1 / 16

Infusional 5-FU/FA plus Oxaliplatin (FUFOX) vs. Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CAPOX)

Tobias Arkenau. Infusional 5-FU/FA plus Oxaliplatin (FUFOX) vs. Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: safety and efficacy analysis from a phase III trial of the German AIO. Rationale for CAPOX in 1st-line ACRC.

keran
Download Presentation

Infusional 5-FU/FA plus Oxaliplatin (FUFOX) vs. Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CAPOX)

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. Tobias Arkenau Infusional 5-FU/FA plus Oxaliplatin (FUFOX)vs. Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: safety and efficacy analysisfrom a phase III trial of the German AIO

  2. Rationale for CAPOX in 1st-line ACRC • Addition of oxaliplatin to i.v. 5-FU/LV (FOLFOX/FUFOX) significantly improves efficacy • Capecitabine provides superior response rates and safety vs. bolus 5-FU/LV • In phase II trials, XELOX/CAPOX showed clear antitumor efficacy and good tolerability

  3. Prospective, randomized, multicenter phase III study of CAPOX vs. FUFOX Metastatic CRC, no prior chemotherapy for metastatic CRC, adjuvant treatment > 6 months, Measurable disease (RECIST), Age >18 years; ECOG PS2 Normal renal, hepatic and hematological parameters Stratification: WBC, Alk. Phos., No. of sites, ECOG PS, Center Randomization (n=476)08/02 – 08/0469 German centers

  4. Patient disposition 476 pts randomized 242 CAPOX 234 FUFOX Median # cycles 6 (1–21) 3-week cycles Median # cycles 4 (1–13) 5-week cycles

  5. Treatment schedules Day 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid CAPOX Oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 5-FU2000 mg/m2 FA500 mg/m2 FUFOX Oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2

  6. Endpoints/statistical design • Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) • Secondary endpoints: OS, RR, toxicity, TTF, QOL • Statistical design: 440 patients needed to exclude inferiority of 41% vs. 50% PFS rate at 9 months calculating a one-sided 95% CI for the HR (power: 80%) • The study was monitored by an external review committee

  7. Baseline characteristics

  8. Most common (20%) treatment-relatedclinical adverse events (all grades) % of patients CAPOX (n=235) FUFOX (n=229) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Diarrhea Nausea Vomiting HFS Neurosensory

  9. Most common (>5%) treatment-relatedgrade 3/4 clinical adverse events % of patients CAPOX (n=235) FUFOX (n=229) 50 40 30 20 10 0 * Diarrhea Nausea Vomiting Mucositis HFS Neurosensory grade 2/3 *p<0.01

  10. Most common treatment-relatedgrade 3/4 hematological adverse events % of patients CAPOX (n=235) FUFOX (n=229) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Anemia Leukopenia Neutropenia Thrombocytopenia

  11. Efficacy analysis: response rates

  12. Progression-free survival Estimated probability Median CAPOX (n=238) 7.0 months FUFOX (n=230) 8.0 months 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 HR = 1.19 (95% CI: 0.97–1.48)p=0.11 (Log-rank) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Weeks

  13. PFS: multivariate analysis (n=474)

  14. Overall survival Estimated probability Median CAPOX (n=238) 16.3 months FUFOX (n=230) 17.2 months 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 HR = 1.05 (95% CI: 0.79–1.41)p=0.72 (Log-rank) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Weeks

  15. Conclusions • Similar safety profile for CAPOX and FUFOX: • significantly higher HFS grade 2/3 with CAPOX • CAPOX shows no inferiority compared to FUFOX within our statistical assumptions: • response rate: 47% vs. 49% • median PFS: 7.0 vs. 8.0 months (p=0.11) • median OS: 16.3 vs. 17.2 months (p=0.72)

  16. Acknowledgements • Thanks to all of the investigators, patients and their families who participated in the study • Participating investigators: Aachen (Tummes); Ansbach (Hahn); Aschersleben (Deist); Augsburg (Heinrich); Aurich (Langer); Bad Homburg (Rohwedder); Bad Soden (Seipelt); Berlin (Zuchold, Reichardt, Kretzschmar); Bietigheim-Bissingen (Dietrich); Bochum (Andre, Ansorge, Behringer, Schmiegel); Bonn (Fronshoff, Ko); Bremen (Arkenau, Doering, Porschen); Bremerhaven (Ahlf); Dernbach (Hoffknecht); Dortmund (Hagen); Duisburg (Selbach, Petrasch); Eschweiler (Fuchs); Flensburg (Hartwigsen); Frankfurt (Trojan); Geilenkirchen (Schardt, Zeidler); Goch (Runde); Göttingen (Hilden); Greven (Nischik); Grevenbroich (Prangischvili); Hagen (Lindemann, Zinngrebe); Halle (Arnold, Behrens, Steudel, Schmoll); Hamburg (Lipp); Hannover (Kubicka, Greten); Hildesheim (Freier); Homburg (Lubomierski); Jena (Eigendorff); Karlsruhe (Ebenezer); Koblenz (Hermesdorf); Kronach (Stauch); Leer (Köchling); Leipzig (Abelius); Lemgo (Constantin); Lüneburg (Heinkele); Magdeburg (Kröning); Mainz (Höhler, Möhler); Marburg (Balser); Mönchengladbach (Koch, Graeven); Münster (Bremer, Wehmeyer); Nordhausen (Keppler, Parchim, Hesse); Recklinghausen (Heer); Riedlingen (Pernice); Rinteln (Krause); Rotenburg (Schlichting); Rüsselsheim (Fried-Proell); Saarbrücken (Jacobs, Preiß); Salzburg (Greil, Hausmaninger); Salzwedel (Roth); Siegen (Gaska); Stuttgart (Hiller); Troisdorf (Forstbauer); Ulm (Seufferlein, Hahn, Adler); (Unna, Steinmeister); Vechta (Diers); Velbert (Nusch); Weiden (Weiß); Weißenfels (Bornschein); Werningerode (Wilhelm); Wuppertal (Papavasiliou)

More Related