PURPOSE: The treatment of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) utilizes either combination therapies or sequential monotherapy followed by combination therapy in subsequent lines of treatment. Patients often receive therapy consisting of oxaliplatin with intravenous 5-fluoruacil (5-FU) (FOLFOX) or oral capecitabine (CAPOX). A retrospective analysis was performed comparing median dose intensity (MDI), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity profiles of these two regimens in mCC. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two mCC patients (pts) received either FOLFOX6 (n = 46) or CAPOX (n = 76). Age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at diagnosis were balanced between groups. MDI was compared by calculating a percent of target dose achieved in the average cycle for each patient and taking the median of this value. RESULTS: Oxaliplatin MDI trended towards being lower in those treated with CAPOX compared to FOLFOX (87.5 vs 93 %, p = 0.0874), and capecitabine (CA) MDI was significantly lower than 5-FU (82.0 vs 100 %, p < 0.0001). There was a trend to more dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in pts treated with CAPOX (68.42 vs 54.35 %, p = 0.1268), and grade ≥ 2 toxicities were more frequent in CAPOX-treated pts (38.16 vs 15.22 % of patients, p = 0.0079). Survival analysis demonstrated trends towards improved median OS (9.86 vs 7.46 months, p = 0.1183) and median PFS (4.34 vs 3.33 months, p = 0.1674) with CAPOX. In multivariate analysis, CAPOX was associated with improved OS (p = 0.0156, hazard ratio (HR) 0.559) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.0094, HR 0.549). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with CAPOX received lower doses of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine compared to FOLFOX and had toxicities of higher grade but did not have worsened clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE: The treatment of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) utilizes either combination therapies or sequential monotherapy followed by combination therapy in subsequent lines of treatment. Patients often receive therapy consisting of oxaliplatin with intravenous 5-fluoruacil (5-FU) (FOLFOX) or oral capecitabine (CAPOX). A retrospective analysis was performed comparing median dose intensity (MDI), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity profiles of these two regimens in mCC. METHODS: One hundred twenty-two mCC patients (pts) received either FOLFOX6 (n = 46) or CAPOX (n = 76). Age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at diagnosis were balanced between groups. MDI was compared by calculating a percent of target dose achieved in the average cycle for each patient and taking the median of this value. RESULTS:OxaliplatinMDI trended towards being lower in those treated with CAPOX compared to FOLFOX (87.5 vs 93 %, p = 0.0874), and capecitabine (CA) MDI was significantly lower than 5-FU (82.0 vs 100 %, p < 0.0001). There was a trend to more dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in pts treated with CAPOX (68.42 vs 54.35 %, p = 0.1268), and grade ≥ 2 toxicities were more frequent in CAPOX-treated pts (38.16 vs 15.22 % of patients, p = 0.0079). Survival analysis demonstrated trends towards improved median OS (9.86 vs 7.46 months, p = 0.1183) and median PFS (4.34 vs 3.33 months, p = 0.1674) with CAPOX. In multivariate analysis, CAPOX was associated with improved OS (p = 0.0156, hazard ratio (HR) 0.559) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.0094, HR 0.549). CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with CAPOX received lower doses of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine compared to FOLFOX and had toxicities of higher grade but did not have worsened clinical outcomes.
Authors: Ralph Winterhalder; Pierre Hoesli; Geoffrey Delmore; Stefanie Pederiva; Albéric Bressoud; Frank Hermann; Roger von Moos Journal: Oncology Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Y Fong; A M Cohen; J G Fortner; W E Enker; A D Turnbull; D G Coit; A M Marrero; M Prasad; L H Blumgart; M F Brennan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vic J Verwaal; Serge van Ruth; Eeclo de Bree; Gooike W van Sloothen; Harm van Tinteren; Henk Boot; Frans A N Zoetmulder Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Thivat; I Van Praagh; A Belliere; M A Mouret-Reynier; F Kwiatkowski; X Durando; H Mahammedi; A F Dillies; P Chollet; R Chevrier Journal: Oncology Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Matthew T Seymour; Timothy S Maughan; Jonathan A Ledermann; Clare Topham; Roger James; Stephen J Gwyther; David B Smith; Stephen Shepherd; Anthony Maraveyas; David R Ferry; Angela M Meade; Lindsay Thompson; Gareth O Griffiths; Mahesh Kb Parmar; Richard J Stephens Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Cassidy; S Clarke; E Díaz-Rubio; W Scheithauer; A Figer; R Wong; S Koski; K Rittweger; F Gilberg; L Saltz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Vicki C Tse; Wai Tong Ng; Victor Lee; Anne W M Lee; Daniel T T Chua; June Chau; Sarah M McGhee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-07-09 Impact factor: 4.430