Integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (isPO): a new form of care for newly diagnosed cancer patients in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The annual incidence of new cancer cases has been increasing worldwide for many years, and is likely to continue to rise. In Germany, the number of new cancer cases is expected to increase by 20% until 2030. Half of all cancer patients experience significant emotional and psychosocial distress along the continuum of their disease, treatment, and aftercare, and also as long-term survivors. Consequently, in many countries, psycho-oncological programs have been developed to address this added burden at both the individual and population level. These programs promote the active engagement of patients in their cancer therapy, aftercare and survivorship planning and aim to improve the patients' quality of life. In Germany, the "new form of care isPO" ("nFC-isPO"; integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncology/integrierte, sektorenübergreifende Psycho-Onkologie) is currently being developed, implemented and evaluated. This approach strives to accomplish the goals devised in the National Cancer Plan by providing psycho-oncological care to all cancer patients according to their individual healthcare needs. The term "new form of care" is defined by the Innovation Fund (IF) of Germany's Federal Joint Committee as "a structured and legally binding cooperation between different professional groups and/or institutions in medical and non-medical care". The nFC-isPO is part of the isPO project funded by the IF. It is implemented in four local cancer centres and is currently undergoing a continuous quality improvement process. As part of the isPO project the nFC-isPO is being evaluated by an independent institution: the Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Germany. The four-year isPO project was selected by the IF to be eligible for funding because it meets the requirements of the federal government's National Cancer Plan (NCP), in particular, the "further development of the oncological care structures and quality assurance" in the psycho-oncological domain. An independent evaluation is required by the IF to verify if the new form of care leads to an improvement in cross-sectoral care and to explore its potential for permanent integration into the German health care system. METHODS: The nFC-isPO consists of six components: a concept of care (C1), care pathways (C2), a psycho-oncological care network (C3), a care process organization plan (C4), an IT-supported documentation and assistance system (C5) and a quality management system (C6). The two components concept of care (C1) and care pathways (C2) represent the isPO clinical care program, according to which the individual cancer patients are offered psycho-oncological services within a period of 12 months after program enrolment following the diagnosis of cancer. The remaining components (C3-C6) represent the formal-administrative aspects of the nFC-isPO that are intended to meet the legally binding requirements of patient care in the German health care system. With the aim of systematic development of the nFC-isPO while at the same time enabling the external evaluators to examine its quality, effectiveness and efficiency under conditions of routine care, the project partners took into consideration approaches from translational psycho-oncology, practice-based health care research and program theory. In order to develop a structured, population-based isPO care program, reference was made to a specific program theory, to the stepped-care approach, and also to evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The basic version, nFC-isPO, was created over the first year after the start of the isPO project in October 2017, and has since been subject to a continuous quality improvement process. In 2019, the nFC-isPO was implemented at four local psycho-oncological care networks in the federal state North Rhine-Westphalia, in Germany. The legal basis of the implementation is a contract for "special care" with the German statutory health insurance funds according to state law (§ 140a SCB V; Social Code Book V for the statutory health insurance funds). Besides the accompanying external evaluation by the IMVR, the nFC-isPO is subjected to quarterly internal and cross-network quality assurance and improvement measures (internal evaluation) in order to ensure continuous quality improvement process. These quality management measures are developed and tested in the isPO project and are to be retained in order to ensure the sustainability of the quality of nFC-isPO for later dissemination into the German health care system. DISCUSSION: Demands on quality, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of in the German health care system are increasing, whereas financial resources are declining, especially for psychosocial services. At the same time, knowledge about evidence-based screening, assessment and intervention in cancer patients and about the provision of psychosocial oncological services is growing continuously. Due to the legal framework of the statutory health insurance in Germany, it has taken years to put sound psycho-oncological findings from research into practice. Ensuring the adequate and sustainable financing of a needs-oriented, psycho-oncological care approach for all newly diagnosed cancer patients, as required by the NCP, may still require many additional years. The aim of the isPO project is to develop a new form of psycho-oncological care for the individual and the population suffering from cancer, and to provide those responsible for German health policy with a sound basis for decision-making on the timely dissemination of psycho-oncological services in the German health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was pre-registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (https://www.drks.de/DRKS00015326) under the following trial registration number: DRKS00015326 ; Date of registration: October 30, 2018.

Quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without oxaliplatin in the randomised CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CAO/ARO/AIO trial has shown that oxaliplatin added to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy significantly improved disease-free survival in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Here, we present a post-hoc analysis of quality of life (QoL) in disease-free patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2010, 1236 patients with LARC were randomly assigned either to preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision and postoperative chemotherapy (N = 623) or combined with oxaliplatin (N = 613). QoL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, colorectal module CR38) were completed at baseline, after postoperative chemotherapy and during follow-up. Analysis was performed according intent-to-treat. RESULTS: Available questionnaires (baseline) were 82% (N = 512) in the control and 84% (N = 513) in the investigational group. Response rates were 49% (533 of 1086) at 1 year and 43% (403 of 928) at 3 years. Global health status (GHS) for disease-free patients was stable in both groups (range 0-100). At baseline: standard arm 62.0 (mean, SD 21.6; N = 491) versus oxaliplatin arm 63.2 (mean, SD 22; N = 503); at 3 years: 69.4 (SD 19.3; N = 187) versus 65.4 (SD 22.2; N = 202). After treatment and at 3 years, no significant differences (≥10 points) between groups were found in QoL subscales. Disease-free patients experiencing neurotoxic side-effects (grade 1-4) showed reduced GHS at 3 years versus patients without neurotoxicity (mean 59.2 versus 69.3; P < 0.001), while grade 3-4 rate was low. CONCLUSION: The addition of oxaliplatin was not associated with worse overall QoL. This information is of interest to patients in many ongoing rectal cancer trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT00349076.

Leukocytosis and neutrophilia as independent prognostic immunological biomarkers for clinical outcome in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomized phase 3 rectal cancer trial.

Peripheral blood leukocytosis and neutrophilia reflect cancer inflammation and have been proposed as prognostic immunological biomarkers in various malignancies. However, previous studies were limited by their retrospective nature and small patient numbers. Baseline peripheral blood leukocytes, neutrophils, hemoglobin, platelets, lactate dehydrogenase and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were correlated with clinicopathologic characteristics, and clinical outcome in 1236 patients with rectal cancer treated with 5-FU-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone or with oxaliplatin followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy within the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomized phase 3 trial. Multivariable analyses were performed using Cox regression models. After a median follow-up of 50 months, baseline leukocytosis remained an independent adverse prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS; HR 1.457; 95% CI 1.163-1.825; p = 0.001), distant metastasis (HR 1.696; 95% CI 1.266-2.273; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS; HR 1.716; 95% CI 1.264-2.329; p = 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Similar significant findings were observed for neutrophilia and high CEA levels. Conversely, treatment-induced leukopenia correlated with favorable DFS (p = 0.037), distant metastasis (p = 0.028) and OS (p = 0.012). Intriguingly, addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU CRT resulted in a significant DFS improvement only in patients with neutrophilia and leukocytosis (p = 0.028 and p = 0.002). Our findings have important clinical implications and provide high-level evidence on the adverse prognostic role of leukocytes and neutrophils, and the impact of chemotherapy in the context of these biomarkers. These data could help guide patient stratification and should be further validated within prospective studies.

Tumor Regression Grading After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy as a Prognostic Factor and Individual-Level Surrogate for Disease-Free Survival in Rectal Cancer.

Background: We investigated tumor regression grading (TRG) as a prognostic marker and individual-level surrogate for disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with rectal carcinoma treated within the Chirurgische Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Onkologie/Arbeitsgemeinschaft Radiologische Onkologie/Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (CAO/ARO/AIO)-04 randomized trial. Methods: TRG was recorded prospectively using the Dworak classification in 1179 patients after preoperative fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without oxaliplatin. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox regression models adjusted for treatment arm, resection status, and pathologic stage. Individual-level surrogacy of TRG for DFS was examined using the four Prentice criteria (PC1-4). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: With a median follow-up of 50 months, the addition of oxaliplatin to fluorouracil-based CRT led to statistically significantly improved three-year DFS (75.9%, 95% CI = 72.3 to 79.5, vs 71.3%, 95% CI = 67.6 to 74.9, P = .04, PC 1) and a shift toward more advanced TRG groups ( P < .001, PC 2) compared with CRT with fluorouracil alone. The three-year DFS was 64.6% (95% CI = 57.3 to 71.9), 77.6% (95% CI = 74.5 to 80.7), and 92.3% (95% CI = 88.4 to 96.2) for TRG 0 + 1 (poor regression), TRG 2 + 3 (intermediate regression), and TRG 4 (complete regression), respectively ( P < .001, PC 3). TRG constituted an independent prognostic factor for DFS (TRG 2 + 3 vs TRG 0 + 1, HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.90, P = .007). Due to multicollinearity, TRG 4 and pathologic stage could not be tested within the same model. The treatment effect on DFS was captured by TRG, satisfying individual-level PC4. Conclusions: Higher TRG after preoperative CRT predicted a favorable long-term outcome. At the individual patient level, TRG was a surrogate marker for DFS. Further phase III trials are needed to validate TRG as a surrogate at trial level.

