Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 4545
© 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 Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Al-Batran, S. Articles by Jäger, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Al-Batran, S. Articles by Jäger, E.

Abstract

Modified FOLFOX in combination with docetaxel for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction: A multicenter phase II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)

Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt, Germany; Universitätsklinik, Tübingen, Germany; Universitätsklinik, Mannheim, Germany; Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromäerinnen, Trier, Germany; Universitätsklinik, Lübeck, Germany; Städtische Kliniken, Bielefeld, Germany; Universitätsklinik, Dresden, Germany; Krankenhaus Bad Cannstatt, Stuttgart, Germany; Katholisches Krankenhaus, Hagen, Germany; Onkologische Praxis, Bad Soden, Germany

4545

Background: The combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) is clearly superior to CF in the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). DCF is, however, associated with significant toxicity, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea and mucositis. This study evaluated a biweekly, oxaliplatin-based modification of DCF. Methods: Pts with measurable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GE-junction and no prior chemotherapy received mFOLFOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/sqm, leucovorin 200 mg/sqm, and fluorouracil 2.6 g/sqm via 24hr infusion) in combination with docetaxel 50 mg/sqm on day 1 every 2 weeks (FLOT-regimen). Prophylactic G-CSF was not administered. Overall response rate (RR) was the primary endpoint (power 80% to detect a RR of >40%) and toxicity profile the main secondary endpoint. The study was externally monitored according to GCP and data were reviewed by an independent safety board. Results: 59 pts (male, 41; female, 18) were enrolled. At the time of analysis, 53 pts were evaluable for toxicity and 51 pts for response. Median age was 60 (range, 29–76), median ECOG PS was 1, and almost all (93%) pts had metastatic disease. Of 51 pts, 2 had a CR and 25 pts attained a PR, adding to an overall RR of 53% (ITT-analysis). Stable disease was observed in 12 (23.5%) and progressive disease in 6 (11.8%) pts. Six (11.8%) pts were not evaluable for response. NCI-CTC grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity included leukopenia in 12 (22.6%), neutropenia in 23 (43%), and anemia in 2 (3.8%) pts. Febrile neutropenia was observed in 1 (1.9%) pt only. Other grade 3 or 4 toxicities included peripheral neuropathy in 4 (7.5%), nausea in 3 (5.7%), vomiting in 2 (3.8%) as well as diarrhea and fatigue in 5 (9.4%) pts each. No treatment related deaths were observed. Conclusions: FLOT is active and has a favorable toxicity profile in the treatment of pts with AGC. It may show activity also in perioperative treatment settings and may be considered as a useful treatment option for elderly pts. Survival data will be presented at the meeting.

Author Disclosure

Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Expert Testimony Other Remuneration sanofi-aventis sanofi-aventis sanofi-aventis

Abstract presentation from the 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting