Jim Cassidy

We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85–1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83–1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background The aim of this phase I study was to determine the safety and tolerability and to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of orally administered olaparib (AZD2281) in combination with topotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and methods Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically diagnosed advanced solid tumors for whom no suitable effective therapy exists were included. Patients in four cohorts received topotecan (0.5 mg/m²/day × 3 days or 1.0 mg/m²/day × 3 days) intravenously in combination with oral olaparib 50, 100 or 200 mg bid for six cycles. The primary objectives were to determine the safety and tolerability and to establish the MTD of olaparib in combination with topotecan. Results Twenty-one patients were enrolled and 19 received treatment. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. The MTD was established as topotecan 1.0 mg/m²/day × 3 days plus olaparib 100 mg bid. The most common adverse events (AEs) included fatigue and gastrointestinal events. There was an olaparib and topotecan dose-related increase in neutropenia which was dose limiting. Conclusions Further development of olaparib and topotecan in combination was not explored due to dose-limiting hematological AEs and the resulting sub-therapeutic MTD.

Background: To compare the effects of oral capecitabine-containing chemotherapy regimens with i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-containing chemotherapy regimens on overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Methods: A meta-analysis, based on individual patient data from six randomised non-inferiority trials, was carried out at the request of regulatory authorities to compare the effects of single-agent capecitabine or capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus matched 5-FU-based regimens in terms of overall survival in patients with stage III colon, metastatic colorectal or advanced gastric cancer. Results: Data from a total of 6171 patients with stage III colon cancer (n = 1987), metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 3868) or advanced gastric cancer (n = 316) were included. A total of 3097 patients were treated with capecitabine-containing chemotherapy and 3074 patients with 5-FU-containing chemotherapy. The unadjusted hazard ratio for overall survival for capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus 5-FU-containing chemotherapy was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.00; P = 0.0489). Conclusions: Oral capecitabine is at least equivalent to i.v. 5-FU in terms of overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Capecitabine and 5-FU can be used interchangeably in these patient populations.

Background Bevacizumab is frequently combined with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The relative benefit of bevacizumab in older patients has not been widely studied and is of interest. Patients and methods This retrospective analysis used data from three first-line randomized controlled studies and one second-line randomized controlled study of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in medically fit (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1) patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and on-treatment progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed in patients aged <65, ≥65, and ≥70 years. Results were compared using unstratified hazard ratios (HRs). Grade 3–5 adverse events were also assessed. Results Bevacizumab statistically significantly improved PFS [HR 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.68] and OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74–0.97) in patients aged ≥65 years; patients aged ≥70 years had similar improvements. Benefits were consistent across the studies, irrespective of setting, bevacizumab dose, or chemotherapy regimen. Increases in thromboembolic events were observed in patients aged ≥65 and ≥70 years in the bevacizumab group compared with the control group, mainly as a result of increases in arterial thromboembolic events. No other substantial age-related increases in grade 3–5 adverse events were observed. Conclusions In medically fit older patients, bevacizumab provides similar PFS and OS benefits as in younger patients.

Depression Care for People with Lung Cancer is a complex intervention delivered by specially trained cancer nurses, under the supervision of a psychiatrist. It is given as a supplement to the usual care for depression, which patients receive from their general practitioner and cancer service. The third Symptom Management Research Trial in Oncology (SMaRT Oncology-3 Trial) will test its efficacy when compared to usual care alone. A two arm parallel group multi-centre randomised controlled trial. 200 patients will be recruited through established systematic Symptom Monitoring Services, which screen patients for depression. Patients will have: a diagnosis of lung cancer; an estimated life expectancy of three months or more and a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Patients will be randomised to usual care or usual care plus Depression Care for People with Lung Cancer. Randomisation will be carried out by telephoning a secure computerised central randomisation system or by using a secure web interface. The primary outcome measure is average depression severity. This will be assessed using scores on the 20-item Symptom Hopkins Checklist (SCL-20D), collected every four weeks over 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes include severity of anxiety, pain and fatigue; self-rated improvement of depression; quality of life and satisfaction with depression care. Current controlled trials ISRCTN75905964

Background: Depression Care for People with Cancer is a complex intervention delivered by specially trained cancer nurses, under the supervision of a psychiatrist. It is given as a supplement to the usual care for depression, which patients receive from their general practitioner and cancer service. In a 'proof of concept' trial (Symptom Management Research Trials in Oncology-1) Depression Care for People with Cancer improved depression more than usual care alone. The second Symptom Management Research Trial in Oncology (SMaRT Oncology-2 Trial) will test its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a 'real world' setting. Design: A two arm parallel group multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Trial Procedures: 500 patients will be recruited through established systematic Symptom Monitoring Services, which screen patients for depression. Patients will have: a diagnosis of cancer (of various types); an estimated life expectancy of twelve months or more and a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Patients will be randomised to usual care or usual care plus Depression Care for People with Cancer. Randomisation will be carried out by telephoning a secure computerised central randomisation system or by using a secure web interface. The primary outcome measure is 'treatment response' measured at 24 week outcome data collection. 'Treatment response' will be defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the patient's baseline depression score, measured using the 20-item Symptom Checklist (SCL-20D). Secondary outcomes include remission of major depressive disorder, depression severity and patients' self-rated improvement of depression. Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN40568538 Trial Hypotheses: (1) Depression Care for People with Cancer as a supplement to usual care will be more effective than usual care alone in achieving a 50% reduction in baseline SCL-20D score at 24 weeks. (2) Depression Care for People with Cancer as a supplement to usual care will cost more than usual care alone but will be more cost effective in achieving improvements in patients' depression and quality of life.

Purpose: To evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients and Methods: The initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4. Conclusion: XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.