Quality-of-life findings from a randomised phase-III study of XELOX vs FOLFOX-6 in metastatic colorectal cancer

Comparative efficacy of cetuximab combined with FOLFOX or CAPEOX in first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter case-control study

FOLFOX combined with cetuximab is a recommended first-line treatment regimen for RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). CAPEOX combined with cetuximab differs from the FOLFOX regimen by using oral capecitabine instead of continuous infusion of fluorouracil, offering greater convenience and cost-effectiveness with higher patient acceptance. However, the comparative efficacy of these two regimens remains debatable, necessitating further evidence to explore any differences in their efficacy. This study collected medical records of mCRC patients who were treated with CAPEOX or FOLFOX combined with cetuximab from 1 October 2021 to 16 October 2023 at Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital and the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University. Eligible patients were selected based on inclusion criteria and followed up through the hospital's follow-up system and telephone interviews. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to assess patients' progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 71 eligible patients were enrolled in this study; 43 patients received CAPEOX combined with cetuximab (Group A, n  = 43), and 28 patients received FOLFOX combined with cetuximab (Group B, n  = 28). The two groups achieved similar median PFS (mPFS) and median OS (mOS), with mPFS of 18 months and 12 months, respectively ( P  = 0.23), and mOS of 33 months and 20 months, respectively ( P  = 0.21), with no statistically significant differences. The results of this study demonstrated that CAPEOX combined with cetuximab is an equally viable option for first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC as FOLFOX combined with cetuximab.

Optimal duration of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with different risk factors for stage II-III colon cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The duration of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in high-risk stage II, low-risk stage III, and high-risk stage III colon cancer (CC) patients is controversial. To reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) without compromising efficacy while improving chemotherapy compliance is crucial.

METHODS

The authors searched Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science databases for articles from inception to August 8, 2023, the main outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival, chemotherapy completion rates, and AE frequency.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 10 332 patients were included. Disease-free survival analysis revealed that only the high-risk stage III CC patients experienced better results with the 6-month FOLFOX regimen when compared with the 3-month regimen [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.32, 95% CI: 1.15-1.51, P <0.0001). Overall survival (OS) analysis revealed that extending the use of FOLFOX and CAPEOX regimens did not provide survival benefits for stage III CC patients (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.9-1.49, and HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.67-1.18, P =0.40). The completion rate of the 3-month oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was significantly higher than that of the 6-month regimen [Relative risk (RR): 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06-1.27, P =0.002]. Moreover, the 3-month regimen had significantly lower AE rates than the 6-month regimen (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.57-0.68, P <0.00001), with differences mainly concentrated in grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59-0.85, P =0.0002), peripheral sensory neuropathy at ≥grade 2 (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.38-0.53, P <0.00001), and hand-foot syndrome at ≥grade 2 (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77, P =0.009).

CONCLUSION

The 6-month FOLFOX regimen should only be recommended for high-risk stage III CC, while the 3-month regimen can be recommended for other stages. A 3-month CAPEOX regimen can be recommended for stage II-III CC.

Impacts of systemic treatments on health-related quality of life for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments regarding impacts of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to compare efficacy of systemic treatments on HRQoL among patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English up until July 2023, from databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and prominent conference databases, for this Bayesian network meta-analysis. Phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated at least two therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcomes were short-term and long-term mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scores. Secondary outcome was mean change in EQ-5D health utility scores. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on whether patients received systemic treatments before. We conducted various sensitivity analyses, including differentiating between chemotherapy types, and analyzed patient cohorts with non-specified gene expression levels as well as those with target KRAS expression statuses. The current systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023453315 and CRD42023420498).

RESULTS

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy significantly improved HRQoL over chemotherapy, with MDs of 9.27 (95% CI: 3.96 to 14.6) and 4.04 (95% CI: 0.11 to 7.94), respectively. Monotherapy significantly outperformed both combination therapy (MD 5.71, 95%CI 0.78 to 10.63) and no active treatment (MD 3.7, 95%CI 1.41 to 6.01) regarding GHS/QoL in the short-term. Combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy did not improve HRQoL. Focusing on HRQoL, cetuximab excelled when gene expression baselines were unspecified. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld these robust findings, unaffected by model or patient baseline characteristics. Evidence from clinical trials without specific gene level data suggested that monotherapies, especially targeted therapies such as cetuximab, demonstrated superiority in HRQoL. For KRAS wild-type patients, no significant HRQoL differences emerged between chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or their combination..

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy demonstrate superior HRQoL benefits, monotherapy such as cetuximab is associated with significant improvements as compared to combination therapy. However, tailoring these results to individual gene expression profiles requires more evidence.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant CapeOX/mFOLFOX6 without radiation for patients with baseline resectable mid-low locally advanced rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy without radiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has attracted increasing attention, but the optimal schema remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) of two regimens for patients with mid-low baseline resectable LARC.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in 131 patients with baseline resectable LARC in a single center between April 2016 and August 2020. All patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant CapeOX or mFOLFOX6 before surgery. Clinical characteristics, pathological response, and survival status were then assessed.

RESULTS

After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 96 patients were enrolled, including 48 receiving CapeOX and 48 receiving mFOLFOX6. The objective regression rates were 50.00% and 58.33%, and the pathological complete response rates were 6.25% and 8.33%, respectively, in the CapeOX and mFOLFOX6 groups. Patients who received mFOLFOX6 had a better tumor regression grade (TRG) than those who received CapeOX (P = 0.005). Patients in both groups had similar survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The nCT has shown promising tumor response and survival outcomes, which can be a treatment option for baseline resectable LARC. For the two regimens, mFOLFOX6 provided better TRG than CapeOX, although no differences were observed in disease-free survival and OS.

Postoperative radiotherapy for thymus salivary gland carcinoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Salivary gland cancer is a rare disease in which cancer cells form in the tissues of the salivary glands. It mostly occurs in the glands that have secretion functions, such as the parotid gland, sublingual gland and submandibular gland. This is very rare when it occurs in other nonsecreting glands. Here, we report one case of salivary gland carcinoma occurring in the thymus and discuss related diagnoses and treatment progress.

CASE SUMMARY

One 33-year-old middle-aged man presented with a thymus mass without any clinical symptoms when he underwent regular physical examination. Later, the patient was admitted to the hospital for further examination. Computed tomography (CT) showed that there was a mass of 3 cm × 2.8 cm × 1.5 cm in the thymus area. The patient had no symptom of discomfort or tumor- related medical history before. After completing the preoperative examinations, it was confirmed that the patient had indications for surgery. The surgeon performed a transthoracoscope "thymectomy + pleural mucostomy" for him. During the operation, the tumor tissue was quickly frozen, and the symptomatic section showed a malignant tumor. The final pathological result suggested thymus salivary gland carcinoma- mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC). In the second month after surgery, we performed local area radiotherapy for the patient, with a total radiation dose of 50.4 Gy/28Fx. After 12 mo of surgery, the patient underwent positron emission tomography-CT examination, which indicated that there was no sign of tumor recurrence or metastasis. After 16 mo of operation, CT scan re-examination showed that there was no sign of tumor recurrence or metastasis. As of the time of publication, the patient was followed up for one and a half years. He had no sign of tumor recurrence and continued to survive.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of MEC in the thymus is low, and its diagnosis needs to be combined with clinical features and imaging methods. Histopathological analysis plays a key role in the diagnosis of the disease. Patients with early-stage disease have a good prognosis and long survival period. In contrast, patients with advanced-stage disease have a poor prognosis and short survival period. Combining radiotherapy and chemotherapy in inoperable patients may prolong survival.

Quality of life in a randomized trial comparing two neoadjuvant regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer-INCAGI004

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), but the emergence of different drug regimens may result in different response rates. Good clinical response translates into greater sphincter preservation, but quality of life (QOL) may be impaired after treatment due to chemoradiotherapy and surgical side effects.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the impact of clinical response and surgical resection on QOL in a randomized trial comparing two different neoCRT regimens.

METHODS

Stage II and III rectal cancer patients were randomized to receive neoCRT with either capecitabine (group 1) or 5-Fu and leucovorin (group 2) concomitant to long-course radiotherapy. Clinical downstaging was accessed using MRI 6-8 weeks after treatment. EORTCs QLQ-C30 and CR38 were applied before treatment (T0), after neoCRT (T1), after rectal resection (T2), early after adjuvant chemotherapy (T3), and 1 year after the end of treatment or stoma closure (T4). The Wexner scale was used for fecal incontinence evaluation at T4. A C30SummaryScore (Geisinger and cols.) was calculated to compare QOL results.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were assigned to group 1 and 31 to group 2. Clinical downstaging occurred in 70.0% of group 1 and 53.3% of group 2 (p = 0.288), and sphincter preservation was 83.3% in group 1 and 80.0% in group 2 (p = 0.111). No significant difference in QOL was detected when comparing the two treatment groups after neoCRT using QLQ-C30. However, the CR38 module detected differences in micturition problems (15.3 points), gastrointestinal problems (15.3 points), defecation problems (11.8 points), and sexual satisfaction (13.3 points) favoring the capecitabine group. C30SummaryScore detected significant improvement comparing T0 to T1 and deterioration comparing T1 to T2 (p = 0.025). The mean Wexner scale score was 9.2, and a high score correlated with symptoms of diarrhea and defecation problems at T4.

CONCLUSIONS

QOL was equivalent between groups after neoCRT except for micturition problems, gastrointestinal problems, defecation problems, and sexual satisfaction favoring the capecitabine arm after. The overall QOL using the C30SummaryScore was improved after neoCRT, but decreased following rectal resection, returning to basal levels at late evaluation. Fecal incontinence was high after sphincter preservation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03428529.

[Management of cancer patients with oral therapy at home in Brittany and Pays de la Loire areas: Survey (end of 2016) and cartography]

INTRODUCTION

The Cancer Observatory, from the OMEDITs (Observatory for Medicines and Medical Devices and Treatment Innovations) of Bretagne and Pays de la Loire areas has conducted a survey aiming to know and map the current practices of management of patients by Oral Anti-cancer Drug (OAD) in inter-region.

METHODS

Forty eight cancer centers received by e-mail in July and October 2016 a questionnaire concerning the management of OADs : from prescription by the specialist of oncology, to the intervention of the pharmacist (analysis and pharmaceutical consulting), to follow-up by nurse, as well as the financing of this activity and the feelings of the actors about this organizational set up.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven professionals from 31 centers, including the most important ones, responded to the survey. As a result, half of the establishments carry out a pharmaceutical analysis for some or all of the OAD prescriptions and only 30% carry out a pharmaceutical consulting. The nurse consultation is, on the other hand, more largely implanted (74% of the centers) as well as the telephone follow-up (6%). More than 90% of professionals believe that the organizational set up could be improved and more secure by, at least, the stronger involvement of pharmacists, the development of tools for nurse (for monitoring, therapeutic education…) and by improving the city-hospital link.

CONCLUSION

This survey shows the variability in the management of patients under OAD because of the lack of resources to ensure the fairness and sustainability of the organizational set up. The hospital/city link could still be optimized to secure patient care.

Measuring quality of Life among Colorectal Cancer Patients in Jordan

Quality of life among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR29. We interviewed 74 CRC patients, and our results indicated lower anxiety functional scores and higher abdominal pain and embarrassment symptom scores among patients aged 55 and under. Patients with disease metastasis showed significantly lower global health scores and higher fatigue, loss of appetite, hair loss, and change in taste symptom scores. Scores for emotional functioning were significantly lower among patients with stage IV disease. Fatigue, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, and change in taste symptom scores were significantly higher in patients treated with a combination of surgery and chemotherapy compared to surgery alone. Age, disease metastasis, late disease stage, and combined treatment modalities were associated with lower scores on health-related quality-of-life scales; patients likely to have low scores on these measures should receive special attention from healthcare providers and be targeted by supportive care strategies.

Nous avons évalué la qualité de vie de patients atteints du cancer colorectal à l'aide du Questionnaire C30 et EORTC QLQ-CR29 de l'Organisation européenne pour la recherche et le traitement du cancer. Nous avons interviewé 74 patients et nos résultats indiquent que les patients agés de 55 ans et moins éprouvent un moindre niveau d'anxiété alors que le niveau de douleurs abdominales et du sentiment de gêne est élevé. Les patients atteints de métastases ont démontré lors des tests que leur état général de santé était plutôt mauvais et qu'ils souffraient de fatigue accrue, de perte de cheveux et de la perte du goût L'état émotionel était à son plus bas chez les patients au stade IV de la maladie. La fatigue, la nausée, le vomissement, la perte d'appétit, les douleurs abdominales, et la perte de goût étaient significativement plus élevés chez les patients ayant été traités par chirurgie et chimiothérapie comparativement à ceux qui n'avaient subi que la chirurgie. L'âge, les métastases et le stade avancé de la maladie combinés à divers traitements médicaux sont les facteurs ayant contribué aux scores plus bas observés sur l'échelle de qualité de vie. Les patients susceptibles de démontrer de faibles résultats devraient recevoir une attention spéciale de la part des soignants et être la cible de soins de soutien appropriés à leur état.

