| 1. |
- Dewdney, Alice, et al.
(författare)
-
Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C)
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:14, s. 1620-1627
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX + C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. Results One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX + C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [ HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX + C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX + C arm. Conclusion Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.
|
|
| 2. |
- Haller, Daniel G, et al.
(författare)
-
Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 26:13, s. 2118-23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of safety data from randomized, single-agent fluoropyrimidine clinical trials (bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin [FU/LV] and capecitabine) to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in fluoropyrimidine tolerability. METHODS: Treatment-related safety data from three phase III clinical studies were analyzed by multivariate analysis: two comparing capecitabine with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) and one comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus FU/LV as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The United States (US) was compared with non-US countries (all three studies) and with the rest of the world and East Asia (adjuvant study). RESULTS: In the MCRC studies (n = 1,189), more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; relative risk [RR], 1.77), dose reductions (RR, 1.72), and discontinuations (RR, 1.83) were reported in US versus non-US patients. Likewise, in the adjuvant colon cancer study (n = 1,864), more grade 3/4 AEs (RR, 1.47) and discontinuations (RR, 2.09) were reported in US versus non-US patients. After further dividing non-US patients into those in East Asia and the rest of the world, differential RRs for related grade 3/4 AEs, grade 4 AEs, and serious AEs were again observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest and US patients the highest RR. CONCLUSION: Regional differences exist in the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. More treatment-related toxicity was reported in the US compared with the rest of the world for bolus FU/LV and capecitabine in first-line MCRC and adjuvant colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, a range of fluoropyrimidine tolerability was observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest, and US patients the highest, RR.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
