1 / 17

Moving forward with adjuvant chemotherapy: combination or single-agent?

Moving forward with adjuvant chemotherapy: combination or single-agent?. Jean-Yves Douillard Centre Ren é Gauducheau/CHU Laennec Nantes, France. Adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence and death versus observation 1–3 Roswell Park non-inferior to Mayo Clinic (DFS, OS)

hedy-hoover
Download Presentation

Moving forward with adjuvant chemotherapy: combination or single-agent?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Moving forward with adjuvant chemotherapy: combination or single-agent? Jean-Yves Douillard Centre René Gauducheau/CHU LaennecNantes, France

  2. Adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence and death versus observation1–3 Roswell Park non-inferior to Mayo Clinic (DFS, OS) but one-third of patients had grade 3/4 diarrhea4 No benefit of infusional versus bolus 5-FU no improvement in relapse-free or overall survival5,6 Adjuvant treatment:the past 1Buyse M et al. JAMA 1988;259:3571–8; 2Laurie JA et al. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1447–56 3Moertel CG et al. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:321–64Haller DG et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;17:256a (Abstract 982)5Saini A et al. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1859–656Poplin E et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000;19:240a (Abstract 931)

  3. Adjuvant treatment:recent milestones • IFL demonstrated no clinical benefit versus Roswell Park1 • FOLFOX significantly improves DFS versus LV5FU2 but has shown no survival advantage yet2 • Xeloda has a strong trend towards superior DFS versus Mayo Clinic, a trend towards improved OS and fewer serious grade 3/4 toxicities3,4 1Saltz LB et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:246 (Abst 3500) 2de Gramont A et al. Proc ASCO GI Cancers Symposium 2005 (Abst 167)3Cassidy J et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol Late-breaking Abstract Book 2004;14: (Abst 3509) 4Scheithauer W et al. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1735–43

  4. Improved adjuvant treatment is now a reality • With a range of effective options, which is best for our patients? • patients must be informed about the reality of treatment and associated risks/benefits

  5. Benefits Proven efficacy Risks Toxicity Mayo Clinic regimen vs observation in adjuvant treatment

  6. Roswell Park versus Mayo Clinic regimen in adjuvant treatment Benefits • Equivalent efficacy •  stomatitis Risks •  diarrhea

  7. LV5FU2 vs bolus 5-FU/LV in adjuvant treatment Benefits • Efficacy may be similar •  toxicity Risks • Central venous access complications

  8. Xeloda versus Mayo Clinic regimen in adjuvant treatment Benefits • At least equivalent efficacy • Trend to improved DFS + OS •  toxicity • Convenience • Cost savings Risks •  hand-foot syndrome

  9. Improved outcomes Toxicity Monotherapy:risk/benefit considerations Benefits Risks Mayo Clinic regimen vs observation Roswell Park vs Mayo Clinic • Equivalent efficacy •  stomatitis •  diarrhea LV5FU2 vs bolus 5-FU/LV • Efficacy may be similar •  toxicity • Central venous access complications Xeloda vs Mayo Clinic • At least equivalent efficacy • Trend to improved DFS + OS •  toxicity • Convenience • Cost savings •  hand-foot syndrome

  10. Combination treatment: one positive and one negative trial

  11. Benefits Significantly improved DFS in stage III 23% reduction in risk of recurrence Not yet in overall survival Risks Neurotoxicity FOLFOX versus LV5FU2

  12. Benefits Nil Risks  toxicity  early mortality No clinical benefit; DFS curve tracks slightly below 5-FU/LV IFL versus Roswell Park regimen

  13. Landmark trials: recent evidence 1Cassidy J et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:14 (Abst 3509) 2de Gramont A et al. Proc ASCO GI Cancers Symposium 2005 (Abst 167) 3Saltz LB et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:246 (Abst 3500)

  14. Landmark trials: upcoming evidence

  15. How to choose in the current landscape? 1Cassidy J et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:14 (Abstract 3509) 2André T et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–51

  16. Factors influencing treatment decisions with adjuvant chemotherapy • Treatment outcomes • efficacy • toxicity • Patient characteristics • disease stage • age • comorbidities Benefit to risk ratio Burden • Patients • convenience • impact on lifestyle • Healthcare providers • treatment costs • resource use

  17. Favorable benefit/risk ratio with Xeloda • At least as effective as 5-FU/LV, with strong trend to superior DFS and fewer grade 3/4 toxicities • proven benefits in stage III • can be considered for stage II patients • efficacy and safety benefits maintained in older patients • allows patients to lead a more normal lifestyle • cost savings with improved outcomes • The single-agent fluoropyrimidine of choice in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer • Xeloda-based combinations may provide improved outcomes, safety and convenience versus 5-FU-based combinations

More Related