Phase II open label pilot trial of aprepitant and palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic FOLFOX chemotherapy for the treatment of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) causes significant morbidity among colorectal cancer patients, receiving fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy even with standard antiemetic prophylaxis. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves CINV in these patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving FOLFOX for colorectal cancer were given antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given IV push on day 1 only. Dexamethasone 12 mg was administered orally on day 1 and 8 mg each morning on days 2 through 4. Assessments including emetic events, rescue doses, nutritional intake, and appetite were recorded in a patient diary which was returned to study personnel in the following cycle.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients screened, 50 were evaluable and had a complete dataset for cycle 1. For the first cycle, 74% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), 22% achieved a major response and 4% experienced treatment failure. The percentage of patients achieving a CR remained high throughout each cycle at 83, 83, and 86% for cycles 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Appetite and nutritional status remained largely unchanged throughout treatment. Adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included diarrhea (13.6%), fatigue (12.6%), and neutropenia (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant added to standard antiemetic therapy appears to be an effective and safe regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving FOLFOX.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

Sequential administration of XELOX and XELIRI is effective, feasible and well tolerated by patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Sequential administration of the chemotherapy regimes capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) and capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI) in the first- to second-line treatment setting would allow patients to be managed more easily in an outpatient unit. However, a small number of studies have raised concerns of cumulative adverse events as a consequence of the continuous use of capecitabine. To investigate this, the present study conducted a retrospective review of 81 consecutive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with the oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin-irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX-FOFIRI/F-F) regimen (n=40) or the XELOX-XELIRI (X-X) regimen (n=41) in first- to second-line chemotherapy in Saitama Medical Center between 2006 and 2012. The disease control rate (DCR), the progression free survival (PFS), the overall survival (OS) and the time to failure of strategy (TFS) from first to second-line chemotherapy, as well as adverse events, were assessed and compared between patients receiving X-X or F-F. A total of 10 and 20 patients were additionally treated with bevacizumab in the F-F and X-X regimens, respectively, during first or second-line chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in DCR and the median PFS between the two regimens for first or second-line chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in the median OS and TFS between the two regimens (OS=24.5 and TFS=14 months in the F-F vs. 23.2 and 12.0 months in the X-X). Regarding adverse events, 45.0% of patients (18/40) exhibited grade 3-4 neutropenia throughout treatment with F-F. Whilst, 15.0% of patients (6/41) exhibited grade 3 hypertension throughout treatment with X-X, which was effectively controlled by a single antihypertensive drug. The results show that sequential administration of X-X is as effective and feasible as F-F treatment, while additionally reducing the frequency of infusion visits and eliminating the need for a central venous access device or home infusion pump, thereby offering a more convenient treatment option to patients with mCRC.

A Phase II Study of XELOX and Cetuximab as First-Line Therapy in Patients With KRAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (FLEET2 Study)

BACKGROUND

Despite the comparable clinical benefit of XELOX (capecitabine with oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), the value of XELOX treatment in combination with cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains largely unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy and safety of weekly/biweekly cetuximab administration combined with biweekly XELOX in patients with previously untreated v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild type mCRC. The primary end point was response rate (RR) with confirmation, and the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), dose intensity, and the safety of the protocol treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria participated in this study. The median treatment cycle number was 8 and the median dose intensities were 218 mg/m²/wk for cetuximab, 34 mg/m²/wk for oxaliplatin, and 821 mg/m²/d for capecitabine. One patient showed complete response and partial response was observed in 19 patients, giving an overall RR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.8%-66.2%). Stable disease was obtained in 13 patients, resulting in a DCR of 82.5% (95% CI, 67.2%-92.7%). The PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.6 months), and the OS was 24.3 months (95% CI, 14.9-33.7 months). The safety profile revealed the common Grade 3/4 adverse events to be acneiform eruption (12.5%), peripheral neuropathy (7.5%), and elevated alanine transaminase levels (7.5%). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred only in 5.0% and 2.5% of the patients, respectively. Grade 1 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was not uncommon (20%), whereas Grade 2/3 HFS occurred in only 3 patients (7.5%). No deaths were reported within 30 days of the last dose.

