Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 4030
© 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 Cassidy, J. Articles by Saltz, L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cassidy, J. Articles by Saltz, L.

Abstract

XELOX compared to FOLFOX4: Survival and response results from XELOX-1/ NO16966, a randomized phase III trial of first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

Glasgow University, Glasgow, United Kingdom; University of Sydney and Sydney Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia; Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; Vienna University Medical School, Vienna, Austria; Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation; Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

4030

Background: In a phase II study in untreated MCRC patients, XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) appeared to have similar efficacy compared with previously published FOLFOX4 data [1]. We therefore started a phase III 2-arm open-label non-inferiority study comparing XELOX with FOLFOX4. In 2003 the addition of bevacizumab (Bev) to irinotecan/5-FU/LV was shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival [2]. We then amended our trial to a 2x2 partially blinded study to assess the addition of Bev. Methods: Original 2-arm study: XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² iv, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² bid oral d1- 14, q3w) vs. FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin, 5-FU, leucovorin as described previously) [3]. In August 2003, amended to 2x2 partially blinded study: by adding Bev 7.5 mg/kg iv q3w or placebo (Pla) to XELOX and Bev 5 mg/kg iv q2w or Pla to FOLFOX4. Results: The original 2-arm study recruited 634 pts; after transition to 2x2, an additional 1400 patients were recruited. We previously reported non-inferiority in terms of PFS of XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 for the whole study population [4]. With 404 events, the overall survival data from the original 2-arm study are mature and show a HR for XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 of 0.93 (97.5% CI, 0.74–1.16). The response rates by investigator and independent review for the whole study population are shown in the table. Conclusions: XELOX is non-inferior to FOLFOX4. Overall survival data for the whole 2034 patient study population will be presented at the meeting. *no response assessment. 1. Cassidy J et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2084–91. 2. Hurwitz H et al. N Eng J Med 2004;350:2335–42 3. De Gramont A et al. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2938–47. 4. Cassidy J et al. Ann Oncol 2006;17(Suppl. 9):LBA3.

Author Disclosure

Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Amgen, Baxter, Genentech, Hoffmann-La Roche, Pfizer Oncology, sanofi-aventis, Teva-Medical Hoffmann-La Roche, sanofi-aventis Hoffmann-La Roche, sanofi-aventis Hoffmann-La Roche, sanofi-aventis

Abstract presentation from the 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting