Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Report of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors Trial

Eduardo Díaz‐Rubio(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Josep Tabernero(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Auxiliadora Gómez‐España(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Bartomeu Massutí(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Javier Sastre(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Manuel Chaves-Conde(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Alberto Abad(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Alfredo Carrato(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Bernardo Queralt(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Juan José Reina(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Joan Maurel(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Encarnación González‐Flores(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Jorge Aparicio(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Fernando Rivera(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Ferrán Losa(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío), Enrique Aranda(Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
June 5, 2007
Cited by 269Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus Spanish-based continuous-infusion high-dose fluorouracil (FU) plus oxaliplatin (FUOX) regimens as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX (oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid for 14 days plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks) or FUOX (continuous-infusion FU 2,250 mg/m2 during 48 hours on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 15, and 29 every 6 weeks). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in efficacy between XELOX and FUOX arms, which showed, respectively, median time to tumor progression (TTP; 8.9 v 9.5 months; P = .153); median overall survival (18.1 v 20.8 months; P = .145); and confirmed response rate (RR; 37% v 46%; P = .539). The safety profile of the two regimens was similar, although there were lower rates of grade 3/4 diarrhea (14% v 24%) and grade 1/2 stomatitis (28% v 43%), and higher rates of grade 1/2 hyperbilirubinemia (37% v 21%) and grade 1/2 hand-foot syndrome (14% v 5%) with XELOX versus FUOX, respectively. CONCLUSION: This randomized study shows a similar TTP of XELOX compared with FUOX in the first-line treatment of MCRC, although there was a trend for slightly lower RR and survival. XELOX can be considered as an alternative to FUOX.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis