabine (X) + oxaliplatin (O) (XELOX) vs. infusional 5- FU/LV + O (FOLFOX-6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France; Centre Rene Gauducheau, St. Herblain, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Lille, France; Centre Val d’Aurelle, Montpellier, France; Clinique Saint Jean, Lyon, France; Centre Alexis Vautrin, Nancy, France; Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; Centre Hospitalier Départemental, La Roche Sur Yon, France; Hôpital Michallon, La Tronche, France

4029

Background: X has comparable efficacy, safety and convenience benefits over 5-FU/LV (Mayo clinic) in adjuvant colon cancer and first-line MCRC. A recent phase III trial in first line MCRC showed that XELOX is well tolerated and non inferior to FOLFOX-4 for progression-free survival (PFS) [Cassidy ESMO 2006]. Methods: We initiated a phase III trial to demonstrate non inferiority in terms of best response rates (RR, RECIST) of XELOX versus FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with MCRC. Between 16 May 03 and 31 Aug 04, 306 patients (intention to treat), were randomized to receive either XELOX (n=156: x 1,000mg/m² bid d1–14, O 130mg/m² d1, q3w) or FOLFOX-6 (n=150: O 100mg/m² d1 LV 400mg/m² 2h infusion then 5-FU 400mg/m² i.v. bolus then 2,400–3,000mg/m² 46h infusion, q2w) for 6 months. Efficacy results are presented in the per protocol population (PP) (n=284:144 pts XELOX; 140 pts FOLFOX-6). Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 8 and 11 cycles of XELOX (range 0–8) and FOLFOX-6 (range 0–12), respectively. Dose intensity (median) for oxaliplatin was 99.6% and 95.4% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Best RR (independent review, PP) was 42% and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Difference between groups for RR was 4.7%; upper limit of 95% unilateral CI (14.4%) was below non-inferiority margin of 15%. RR by investigators (PP) was 46% for each arm. With a median follow up of 16.5 months (range 0.4–38.3), median PFS and overall survival (PP) were 9.3/19.9 vs. 9.7/18.4 months with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. In the safety population (n=304), XELOX pts had more grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (3 vs. 0%, p=0.21), thrombocytopenia (12 vs. 5% p=0.052), and diarrhea (12% vs. 7% p=0.1), but less grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (0 vs. 6% p=0.001), neuropathy (8 vs. 19% p=0.003), than those on FOLFOX-6. Treatment discontinuation for toxicity was 19% and 23% in XELOX and FOLFOX-6 arms, respectively. Conclusions: The primary endpoint has been met: XELOX is non inferior to FOLFOX-6, with a good safety profile in first-line MCRC.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting