Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements in breast cancer quality indicators during a 3-year interval.

BACKGROUND: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC), composed of 11 practice sites across Florida, conducted its initial evaluation of adherence to breast cancer quality of care indicators (QCI) in 2006, with feedback provided to encourage quality improvement efforts at participating sites. In this study, our objective was to reassess changes over time resulting from these efforts. STUDY DESIGN: Quality care indicators were derived from the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Surgeons, and expert panel consensus. Medical records were reviewed for breast cancer patients first seen by medical oncologists in 2009 at the FIQCC sites, using the same performance indicators as in 2006. Statistical comparisons of 2006 vs 2009 data across sites were made by Pearson chi-square exact test using Monte Carlo estimation. RESULTS: Charts of 602 patients in 2006 and 636 patients in 2009 were compared. Performance on medical oncology QCI improved over time for documentation of clinical trial participation discussion (p = 0.001), documentation of consent for chemotherapy (p = 0.047), definitive surgery done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.017), and planned dose of chemotherapy consistent with published regimens (p = 0.02). Improvements in surgical QCI were seen for documentation of specimen orientation (p < 0.001), inking of margins (p < 0.0001), and performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The 2006 FIQCC study identified several medical and surgical oncology QCI improvement needs. Quality improvement efforts resulted in better performance for numerous metrics, therefore speaking to the benefits of reassessment of adherence to performance indicators to guide QCI efforts.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Treatment decisions after diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves the use of active cytotoxic drugs (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], and capecitabine) and biological agents (bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab) either in combination or as single agents. Until recently, the only biological agent with proven first-line efficacy was bevacizumab, but options have expanded from the data generated with anti-endothelial growth factor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies. Anti-EGFR agents can be added to first-line FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], irinotecan) or FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], oxaliplatin) in patients whose tumors express wild-type KRAS. These agents may improve outcomes when added to chemotherapy, particularly progression-free survival (PFS), and in the case of cetuximab, overall survival (OS) and response rates. The selection of first-line therapy should be based on the individual treatment goals after considering the efficacy and tolerability of each regimen. For patients with metastases confined to the liver, surgical resection offers a potentially curative approach. For initially unresectable lesions, treatment regimens offering high response rates may produce sufficient tumor shrinkage to permit complete resection. Regimens with high response rates are also preferable for patients requiring symptom relief or for those with large tumor burdens. The choice between intensive vs. nonintensive management also depends on other factors, including the patient's functional status, comorbidities, and desires. A sequential single-agent strategy or an intermittent approach (combination therapy followed by maintenance) may minimize toxicity and be appropriate for patients who are not surgical candidates, irrespective of treatment response. Guidelines, such as those of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), recommend that KRAS mutational status should be determined at mCRC diagnosis to identify candidates for anti-EGFR therapy whether they are used in first or subsequent lines of treatment.

Degree of variability in performance on breast cancer quality indicators: findings from the Florida initiative for quality cancer care.

PURPOSE: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC) comprises 11 Florida practice sites that participate in comprehensive reviews of quality of care specific to patients with cancer. Here, we examined site adherence to performance indicators to assess quality of care for patients with breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Quality indicators were scripted on the basis of accepted guidelines from the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American College of Surgeons, and site-specific expert panel consensus. Comprehensive chart reviews, including both medical and surgical oncology quality measures, were conducted for patients with BC first seen in 2006 by a medical oncologist at one of the sites. Statistical comparisons were made by the Pearson χ(2) exact test, using Monte Carlo estimation. RESULTS: Charts of 622 patients were reviewed. Of the 34 indicators, seven for medical oncology and four for surgical oncology fell below the 85% level of adherence. A statistically significant difference (P < .001) in variation of performance across the sites was found for the following medical and surgical oncology indicators: documentation of menopausal status, family history, informed consent, planned chemotherapy regimen and flow sheet, American Joint Committee on Cancer staging, HER2/neu status, reporting of margin orientation and inking of the margins, histological grade, having a sentinel lymph node biopsy for invasive BC, and obtaining a mammogram within 14 months of definitive surgery. CONCLUSION: The FIQCC has identified how multiple aspects of BC care can be improved. Findings are being used at the participating institutions to guide quality improvement efforts.

Costs associated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil monotherapy after surgical resection in patients with colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare chemotherapy-related and total medical costs among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy after surgical resection. METHODS: This retrospective, claim-based study utilized the Thomson Reuters Market Scan(R) databases to identify 1,396 CRC patients who received capecitabine or 5-FU monotherapy within 90 days of surgical resection from 2003 through 2006. Propensity score matching addressed selection bias, and multivariate models estimated adjusted relative risks of treatment-related complications and medical costs of matched cohorts. RESULTS: Capecitabine users incurred USD 740 less in total direct medical costs (p = 0.003) and USD 785 less in chemotherapy-related costs (p < 0.0001) than 5-FU users. Although drug acquisition cost was higher for capecitabine than for 5-FU (USD 958 vs. USD 71, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy administration cost was lower (USD 76 vs. USD 1,062, p < 0.0001). The unadjusted (610 vs. 1,960 events per 1,000 person-months) and adjusted risks (47%) were lower for capecitabine than 5-FU for any complication, and specifically for bone marrow (67%), gastrointestinal (50%), and constitutional (41%) complications (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy was associated with lower total medical and chemotherapy-related costs than 5-FU. Reduced complications and costs associated with capecitabine administration offset the higher acquisition cost.

Phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: a planned safety analysis in 1,864 patients.

PURPOSE: To report the results of a planned safety analysis from a phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III colon carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either XELOX (intravenous oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine; 3-week cycle for eight cycles) or standard intravenous bolus FU/LV administered as the Mayo Clinic (Mayo; Rochester, MN) or Roswell Park (RP; Buffalo, NY) regimen for a similar length of time. A total of 1,886 patients were randomly assigned. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 1,864 patients, of whom 938 received XELOX and 926 received FU/LV. Most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred at similar rates in both treatment arms. However, patients receiving XELOX experienced less all-grade diarrhea, alopecia, and more neurosensory toxicity, vomiting, and hand-foot syndrome than those patients receiving FU/LV. Compared with Mayo, XELOX showed fewer grade 3/4 hematologic AE and more grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE. Compared with RP, XELOX showed less grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE and more grade 3/4 hematologic AE. As expected grade 3/4 neurosensory toxicity and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome were higher with XELOX. Treatment-related mortality within 28 days from the last study dose was 0.6% in the XELOX group and 0.6% in the FU/LV group. CONCLUSION: XELOX has a manageable tolerability profile in the adjuvant setting. Efficacy data will be available within the next 24 months.