CONCLUSION

Cetuximab with XELOX showed a confirmed overall RR of 50%, which was within the previously reported range of RR. The safety profile showed an acceptable rate and severity of adverse events. In light of the several advantages of XELOX, including convenience and the reported cost-saving aspects, further study of this combination therapy is warranted.

XELOX vs. FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate chemotherapy with XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) versus FOLFOX (fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin) as a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in terms of efficacy and safety. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing XELOX versus FOLFOX were included. A total of 4,363 patients from eight RCTs were available for analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there were no statistical differences between both arms in OS, and ORR. XELOX arm had a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia, hand-foot syndrome, and diarrhea, whereas neutropenia had a higher incidence in the FOLFOX group. For mCRC, the effect of XELOX is similar to FOLFOX.

Comparing the effectiveness of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin therapy for elderly Taiwanese stage III colorectal cancer patients based on quality-of-life measures (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38) and a new cost assessment tool

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in developed countries and its incidence increases with age. Intravenous administration of bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) has been a standard treatment regime for stage III CRC. However, patients generally prefer oral therapy such as Capecitabine. Studies showed that combination of oxaliplatin and capecitabine demonstrated efficacy and safety on par with treatment involving various 5-FU/LV-based regimens in elderly patients as they are in younger ones. However, little is known regarding the cost of adjuvant therapy or the effect of therapy on HRQoL. Thus the aims of this study were to evaluate the influence of different adjuvant care for stage III CRC on the HRQoL of elderly patients and to compare the economic costs associated with capecitabine-based and 5-FU/LV-based adjuvant treatments from a societal perspective in Taiwan.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study involving 123 patients aged 70 and over from 11 different centers was conducted between July 2008 and July 2011 in Taiwan. The adjusted monthly costs per patient and HRQoL were evaluated from individual-level data. The HRQoL of patients was assessed before and after adjuvant treatment. Direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a number of sources, and QoL scores were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After correcting for baseline characteristics of patients, no significant differences were observed in the global HRQoL scores between treatment groups during the study period. According to QLQ-CR38 results, capecitabine-based therapy appeared to alleviate problems related to defecation (4.54 vs. 8.5; P = 0.011); however, micturition problems increased (9.27 vs. 7.51; P = 0.04), compared with 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The adjusted monthly treatment cost per patient was NT$27,300 for capecitabine-based treatment and NT$53,671 for 5-FU/LV-based treatment. The total cost of 5-FU/LV-based treatment was 59 % greater than that of capecitabine-based treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzing from the societal perspective in Taiwan, capecitabine-based therapy incurred lower treatment costs than 5-FU/LV-based therapy and did not jeopardize HRQoL. Therefore, capecitabine, with or without oxaliplatin, could be considered as an alternative treatment option for elderly patients with stage III CRC.

Should capecitabine replace 5-fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

Fluoropyrimidines play a central role in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to review whether capecitabine was a safer, non-inferior, economically superior and more convenient alternative to 5-fluorouracil. Capecitabine has previously been compared to 5-fluorouracil-either as a monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or biological drugs-and has been found to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles. Furthermore, pharmacoeconomic data and patients’ preferences for oral chemotherapy further favor capecitabine. Therefore, capecitabine appears to be an effective and safe alternative to fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Epidemiology and natural history of central venous access device use and infusion pump function in the NO16966 trial

Background:

Central venous access devices in fluoropyrimidine therapy are associated with complications; however, reliable data are lacking regarding their natural history, associated complications and infusion pump performance in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

We assessed device placement, use during treatment, associated clinical outcomes and infusion pump perfomance in the NO16966 trial.

Results:

Device replacement was more common with FOLFOX-4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU)+oxaliplatin) than XELOX (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) (14.1% vs 5.1%). Baseline device-associated events and post-baseline removal-/placement-related events occurred more frequently with FOLFOX-4 than XELOX (11.5% vs 2.4% and 8.5% vs 2.1%). Pump malfunctions, primarily infusion accelerations in 16% of patients, occurred within 1.6–4.3% of cycles. Fluoropyrimidine-associated grade 3/4 toxicity was increased in FOLFOX-4-treated patients experiencing a malfunction compared with those who did not (97 out of 155 vs 452 out of 825 patients), predominantly with increased grade 3/4 neutropenia (53.5% vs 39.8%). Febrile neutropenia rates were comparable between patient cohorts±malfunction. Efficacy outcomes were similar in patient cohorts±malfunction.

Conclusions:

Central venous access device removal or replacement was common and more frequent in patients receiving FOLFOX-4. Pump malfunctions were also common and were associated with increased rates of grade 3/4 haematological adverse events. Oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens may be preferable to infusional 5-FU based on these findings.

A Randomised Controlled Phase II Trial of the Combination of XELOX with Thalidomide for the First-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin plus capecitabine) with thalidomide for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).

Methods

All of the 89 patients with MCRC who fulfilled eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to treatment group (n=44) and control group (n=45). The treatment group received a combination of XELOX with thalidomide and the control group received XELOX alone. Each patient received at least 2 cycles of treatment (1 cycle=21 d). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) as well as disease control rate (DCR). Drug safety and quality of life were also assessed.

Results

The median PFS of the treatment and control groups were 5.6 and 5.2 months, respectively. The difference did not have a statistical significance (P=0.307). The ORRs of the two groups also had no statistical difference (34.1% vs. 26.7%, P=0.446). The addition of thalidomide to XELOX significantly improved the DCR (63.6% vs. 42.2%, P=0.043). Among 24 patients with hepatic metastasis in the treatment group, 2 patients satisfied the surgical criteria after treatment but none of 23 patients in the control group did. Grade 3 or 4 constipation in patients treated with thalidomide was significantly increased (20.5% vs. 4.4%, P=0.022) but didn’t result in treatment interruption. The rate of lethargy was increased but the difference between the two groups had no statistical significance (13.6% vs. 4.4%, P=0.130). The quality of life had no statistical difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

The combination of XELOX with thalidomide for the first-line treatment of MCRC was well tolerated. Statistically significant improvement was achieved for the DCR but not for PFS.

Cost identification of Nordic FLIRI, Nordic FLOX, XELIRI and XELOX in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in Sweden -- a clinical practice model approach

INTRODUCTION

The role of health-related economy is crucial due to the finite healthcare resources. Intravenous (i.v.) regimes Nordic FLOX and Nordic FLIRI, and the partly oral alternatives XELIRI and XELOX are four commonly used chemotherapies in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Scandinavian countries, all with different costs.

AIM

To describe and compare costs associated with four commonly used treatments for advanced CRC in clinical routine practice. An additional aim was to evaluate the theoretical cost impact of adverse effects associated with the therapies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective study was carried out using observations and a clinical quality database of CRC patients treated with Nordic FLOX, Nordic FLIRI, XELIRI and XELOX as first line at an oncology clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden. The treatments are used in parallel in clinical practice. All patients treated from 2003 to 2009 were included. The clinical outcome of the therapies was equivalent; mean treatment time was 5.9-7.7 months. A clinical economic evaluation model was designed. All direct costs associated with the baseline treatment, administration of chemotherapy and drug costs were collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The maximum cost for the four treatments was estimated to be 72 000-75 000 SEK per patient for six months, of this approximately 8000 SEK was linked to treatment of toxicity. During six months the i.v. treatments could include 17 more outpatient visits per patient compared to the oral alternatives. During treatment at the clinic around 20% of the patients were hospitalised (XELOX excluded, because of few included patients).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the four regimens are similar in terms of treatment costs. Different costs affect the total cost. The oral alternative makes it possible to treat additional patients with the same labour force resources. Treatment of adverse effects contributes to extensive resource use at the hospital.

Symptom burden & quality of life among patients receiving second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab (B) and cetuximab (C) are both approved for use in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the second-line. We examined patient reported symptom burden during second-line treatment of mCRC.

METHODS

Adult mCRC patients treated in the second-line setting with a regimen that included B, C, or chemotherapy only (O) and who had completed ≥ 1 Patient Care Monitor (PCM) surveys as part of routine clinical care were drawn from the ACORN Data Warehouse. Primary endpoints were rash, dry skin, itching, nail changes, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, burning in hands/feet, and diarrhea. Linear mixed models examined change in PCM scores across B, C and O (B = reference).

RESULTS

182 patients were enrolled (B: n = 106, C: n = 38, O: n = 38). Patients were 51% female, 67% Caucasian, with mean age of 62.0 (SD = 12.6). Groups did not differ on demographic or clinical characteristics. The most common second-line regimens were FOLFIRI ± B or C (23.1%) and FOLFOX ± B or C (22.5%). Results showed baseline scores to be strongly predictive of second-line symptoms across all PCM items (all p's < .0001 except for Rash, p = .0013). Controlling for baseline, patients on B tended to have more stable and less severe symptoms. Patients on C had more severe rash, dry skin, and itching and had nail change scores that worsened faster than did B patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving second-line treatment for mCRC with B report less symptom burden, especially dermatologic, compared to patients treated with C.

