Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou.
Department of Medical Oncology, The First People's Hospital of Foshan, Guangzhou.
Ann Oncol. 2016 Jun;27(6):1074-1081. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw101. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
The optimal strategy of maintenance therapy for patients with mCRC is controversial. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with capecitabine versus observation following inductive chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial, patients who received 18-24 weeks of induction chemotherapy with XELOX or FOLFOX and achieved disease control were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive maintenance therapy of capecitabine or only observation until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization; the secondary end points included overall survival (OS), PFS from induction treatment (PFS2) and safety. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02027363.
Between 30 July 2010 and 15 September 2013, 274 patients were enrolled in the study from 11 sites in China and randomly assigned to maintenance group (n = 136) or observation group (n = 138). Clinicopathological characteristics were balanced in two groups. The median follow-up time from randomization was 29.0 months [interquartile range (IQR) 21-36 months]. The primary end point of PFS was statistically significantly longer in capecitabine maintenance group than in observation group {6.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.26-7.71] versus 3.43 (2.83-4.16) months, HR 0.54 (0.42-0.70), P < 0.001}. The median OS of capecitabine maintenance group was longer than that of observation group, but not statistically significant [25.63 (22.46-27.80) versus 23.30 (19.68-26.92) months; HR 0.85 (0.64-1.11), P = 0.2247]. Similar safety profiles were observed in both arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in capecitabine maintenance group versus observation group were neutropenia, hand-foot syndrome, and mucositis.
Maintenance therapy with a single agent of capecitabine can be considered an appropriate option following the induction of XELOX or FOLFOX in mCRC patients with acceptable toxicities.
NCT02027363.
转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)患者的维持治疗策略存在争议。本研究旨在评估卡培他滨维持治疗与诱导化疗后观察对转移性结直肠癌患者的疗效和安全性。
这是一项随机、开放标签、多中心、III 期临床试验,入组的患者接受 18-24 周的 XELOX 或 FOLFOX 诱导化疗,并达到疾病控制,随后进行中央随机分组(1:1),分别接受卡培他滨维持治疗或仅观察直至疾病进展。主要终点是随机分组后的无进展生存期(PFS);次要终点包括总生存期(OS)、诱导治疗后的 PFS(PFS2)和安全性。分析采用意向治疗。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT02027363。
2010 年 7 月 30 日至 2013 年 9 月 15 日,从中国 11 个研究中心入组了 274 例患者,并随机分为维持治疗组(n=136)和观察组(n=138)。两组的临床病理特征均衡。随机分组后中位随访时间为 29.0 个月(IQR 21-36 个月)。卡培他滨维持治疗组的 PFS 主要终点显著长于观察组[6.43(95%CI 5.26-7.71)个月与 3.43(2.83-4.16)个月,HR 0.54(0.42-0.70),P<0.001]。卡培他滨维持治疗组的 OS 长于观察组,但无统计学意义[25.63(22.46-27.80)个月与 23.30(19.68-26.92)个月;HR 0.85(0.64-1.11),P=0.2247]。两组的安全性谱相似。卡培他滨维持治疗组与观察组最常见的 3 级或 4 级毒性为中性粒细胞减少、手足综合征和黏膜炎。
XELOX 或 FOLFOX 诱导化疗后,卡培他滨单药维持治疗可作为转移性结直肠癌患者的一种合适选择,且毒性可接受。
NCT02027363。