Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

  • 1
    Keywords: rectal cancer ; capecitabine ; Aged ; USA ; PHASE ; methods ; D ; B ; Disease-Free Survival ; A ; WELL ; 3 ; CANCER ; SURVIVAL ; SURGERY ; PATIENT ; STAGE ; TRIAL ; CYCLE ; treatment ; 5-FLUOROURACIL ; RESECTION ; chemotherapy ; EFFICACY ; AGE ; RECTAL-CANCER ; RANDOMIZED PHASE-III ; SAFETY ; ADJUVANT
    Abstract: Background:5-FU based CRT is regarded standard perioperative treatment in LARC. Here we report safety data of a non-inferiority phase III trial investigating (neo-)adjuvant CRT with Cape in comparison with 5-FU. Methods:Patients (pts) aged =18 years with LARC UICC stages II or III were recruited in this two-arm, two-strata randomized phase-III trial (arm A: Cape, arm B: 5-FU; stratum [S] I: adjuvant, S II: neoadjuvant). Regimens: Arm A: CRT: 50.4 Gy + Cape 1,650 mg/m2 days 1-38 plus five cycles of Cape 2,500 mg/m2 d 1-14, rep. d 22 (S I: 2 x Cape, CRT, 3 x Cape; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by Cape x 5). Arm B: CRT: 50.4 Gy + 5-FU 225 mg/m2 c.i. daily [S I] or 5-FU 1,000 mg/m2 c.i. d 1-5 and 29-33 [S II] plus 4 cycles of bolus 5-FU 500mg/m2 d 1-5, rep. d 29 (S I: 2 x 5-FU, CRT, 2 x 5-FU; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by 5-FU x 4). Primary endpoint was survival, secondary endpoints comprised safety and disease-free survival.Results:Of 401 randomized pts a total of 392 are evaluable (Arm A n=197, arm B n=195; S I n=231, S II n=161). Both arms were well balanced with respect to age, sex, WHO status, T- and N- stages. Regarding duration of treatment, 78 percent (Cape) and 80 percent (5-FU) completed all scheduled treatment cycles in S I, and 46 percent (Cape) and 40 percent (5-FU) in neoadjuvant stratum S II. In S II a total of 38 percent (Cape) and 43 percent (5-FU) did not continue chemotherapy after tumour resection. Concerning early efficacy endpoints in S II, pts treated with Cape (evaluable thus far n=121) exhibited a higher rate of T-downstaging (defined as ypT0-2; 52 vs 39 percent; p=0.16) and N0 (71 vs 56 percent; p=0.09). Regarding overall safety (NCI-CTC), pts receiving Cape experienced significantly less leukopenia (25 vs 35 percent; p=0.04), but more hand-foot syndrome (31 vs. 2 percent; p〈0.001). Stomatitis/mucositis, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and radiodermatitis were not significantly different between both arms.Conclusions:Given the observed safety profile and the trend in improved downstaging in neoadjuvant stratum, Cape exhibits a potential to replace 5-FU as perioperative treatment of LARC. Efficacy results on the primary endpoint are expected for 2010.Proceedings of the 45rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, May 29-June 2, 2009, Orlando, FL, USA
    Type of Publication: Meeting abstract published
    Signatur Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    German Medical Science; Düsseldorf, Köln
    In:  27. Deutscher Krebskongress; 20060322-20060326; Berlin; DOCPO294 /20060320/
    Publication Date: 2006-04-21
    Keywords: ddc: 610
    Language: English
    Type: conferenceObject
    Signatur Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Abstract: BACKGROUND: Fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy is regarded as a standard perioperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. We investigated the efficacy and safety of substituting fluorouracil with the oral prodrug capecitabine. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial began in March, 2002, as an adjuvant trial comparing capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, in patients aged 18 years or older with pathological stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer from 35 German institutions. Patients in the capecitabine group were scheduled to receive two cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) days 1-14, repeated day 22), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50.4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) days 1-38), then three cycles of capecitabine. Patients in the fluorouracil group received two cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5, repeated day 29), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50.4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) daily), then two cycles of bolus fluorouracil. The protocol was amended in March, 2005, to allow a neoadjuvant cohort in which patients in the capecitabine group received chemoradiotherapy (50.4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) daily) followed by radical surgery and five cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days) and patients in the fluorouracil group received chemoradiotherapy (50.4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33) followed by radical surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) for 5 days). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment group in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks, with stratification by centre and tumour stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analyses were done based on all patients with post-randomisation data. Non-inferiority of capecitabine in terms of 5-year overall survival was tested with a 12.5% margin. This trial is registered with, number NCT01500993. FINDINGS: Between March, 2002, and December, 2007, 401 patients were randomly allocated; 392 patients were evaluable (197 in the capecitabine group, 195 in the fluorouracil group), with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 41-72). 5-year overall survival in the capecitabine group was non-inferior to that in the fluorouracil group (76% [95% CI 67-82] vs 67% [58-74]; p=0.0004; post-hoc test for superiority p=0.05). 3-year disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-81) in the capecitabine group and 67% (59-73) in the fluorouracil group (p=0.07). Similar numbers of patients had local recurrences in each group (12 [6%] in the capecitabine group vs 14 [7%] in the fluorouracil group, p=0.67), but fewer patients developed distant metastases in the capecitabine group (37 [19%] vs 54 [28%]; p=0.04). Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups (any grade: 104 [53%] patients in the capecitabine group vs 85 [44%] in the fluorouracil group; grade 3-4: 17 [9%] vs four [2%]). Patients in the capecitabine group had more hand-foot skin reactions (62 [31%] any grade, four [2%] grade 3-4 vs three [2%] any grade, no grade 3-4), fatigue (55 [28%] any grade, no grade 3-4 vs 29 [15%], two [1%] grade 3-4), and proctitis (31 [16%] any grade, one [〈1%] grade 3-4 vs ten [5%], one [〈1%] grade 3-4) than did those in the fluorouracil group, whereas leucopenia was more frequent with fluorouracil than with capecitabine (68 [35%] any grade, 16 [8%] grade 3-4 vs 50 [25%] any grade, three [2%] grade 3-4). INTERPRETATION: Capecitabine could replace fluorouracil in adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany).
    Type of Publication: Journal article published
    PubMed ID: 22503032
    Signatur Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...