A Phase II Study of Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and High-Dose Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, USA.
Clinical Colorectal Cancer (Impact Factor: 2.91). 07/2010; 9(3):157-61. DOI: 10.3816/CCC.2010.n.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Capecitabine has shown similar efficacy to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); a regimen containing 2 weeks of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx) has demonstrated noninferiority to infusional 5-FU/oxaliplatin/leucovorin (FOLFOX) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II study explores the efficacy and safety of a 2-day course of oxaliplatin/capecitabine (2DOC), with oxaliplatin given on day 1 and capecitabine given orally every 8 hours in high doses over 6 doses, mimicking FOLFOX6.
This phase II study was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Eligible patients with mCRC received oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) over 2 hours followed by leucovorin 20 mg/m2 I.V. bolus and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 I.V. bolus on day 1 and day 15. Capecitabine was administered at 1500 mg/m2 orally every 8 hours over 6 doses starting on day 1 and day 15. Results: A total of 45 patients were enrolled; 44 were evaluated for response. Seventeen patients (39%) had objective responses. Median time to progression was 6.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 17.5 months. The most common side effects were grade 1/2 neuropathy, fatigue, and nausea. Severe hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was rare.
The overall response rate with the 2DOC regimen is similar to published CapOx regimens, and time to progression and OS are similar. The incidence of HFS, diarrhea, and mucositis were lower compared with published results of 2-week schedules of capecitabine. The 2DOC regimen merits further study as a more convenient regimen than infusional 5-FU with less HFS when compared with a 2-week administration of capecitabine.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
    JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 15.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This phase II randomised trial compares oxaliplatin plus protracted infusion of 5-fluorouracil (pviFOX) or oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). From December 2001 to March 2005, 118 patients were randomised to arm A (pviFOX: pvi5-FU by a central venous catheter 250 mg/m2/daily d1-21+oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) (56 pts) or arm B (XELOX: capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 po bid d1-14+oxaliplatin at the same schedule) (62 pts). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the two arms. Median number of complete cycles was six. The objective responses were: CR 1 (1.7%) and 3 (4.8%), PR 26 (46.4 %) and 24 (38.7%), SD 13 (23.2%) and 20 (32.3%), P 13(23.2%) and 10 (16.1%), not evaluable 3 (5.4%) and 5 (8.1 %) in arms A and B, respectively; the CR+PR rate was 48.2% (95% confidence limits 34.6%-61.9%) versus 43.5 % (31.0%-56.7%). Median TTP was 7 versus 9 months, respectively. About 50% of the patients with symptoms or low performance status at baseline experienced improvement without major differences between the two arms. G3-4 diarrhoea was observed in 14.0% versus 8.2%, G3 stomatitis in 3.7% versus 0, and G3 neurotoxicity in 18.5% versus 24.6% in arms A and B, respectively. Eight patients in arm A (14.8%) had venous line problems that obliged the temporary suspension (six cases) or stopping (two cases) of the 5-FU infusion. Both pviFOX and XELOX are effective and safe first-line treatments for patients with ACRC. By avoiding intravenous (i.v.) administration by a central catheter, XELOX is favoured in clinical practice.
    European Journal of Cancer 01/2007; 42(18):3161-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2006.08.034 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide an accurate description and to evaluate the incidence and severity of cutaneous reactions induced by sorafenib tosylate, a new oral multikinase inhibitor. Double-blind, prospective dermatologic substudy performed on all consecutive patients included in our center in a large phase 3 trial. Institutional practice at the Gustave Roussy Institute. Eighty-five patients with renal cell cancer treated between November 1, 2003, and February 28, 2005. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either sorafenib (n = 43) or placebo (n = 42). Dermatologic examination was performed before treatment, every 3 weeks during the first 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Incidence and severity of cutaneous reactions to sorafenib. Thirty-nine patients (91%) experienced at least 1 cutaneous reaction in the sorafenib group vs 3 (7%) in the placebo group. A hand-foot skin reaction that appeared to be clinically distinct from the well-known chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome was observed in 26 patients receiving sorafenib (60%). Reversible grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was documented in 2 patients receiving sorafenib and led to a dose reduction. Other cutaneous reactions were facial erythema, scalp dysesthesia, alopecia, and subungual splinter hemorrhages. Sorafenib induces frequent cutaneous adverse events, some of which may lead to a dose reduction. Close collaboration between oncologists and dermatologists is needed to improve both the characterization and the management of these side effects. Appropriate patient education before the initiation of therapy and the introduction of early symptomatic measures may improve management.
    Archives of dermatology 07/2008; 144(7):886-92. DOI:10.1001/archderm.144.7.886 · 4.31 Impact Factor


Available from