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

Oxaliplatin added to fluorouracil-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer (the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 study): final results of the multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, total mesorectal excision surgery, and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil was established by the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial as a standard combined modality treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Here we compare the previously established regimen with an investigational regimen in which oxaliplatin was added to both preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study we randomly assigned patients with rectal adenocarcinoma, clinically staged as cT3-4 or any node-positive disease, to two groups: a control group receiving standard fluorouracil-based combined modality treatment, consisting of preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions plus infusional fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-33), followed by surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29); or to an investigational group receiving preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions plus infusional fluorouracil (250 mg/m(2) on days 1-14 and 22-35) and oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 22, and 29), followed by surgery and eight cycles of oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15), leucovorin (400 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15), and infusional fluorouracil (2400 mg/m(2) on days 1-2 and 15-16). Randomisation was done with computer-generated block-randomisation codes stratified by centre, clinical T category (cT1-3 vs cT4), and clinical N category (cN0 vs cN1-2) without masking. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomisation and non-radical surgery of the primary tumour (R2 resection), locoregional recurrence after R0/1 resection, metastatic disease or progression, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Survival and cumulative incidence of recurrence analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle; toxicity analyses included all patients treated. Enrolment of patients in this trial is completed and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349076. FINDINGS: Of the 1265 patients initially enrolled, 1236 were assessable (613 in the investigational group and 623 in the control group). With a median follow-up of 50 months (IQR 38-61), disease-free survival at 3 years was 75·9% (95% CI 72·4-79·5) in the investigational group and 71·2% (95% CI 67·6-74·9) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·64-0·98; p=0·03). Preoperative grade 3-4 toxic effects occurred in 144 (24%) of 607 patients who actually received fluorouracil and oxaliplatin during chemoradiotherapy and in 128 (20%) of 625 patients who actually received fluorouracil chemoradiotherapy. Of 445 patients who actually received adjuvant fluorouracil and leucovorin and oxaliplatin, 158 (36%) had grade 3-4 toxic effects, as did 170 (36%) of 470 patients who actually received adjuvant fluorouracil. Late grade 3-4 adverse events in patients who received protocol-specified preoperative and postoperative treatment occurred in 112 (25%) of 445 patients in the investigational group, and in 100 (21%) of 470 patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Adding oxaliplatin to fluorouracil-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy (at the doses and intensities used in this trial) significantly improved disease-free survival of patients with clinically staged cT3-4 or cN1-2 rectal cancer compared with our former fluorouracil-based combined modality regimen (based on CAO/ARO/AIO-94). The regimen established by CAO/ARO/AIO-04 can be deemed a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe).

