Rui-Hua Xu1, Kei Muro2, Satoshi Morita3, Satoru Iwasa4, Sae Won Han5, Wei Wang6, Masahito Kotaka7, Masato Nakamura8, Joong Bae Ahn9, Yan-Hong Deng10, Takeshi Kato11, Sang-Hee Cho12, Yi Ba13, Hiroshi Matsuoka14, Keun-Wook Lee15, Tao Zhang16, Yasuhide Yamada17, Junichi Sakamoto18, Young Suk Park19, Tae Won Kim20. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. 3. Department of Biomedical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. 4. Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 6. Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, The First People's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, China. 7. Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Sano Hospital, Kobe, Japan. 8. Aizawa Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aizawa Hospital, Matsumoto, Japan. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 11. Department of Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan. 12. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Chonnam National University Hospital, Hwasun, South Korea. 13. Department of Digestive Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China. 14. Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan. 15. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, South Korea. 16. Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 17. Department of Medical Oncology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan; Department of Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 18. Tokai Central Hospital, Kakamigahara, Japan. 19. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 20. Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: twkimmd@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of a modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine plus irinotecan) regimen suggest promising efficacy and tolerability profiles in the first-line and second-line settings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the mXELIRI regimen with that of standard FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), with or without bevacizumab in both regimens, as a second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients from 98 hospitals in Japan, China, and South Korea who were aged 20 years or older with histologically confirmed and unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma, and who had withdrawn from first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days, with or without bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil [2400 mg/m2], repeated every 14 days, with or without the addition of bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) via a centralised electronic system. We used the minimisation method to stratify randomisation by country, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, previous oxaliplatin treatment, and concomitant bevacizumab treatment. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1·30 for the hazard ratio (HR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996306, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS:Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 13, 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=326) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=324). After a median follow-up of 15·8 months (IQR 8·7-24·9), a total of 490 patients had died (242 in the mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab group and 248 in the FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab group) and the median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 15·3-19·1) in the mXELIRI group and 15·4 months (13·0-17·7) in the FOLFIRI group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·71-1·02; pnon-inferiority<0·0001). In the per-protocol safety population, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (affecting 52 [17%] of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 133 [43%] of 310 in the FOLFIRI group). Incidences of grade 3-4 diarrhoea were higher in the mXELIRI group (22 [7%]) than in the FOLFIRI group (ten [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 46 (15%) of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 63 (20%) of 310 in the FOLFIRI group. Two treatment-related deaths (one pneumonitis and one lung infection) were observed in the mXELIRI group and there was one treatment-related death (lung infection) in the FOLFIRI group. INTERPRETATION:mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab in terms of overall survival. mXELIRI could be an alternative to FOLFIRI as a standard second-line backbone treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, at least for Asian patient populations. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical and F Hoffmann-La Roche.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies of a modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine plus irinotecan) regimen suggest promising efficacy and tolerability profiles in the first-line and second-line settings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the mXELIRI regimen with that of standard FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), with or without bevacizumab in both regimens, as a second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients from 98 hospitals in Japan, China, and South Korea who were aged 20 years or older with histologically confirmed and unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma, and who had withdrawn from first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days, with or without bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil [2400 mg/m2], repeated every 14 days, with or without the addition of bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) via a centralised electronic system. We used the minimisation method to stratify randomisation by country, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, previous oxaliplatin treatment, and concomitant bevacizumab treatment. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1·30 for the hazard ratio (HR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996306, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 13, 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=326) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=324). After a median follow-up of 15·8 months (IQR 8·7-24·9), a total of 490 patients had died (242 in the mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab group and 248 in the FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab group) and the median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 15·3-19·1) in the mXELIRI group and 15·4 months (13·0-17·7) in the FOLFIRI group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·71-1·02; pnon-inferiority<0·0001). In the per-protocol safety population, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (affecting 52 [17%] of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 133 [43%] of 310 in the FOLFIRI group). Incidences of grade 3-4 diarrhoea were higher in the mXELIRI group (22 [7%]) than in the FOLFIRI group (ten [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 46 (15%) of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 63 (20%) of 310 in the FOLFIRI group. Two treatment-related deaths (one pneumonitis and one lung infection) were observed in the mXELIRI group and there was one treatment-related death (lung infection) in the FOLFIRI group. INTERPRETATION:mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab in terms of overall survival. mXELIRI could be an alternative to FOLFIRI as a standard second-line backbone treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, at least for Asian patient populations. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical and F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Authors: Sun Young Kim; Ji Sung Lee; Junho Kang; Satoshi Morita; Young Suk Park; Junichi Sakamoto; Kei Muro; Rui-Hua Xu; Tae Won Kim Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-23