Continuous versus intermittent extended adjuvant letrozole for breast cancer: final results of randomized phase III SOLE (Study of Letrozole Extension) and SOLE Estrogen Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Late recurrences in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancers remain an important challenge. Avoidance or delayed development of resistance represents the main objective in extended endocrine therapy (ET). In animal models, resistance was reversed with restoration of circulating estrogen levels during interruption of letrozole treatment. This phase III, randomized, open-label Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE) studied the effect of extended intermittent letrozole treatment in comparison with continuous letrozole. In parallel, the SOLE estrogen substudy (SOLE-EST) analyzed the levels of estrogen during the interruption of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SOLE enrolled 4884 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, operable breast cancer between December 2007 and October 2012 and among them, 104 patients were enrolled in SOLE-EST. They must have undergone local treatment and have completed 4-6 years of adjuvant ET. Patients were randomized between continuous letrozole (2.5 mg/day orally for 5 years) and intermittent letrozole treatment (2.5 mg/day for 9 months followed by a 3-month interruption in years 1-4 and then 2.5 mg/day during all of year 5). RESULTS: Intention-to-treat population included 4851 women in SOLE (n = 2425 in the intermittent and n = 2426 in the continuous letrozole groups) and 103 women in SOLE-EST (n = 78 in the intermittent and n = 25 in the continuous letrozole groups). After a median follow-up of 84 months, 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 81.4% in the intermittent group and 81.5% in the continuous group (hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.17). Reported adverse events were similar in both groups. Circulating estrogen recovery was demonstrated within 6 weeks after the stop of letrozole treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Extended adjuvant ET by intermittent administration of letrozole did not improve DFS compared with continuous use, despite the recovery of circulating estrogen levels. The similar DFS coupled with previously reported quality-of-life advantages suggest intermittent extended treatment is a valid option for patients who require or prefer a treatment interruption.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery with and without cetuximab in patients with resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial (SAKK 75/08).

Background: This open-label, phase III trial compared chemoradiation followed by surgery with or without neoadjuvant and adjuvant cetuximab in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to two cycles of chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2) followed by chemoradiation (45 Gy, docetaxel 20 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2, weekly for 5 weeks) and surgery, with or without neoadjuvant cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly and adjuvant cetuximab 500 mg/m2 fortnightly for 3 months. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 300 patients (median age, 61 years; 88% male; 63% adenocarcinoma; 85% cT3/4a, 90% cN+) were assigned to cetuximab (n = 149) or control (n = 151). The R0-resection rate was 95% for cetuximab versus 97% for control. Postoperative treatment-related mortality was 6% in both arms. Median PFS was 2.9 years [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0 to not reached] with cetuximab and 2.0 years (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) with control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.07; P = 0.13]. Median overall survival (OS) time was 5.1 years (95% CI, 3.7 to not reached) versus 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.2-4.2) for cetuximab and control, respectively (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-1.01; P = 0.055). Time to loco-regional failure after R0-resection was significantly longer for cetuximab (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90; P = 0.017); time to distant failure did not differ between arms (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.64-1.59, P = 0.97). Cetuximab did not increase adverse events in neoadjuvant or postoperative settings. Conclusion: Adding cetuximab to multimodal therapy significantly improved loco-regional control, and led to clinically relevant, but not-significant improvements in PFS and OS in resectable esophageal carcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01107639.

Concurrent and sequential initiation of ovarian function suppression with chemotherapy in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: an exploratory analysis of TEXT and SOFT.

BACKGROUND: Recent breast cancer treatment guidelines recommend that higher-risk premenopausal patients should receive ovarian function suppression (OFS) as part of adjuvant endocrine therapy. If chemotherapy is also given, it is uncertain whether to select concurrent or sequential OFS initiation. DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed 1872 patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TEXT and SOFT trials who received adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and upon randomization to an OFS-containing adjuvant endocrine therapy, initiated gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-agonist triptorelin. Breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was compared between patients who received OFS concurrently with chemotherapy in TEXT (n = 1242) versus sequentially post-chemotherapy in SOFT (n = 630). Because timing of trial enrollment relative to adjuvant chemotherapy differed, we implemented landmark analysis re-defining BCFI beginning 1 year after final dose of chemotherapy (median, 15.5 and 8.1 months from enrollment to landmark in TEXT and SOFT, respectively). As a non-randomized treatment comparison, we implemented comparative-effectiveness propensity score methodology with weighted Cox modeling. RESULTS: Distributions of several clinico-pathologic characteristics differed between groups. Patients who were premenopausal post-chemotherapy in SOFT were younger on average. The median duration of adjuvant chemotherapy was 18 weeks in both groups. There were 231 (12%) BC events after post-landmark median follow-up of about 5 years. Concurrent use of triptorelin with chemotherapy was not associated with a significant difference in post-landmark BCFI compared with sequential triptorelin post-chemotherapy, either in the overall population (HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.72-1.72; P = 0.72; 4-year BCFI 89% in both groups), or in the subgroup of 692 women <40 years at diagnosis (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.69-1.84) who are less likely to develop chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea. CONCLUSION: Based on comparative-effectiveness modeling of TEXT and SOFT after about 5 years median follow-up, with limited statistical power especially for the subgroup <40 years, neither detrimental nor beneficial effect of concurrent administration of OFS with chemotherapy on the efficacy of adjuvant therapy that includes chemotherapy was detected. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00066690 and NCT00066703.

Do all patients with advanced HER2 positive breast cancer need upfront-chemo when receiving trastuzumab? Randomized phase III trial SAKK 22/99.

Background: HER2-targeted therapy plus chemotherapy is standard treatment in advanced HER2+ breast cancer. Trastuzumab alone followed by addition of chemotherapy at disease progression versus upfront combination therapy has not been elucidated. Patients and methods: One-hundred seventy-five patients with measurable/evaluable HER2+ advanced disease without previous HER2-directed therapy were randomized to trastuzumab alone followed, at disease progression, by the combination with chemotherapy (Arm A) or upfront trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (Arm B). Chemotherapy could be stopped after ≥6 cycles in responding patients, trastuzumab was continued until progression. The primary endpoint of this superiority trial was time to progression (TTP) on combined trastuzumab-chemotherapy (Combination-TTP) in both arms. Secondary endpoints included response rate, TTP, overall survival, quality of life and toxicity. Results: Combination-TTP was longer than expected in both arms, 12.2 months in Arm A and 10.3 months in Arm B and not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1; P =0.1). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6-1.5; P = 0.55). In Arm A, the median TTP before introduction of chemotherapy was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.3-5.4), yet at 2 years 6% of patients were still on trastuzumab alone. Patients without visceral disease had a Combination-TTP of 21.8 months in arm A, compared with 10.1 months in arm B (unplanned analysis HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.2, P = 0.03). Patients with visceral disease showed no difference. Toxicity was chemotherapy-related. Conclusion: The outcome of patients receiving sequential trastuzumab-chemotherapy or upfront combination was similar. We failed to demonstrate superiority of the sequential approach. These results nevertheless suggest chemotherapy and its toxicity can be deferred, especially in patients with indolent, non-visceral disease. Despite a larger non-inferiority confirmatory study would be needed, these findings represent an additional proof of concept that de-escalation strategies can be discussed in individual patients.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.

[Combined modality treatment of oesophageal cancer]. / Multimodale Therapie des Ösophaguskarzinoms.

Oesophageal carcinoma reflects a tumor entity which can be optimally treated with multimodal therapy. Early lymphatic spread and late symptoms lead to mostly advanced tumors at primary diagnosis, which means that they can not be cured by surgery alone. On the other hand these tumors show high sensitivity towards chemo- and radiotherapy. Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (trimodal therapy) is considered an international standard of care for operable patients. Definitive chemoradiotherapy or the flexible concept of chemoradiotherapy with optional salvage surgery can be curative options for patients with increased operative risk.

Randomized phase II study of lonaprisan as second-line therapy for progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The progesterone-receptor (PR) antagonists onapristone (type I) and mifepristone (type II) showed modest activity in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer; however, onapristone in particular was associated with hepatotoxicity. Lonaprisan is a novel, type III PR antagonist that was well tolerated in phase I studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of lonaprisan as second-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with stage IV, PR-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. RESULTS: Patients received once-daily lonaprisan 25 mg (n = 34) or 100 mg (n = 34). The primary objective was not met (≥ 35% clinical benefit rate: complete/partial responses at any time until month 6 or stable disease [SD] for ≥ 6 months from start of treatment). There were no complete/partial responses. In the 25 mg and 100 mg groups, 6 of 29 patients (21%) and 2 of 29 patients (7%), respectively, had SD ≥ 6 months. Overall, 61 of 68 patients (90%) had ≥ 1 adverse event (AE), the most frequent (≥ 10% overall) being fatigue, hot flush, dyspnoea, nausea, asthenia, headache, constipation, vomiting, and decreased appetite; 33 patients had serious AEs. CONCLUSION: Lonaprisan showed limited efficacy as second-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with PR-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Combination of trastuzumab and letrozole after resistance to sequential trastuzumab and aromatase inhibitor monotherapies in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial (SAKK 23/03).