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil is the standard combined modality treatment for rectal cancer. With the aim of improving disease-free survival (DFS), this phase 3 study (CAO/ARO/AIO-04) integrated oxaliplatin into standard treatment. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study in patients with histologically proven carcinoma of the rectum with clinically staged T3-4 or any node-positive disease. Between July 25, 2006, and Feb 26, 2010, patients were randomly assigned to two groups: a control group receiving standard fluorouracil-based combined modality treatment, consisting of preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33), followed by surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29; fluorouracil group); and an experimental group receiving preoperative radiotherapy of 50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil (250 mg/m(2) days 1-14 and 22-35) and oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 22, and 29), followed by surgery and eight cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2) days 1 and 15), leucovorin (400 mg/m(2) days 1 and 15), and infusional fluorouracil (2400 mg/m(2) days 1-2 and 15-16; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin group). Randomisation was done with computer-generated block-randomisation codes stratified by centre, clinical T category (cT1-4 vs cT4), and clinical N category (cN0 vs cN1-2) without masking. DFS is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints, including toxicity, compliance, and histopathological response are reported here. Safety and compliance analyses included patients as treated, efficacy endpoints were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349076. FINDINGS: Of the 1265 patients initially enrolled, 1236 were evaluable (613 in the fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin group and 623 in the fluorouracil group). Preoperative grade 3-4 toxic effects occurred in 140 (23%) of 606 patients who actually received fluorouracil and oxaliplatin during chemoradiotherapy and in 127 (20%) of 624 patients who actually received fluorouracil chemoradiotherapy. Grade 3-4 diarrhoea was more common in those who received fluorouracil and oxaliplatin during chemoradiotherapy than in those who received fluorouracil during chemoradiotherapy (73 patients [12%] vs 52 patients [8%]), as was grade 3-4 nausea or vomiting (23 [4%] vs nine [1%]). 516 (85%) of the 606 patients who received fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based chemoradiotherapy had the full dose of chemotherapy, and 571 (94%) had the full dose of radiotherapy; as did 495 (79%) and 601 (96%) of 624 patients who received fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, respectively. A pathological complete response was achieved in 103 (17%) of 591 patients who underwent surgery in the fluorouracil and oxaliplatin group and in 81 (13%) of 606 patients who underwent surgery in the fluorouracil group (odds ratio 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; p=0·038). In the fluorouracil and oxaliplatin group, 352 (81%) of 435 patients who began adjuvant chemotherapy completed all cycles (with or without dose reduction), as did 386 (83%) of 463 patients in the fluorouracil group. INTERPRETATION: Inclusion of oxaliplatin into modified fluorouracil-based combined modality treatment was feasible and led to more patients achieving a pathological complete response than did standard treatment. Longer follow-up is needed to assess DFS. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe).

Induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer : is it time for a randomized phase III trial?

BACKGROUND: in the era of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME), the development of distant metastases is the predominant mode of failure in rectal cancer patients today. Integrating more effective systemic therapy into combined modality programs is the challenge. The question that needs to be addressed is how and when to apply systemic treatment with adequate dose and intensity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this review article focuses on phase II-III trials designed to improve 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based combined modality treatment for rectal cancer patients through the inclusion of concurrent, adjuvant or, most recently, induction combination chemotherapy. Computerized bibliographic searches of PubMed were supplemented with hand searches of reference lists and abstracts of ASCO/ASTRO/ESTRO meetings. RESULTS: after preoperative CRT and surgical resection, approximately one third of patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, mainly due to surgical complications, patients' refusal, or investigator's discretion. In order to be able to apply chemotherapy with sufficient dose and intensity, an innovative approach is to deliver systemic therapy prior to preoperative CRT rather than adjuvant chemotherapy. Emerging evidence from several phase II trials and, recently, randomized phase II trials indicate that induction chemotherapy is feasible, does not compromise CRT or surgical resection, and enables the delivery of chemotherapy in adequate dose and intensity. Although this approach did not increase local efficacy in recent trials (e.g., pathological complete response rates, tumor regression, R0 resection rates, local control), it may help to improve control of distant disease. CONCLUSION: whether this improvement in applicability and dose density of chemotherapy will ultimately translate into improved disease-free survival will have to be tested in a larger phase III trial.

Gefitinib in combination with capecitabine as second-line therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC): a phase I/II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO).

BACKGROUND: This phase I/II study was conducted to assess the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of gefitinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After failure of a 1st-line therapy, patients with aCRC received escalating doses of gefitinib once daily in combination with capecitabine twice daily: dose level (DL) 1: gefitinib 250 mg and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), DL 2: gefitinib 250 mg and capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2), DL 3: gefitinib 500 mg and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2). DLTs were determined after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were enrolled. On DL1 (n = 6), 1 patient developed a DLT (hand-foot syndrome, HFS n = 1). On DL2 (n = 7), DLTs were observed in 3 patients (exanthema n = 2, HFS n = 1), and on DL3 (n = 3), DLT occurred in 1 patient (HFS n = 1) resulting in recruitment stop at DL3. No patient showed an objective tumor response. Disease stabilization was observed in 6 patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of gefitinib and capecitabine resulted in significant skin toxicities such as exanthema and HFS. As 2nd-line treatment of patients with aCRC, this combination showed no substantial efficacy.