A retrospective study of first-line combination chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a Korean single-center experience

Purpose

Fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy, in combination with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACC).

Materials and Methods

Between January 2006 and December 2007, a total of 478 ACC patients were treated with combination chemotherapy in first-line settings. Combination therapies included: 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX, n=172), 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI, n=95), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX, n=155), and capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI, n=56). FOLFOX and FOLFIRI were repeated every 2 weeks, whereas XELOX and XELIRI were repeated every 3 weeks until occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until a patient chose to discontinue treatment.

Results

The median age was 58 years (range, 19 to 84 years) and the median chemotherapy durations for FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, XELOX, and XELIRI were 4.9, 4.5, 5.7, and 5.4 months, respectively. Combination chemotherapy regimens were generally well tolerated. The estimated median progression-free-survival (PFS) for all patients was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3 to 7.3 months). No statistically significant difference in PFS was found among regimens used as first-line chemotherapy. Sixty percent (n=290) of patients received second or further lines of therapy after failure.

Conclusion

Fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy regimens appear to be equally active and tolerable as first-line therapy for ACC.

XELOX in colorectal cancer: a convenient option for the future?

XELOX is a 3-weekly chemotherapy combination of oral capecitabine and intravenous oxaliplatin. The central hypothesis that led to its development was that it would provide a convenient and cost-effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy doublets, without compromising on anti-tumor efficacy. Recently its role in colorectal cancer has become more established in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Ongoing investigation of XELOX continues in a number of directions: its combination with novel biological agents, its efficacy and safety in the elderly, and the development of biomarkers that can predict its anti-tumor effect. This article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date synopsis of all pertinent clinical studies detailing this regimen and its promise for the future.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

A regimen consisting of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) is widely used in France in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The aim of our study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus FOLFOX-6 for this indication. Patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX or FOLFOX-6 for 6 months. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol (PP) population; however, progression-free and overall survival (OS), time to response and response duration were also assessed. A total of 306 patients were enrolled (XELOX n = 156; FOLFOX-6 n = 150). ORR was 42 and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively, in the PP population. The difference between groups was 4.7%; the upper limit of the unilateral 95% confidence interval (14.4%) was below the non-inferiority margin of 15%. In the intent-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 8.8 months with XELOX and 9.3 months with FOLFOX-6, and median OS was 19.9 and 20.5 months, respectively. XELOX patients had significantly more grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12% vs. 5%) and diarrhoea (14% vs. 7%), but significantly less grade 3/4 neutropenia (5% vs. 47%), febrile neutropenia (0% vs. 6%) and neuropathy (11% vs. 26%) than FOLFOX-6 patients. We conclude that XELOX is non-inferior in terms of efficacy to FOLFOX-6 in the first-line treatment of MCRC, but has a different toxicity profile.

Anticancer oral therapy: emerging related issues

The use of oral anticancer drugs has shown a steady increase. Most patients prefer anticancer oral therapy to intravenous treatment primarily for the convenience of a home-based therapy, although they require that the efficacy of oral therapy must be equivalent and toxicity not superior than those expected with the intravenous treatment. A better patient compliance, drug tolerability, convenience and possible better efficacy for oral therapy as compared to intravenous emerge as the major reasons to use oral anticancer agents among oncologists. Inter- and intra-individual pharmacokinetic variations in the bioavailability of oral anticancer drugs may be more relevant than for intravenous agents. Compliance is particularly important for oral therapy because it determines the dose-intensity of the treatment and ultimately treatment efficacy and toxicity. Patient stands as the most important determinant of compliance. Possible measures for an active and safe administration of oral therapy include a careful preliminary medical evaluation and selection of patients based on possible barriers to an adequate compliance, pharmacologic issues, patient-focused education, an improvement of the accessibility to healthcare service, as well as the development of home-care nursing symptom-focused interventions. Current evidences show similar quality of life profile between oral and intravenous treatments, although anticancer oral therapy seems to be more convenient in terms of administration and reduced time lost for work or other activities. Regarding cost-effectiveness, current evidences are in favor of oral therapy, mainly due to reduced need of visits and/or day in hospital for the administration of the drug and/or the management of adverse events.