A sequential treatment design was chosen in this trial to ensure complete resistance to single-agent non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and trastuzumab both given as monotherapy before receiving the combination of a non-steroidal AI and trastuzumab. Key eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with advanced, measurable, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2)-positive disease (assessed by FISH, ratio (≥2)), hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease, and progression on prior treatment with a non-steroidal AI, e.g. letrozole or anastrozole, either in the adjuvant or in the advanced setting. Patients received standard dose trastuzumab monotherapy in step 1 and upon disease progression continued trastuzumab in combination with letrozole in step 2. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) in step 2. Totally, 13 patients were enrolled. In step 1, six patients (46%) achieved CBR. Median time to progression (TTP) was 161 days (95% confidence interval (CI): 82-281). In step 2, CBR was observed in eight out of the 11 evaluable patients (73%), including one patient with partial response. Median TTP for all the 11 patients was 188 days (95% CI: 77-not reached). Results of this proof-of-concept trial suggest that complete resistance to both AI and trastuzumab can be overcome in a proportion of patients by combined treatment of AI and trastuzumab, as all patients served as their own control. Our results appear promising for a new treatment strategy that offers a chemotherapy-free option for at least a subset of patients with HR-positive, HER-2-positive breast cancer over a clinically relevant time period.

Combination of bevacizumab and 2-weekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (SAKK 24/06).

BACKGROUND: pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bevacizumab are active agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We carried out a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of PLD and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in MBC patients. METHODS: bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and PLD (20 mg/m(2)) were infused on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Thereafter, bevacizumab monotherapy was continued at the same dose until progression or toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of the combination. RESULTS: thirty-nine of 43 patients were assessable for the primary end point. Eighteen of 39 patients (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 63%) had a grade 3 toxicity. Sixteen (41%) had grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, one had grade 3 mucositis, and one severe cardiotoxicity. Secondary end point of overall response rate among 43 assessable patients was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: in this nonrandomized single-arm trial, the combination of bimonthly PLD and bevacizumab in locally recurrent and MBC patients demonstrated higher than anticipated toxicity while exhibiting only modest activity. Based on these results, we would not consider this combination for further investigation in this setting.

Matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) compared with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data showed promising antitumour activity with feasible tolerability for matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy in untreated advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of matuzumab plus ECX versus ECX alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised open-label phase II study, 72 patients with metastatic OG cancer were randomly assigned to either 800 mg matuzumab weekly plus epirubicin 50 mg/m², cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m² daily in a 21-day cycle (ECX) or the same ECX regimen alone. The primary end point was objective response. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Following random assignment, 35 patients (median age 59 years) received ECX/matuzumab and 36 patients (median age 64 years) ECX. The addition of matuzumab to ECX did not improve objective response: 31% for ECX/matuzumab [95% confidence interval (CI) 17-49] compared with 58% for the ECX arm (95% CI 41-74) P = 0.994 (one sided). There was no significant difference in median PFS: 4.8 months (95% CI 2.9-8.1) for ECX/matuzumab versus 7.1 months (95% CI 4.4-8.5) for ECX, or in median OS: 9.4 months (95% CI 7.5-16.2), compared with 12.2 months (95% CI 9.8-13.8 months). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity was observed in 27 and 25 patients in the ECX/matuzumab and ECX groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Matuzumab 800 mg weekly combined with ECX chemotherapy does not increase response or survival for patients with advanced OG cancer. Therefore, ECX/matuzumab should not be examined further in phase III trials.

Multicenter phase II trial of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation with docetaxel and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma (SAKK 75/02).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter phase II study investigated the efficacy and feasibility of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery in patients with esophageal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced resectable squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 22, followed by radiotherapy of 45 Gy (25 x 1.8 Gy) and concurrent chemotherapy comprising cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 20 mg/m(2) weekly for 5 weeks, followed by surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled at eleven centers and 57 underwent surgery. R0 resection was achieved in 52 patients. Fifteen patients showed complete, 16 patients nearly complete and 26 patients poor pathological remission. Median overall survival was 36.5 months and median event-free survival was 22.8 months. Squamous cell carcinoma and good pathologically documented response were associated with longer survival. Eighty-two percent of all included patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and survived for 30 days after surgery. Dysphagia and mucositis grade 3/4 were infrequent (<9%) during chemoradiation. Five patients (9%) died due to surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: This neoadjuvant, taxane-containing regimen was efficacious and feasible in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in a multicenter, community-based setting and represents a suitable backbone for further investigation.

Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK.

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.

Phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin given prior to and concurrently with preoperative pelvic radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

This multicentre phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of preoperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (T3/T4 rectal adenocarcinoma with or without nodal involvement). Treatment consisted of one cycle of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) bid on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) on day 1), followed by RT (1.8 Gy fractions 5 days per week for 5 weeks) plus CAPOX (capecitabine 825 mg m(-2) bid on days 22-35 and 43-56, and oxaliplatin 50 mg m(-2) on days 22, 29, 43 and 50). Surgery was recommended 5 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. The primary end point was pathological complete tumour response (pCR). Sixty patients were enrolled. In the intent-to-treat population, the pCR rate was 23% (95% CI: 13-36%). 58 patients underwent surgery; R0 resection was achieved in 57 (98%) patients, including all 5 patients with T4 tumours. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 49 (84%) patients. Tumour and/or nodal downstaging was observed in 39 (65%) patients. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20%) and lymphocytopaenia (43%). Preoperative capecitabine, oxaliplatin and RT achieved encouraging rates of pCR, R0 resection, sphincter preservation and tumour downstaging in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Endocrine symptom assessment in women with breast cancer: what a simple "yes" means.

GOALS OF WORK: To investigate the self-reported symptoms related to endocrine therapy in women with early or advanced breast cancer and the impact of these symptoms on quality of life (QL) indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symptom occurrence was assessed by the Checklist for Patients on Endocrine Therapy (C-PET) and symptom intensity was assessed by linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) indicators. Patients also responded to global LASA indicators for physical well-being, mood, coping effort and treatment burden. Associations between symptoms and these indicators were analysed by linear regression models. MAIN RESULTS: Among 373 women, the distribution of symptom intensity showed considerable variation in patients reporting a symptom as present. Even though patients recorded a symptom as absent, some patients reported having experienced that symptom when responding to symptom intensity, as seen for decreased sex drive, tiredness and vaginal dryness. Six of 13 symptoms and lower age had a detrimental impact on the global indicators, particularly tiredness and irritability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' experience of endocrine symptoms needs to be considered both in patient care and research, when interpreting the association between symptoms and QL.

Fatigue and menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer undergoing hormonal cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal treatment for women with breast cancer is frequently proposed in the adjuvant as well as in the palliative setting. Therefore, many women are confronted with early menopause and prolonged oestrogen deprivation and consequently with a variety of quality of life issues, such as menopausal symptoms and fatigue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It was the aim of this study to explore the occurrence and frequency of menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer, undergoing hormonal cancer treatment and to investigate their relationship with fatigue. A cross-sectional, quantitative approach was used in this multi-centre study. The Checklist for Patients with Endocrine Therapy (C-PET) and the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Linear Analogue Scales for patients with endocrine treatment were used. Descriptive statistics, as well as cluster analyses were performed. RESULTS: Most frequent menopausal symptoms involved hot flashes/sweats, tiredness, weight gain, vaginal dryness and decreased sexual interest. There were significant differences between the fatigued and the non-fatigued population regarding the intensity of menopausal symptoms, emotional irritability and general coping. Cluster analyses supported a menopausal symptom cluster. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue accompanies menopausal symptoms and an association can be expected. Methods for routine screening for menopausal symptoms, including fatigue, are suggested as a relevant research issue in women with breast cancer undergoing hormonal treatment.

Oxaliplatin combined with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (OCFL) in metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I-II study.

BACKGROUND: A phase I-II multicenter trial was conducted to define the maximal tolerated dose and describe the activity of an OCFL combination using oxaliplatin (OHP), irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRC patients not pretreated with palliative chemotherapy, with performance status < or =1 and adequate haematological, kidney and liver function, were eligible. Treatment consisted in weekly 24-h infusion 5-FU (2300 mg/m(2))/LV (30 mg) and alternating OHP (70-85 mg/m(2), days 1 and 15) and CPT-11 (80-140 mg/m(2), days 8 and 22) repeated every 5 weeks. OHP and CPT-11 were escalated in cohorts of three to six patients. RESULTS: Thirty patients received a median of five cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level 3, and the recommended dose was OHP 70 mg/m(2), CPT-11 100 mg/m(2), LV 30 mg and 5-FU 2300 mg/m(2)/24 h. Grade > or =3 toxicities were diarrhea 23%, neutropenia 20%, fatigue 7%, and neurologic 7%. Two febrile neutropenia episodes (one fatal) were recorded. Among 28 patients with measurable disease (90%), we observed two complete and 20 partial responses; overall RR was 78% (95% CI, 59% to 92%). Median time to progression and overall survival were 9.5 and 25.4 months, respectively. Seven patients underwent liver metastases resection. CONCLUSION: OCFL is an overall well tolerated regimen with very high efficacy, which makes it most suitable for tumour control before surgery of metastatic disease.