Capecitabine in the routine first-line treatment of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer--results from a non-interventional observation study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate feasibility, efficacy results and toxicity observations of capecitabine in routine first line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with particular regard of elderly patients (>75 years of age). METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine as part of their first-line treatment were recorded until detection of disease progression or up to a maximum of 12 cycles on standardized evaluation forms. Additional information on long-term outcomes, progression-free survival, and overall survival were retrieved at two follow-up time points. Obtained data were analyzed with regard to age up to 75 and >75 years of age. There were no specific requirements for patient selection and conduct of therapy, corresponding to the non-interventional nature of the study. RESULTS: In total, 1249 evaluable patients were enrolled in Germany. The median age of the study population was 74 years (range: 21-99). Capecitabine-based combination was administered in 56% of patients in the overall population. The median treatment duration was about 5 months. Severe toxicities occurred rarely without any difference regarding age groups. The most common hematological toxicity was anemia. Gastrointestinal side effects and hand-food-syndrome (HFS) were the most frequent non-hematologic toxicities. Overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in the patient group <=75 years compared to patients >75 years of age (38 vs. 32%, p=0.019). Median progression free survival (PFS 9.7 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.00021) and overall survival (OS 31.0 vs. 22.6 months, p<0.0001) was decreased in elderly patients. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine treatment either as single drug or in various combination regimens, as proven in randomized studies, could be confirmed in a clinical routine setting. Patients older than 75 years may derive a relevant benefit by first line capecitabine-based treatment with good tolerability.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.