25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial

      research-article
      a , * , b , c , d , e , f , e , e , b , b , on behalf of the FOCUS2 Investigators , the National Cancer Research Institute Colorectal Cancer Clinical Studies Group
      Lancet
      Lancet Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

          Methods

          We undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy. After comprehensive health assessment (CHA), patients were randomly assigned by minimisation to: 48-h intravenous fluorouracil with levofolinate (group A); oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (group B); capecitabine (group C); or oxaliplatin and capecitabine (group D). Treatment allocation was not masked. Starting doses were 80% of standard doses, with discretionary escalation to full dose after 6 weeks. The two primary outcome measures were: addition of oxaliplatin ([A vs B] + [C vs D]), assessed with progression-free survival (PFS); and substitution of fluorouracil with capecitabine ([A vs C] + [B vs D]), assessed by change from baseline to 12 weeks in global quality of life (QoL). Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and CHA data were modelled against outcomes with a novel composite measure, overall treatment utility (OTU). This study is registered, number ISRCTN21221452.

          Findings

          459 patients were randomly assigned (115 to each of groups A–C, 114 to group D). Factorial comparison of addition of oxaliplatin versus no addition suggested some improvement in PFS, but the finding was not significant (median 5·8 months [IQR 3·3–7·5] vs 4·5 months [2·8–6·4]; hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·69–1·01, p=0·07). Replacement of fluorouracil with capecitabine did not improve global QoL: 69 of 124 (56%) patients receiving fluorouracil reported improvement in global QoL compared with 69 of 123 (56%) receiving capecitabine. The risk of having any grade 3 or worse toxic effect was not significantly increased with oxaliplatin (83/219 [38%] vs 70/221 [32%]; p=0·17), but was higher with capecitabine than with fluorouracil (88/222 [40%] vs 65/218 [30%]; p=0·03). In multivariable analysis, fewer baseline symptoms (odds ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·14–1·52), less widespread disease (1·51, 1·05–2·19), and use of oxaliplatin (0·57, 0·39–0·82) were predictive of better OTU.

          Interpretation

          FOCUS2 shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomised controlled trial. On balance, a combination including oxaliplatin was preferable to single-agent fluoropyrimidines, although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met. Capecitabine did not improve QoL compared with fluorouracil. Comprehensive baseline assessment holds promise as an objective predictor of treatment benefit.

          Funding

          Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial.

          Irinotecan is active against colorectal cancer in patients whose disease is refractory to fluorouracil. We investigated the efficacy of these two agents combined for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. 387 patients previously untreated with chemotherapy (other than adjuvant) for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned open-label irinotecan plus fluorouracil and calcium folinate (irinotecan group, n=199) or fluorouracil and calcium folinate alone (no-irinotecan group, n=188). Infusion schedules were once weekly or every 2 weeks, and were chosen by each centre. We assessed response rates and time to progression, and also response duration, survival, and quality of life. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and on evaluable patients. The response rate was significantly higher in patients in the irinotecan group than in those in the no-irinotecan group (49 vs 31%, p<0.001 for evaluable patients, 35 vs 22%, p<0.005 by intention to treat). Time to progression was significantly longer in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group (median 6.7 vs 4.4 months, p<0.001), and overall survival was higher (median 17.4 vs 14.1 months, p=0.031). Some grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were significantly more frequent in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group, but effects were predictible, reversible, non-cumulative, and manageable. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil and calcium folinate was well-tolerated and increased response rate, time to progression, and survival, with a later deterioration in quality of life. This combination should be considered as a reference first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pooled safety and efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in nine first-line treatment trials using individual data from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

            Performance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain. Individual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade > or = 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy. Compared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade > or = 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients. In clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Irinotecan/fluorouracil combination in first-line therapy of older and younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: combined analysis of 2,691 patients in randomized controlled trials.

              Uncertainty exists about whether elderly patients benefit to the same extent as younger patients from combination therapy with irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Combined analysis was carried out with source data from the fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid (FA) and the irinotecan/FU/FA arms of four first-line, phase III trials of CRC to investigate the efficacy and safety of combination and monotherapy in elderly (age > or = 70 years; n = 599) compared with younger (age or = 70 years (46.6% v 29.0% P < .0001; and 50.5% v 30.3%, P < .0001, respectively). With irinotecan/FU/FA, progression-free survival was better for both younger (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85; P < .0001) and elderly patients (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90; P = .0026). In younger patients, overall survival was improved with combination therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92; P = .0003). The same trend was observed in elderly patients (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .15). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and age in the regression analysis. The expected differences in toxicity between combination and monotherapy in elderly and younger patients were observed. A significant interaction between treatment and age (cutoff, 70 years) for vomiting and hepatotoxicity was not confirmed by analysis that used age as a continuous variable. Patients older than 70 years of age who were selected for inclusion in phase III trials derived similar benefits as younger patients from irinotecan-containing chemotherapy, and the risk of toxicity was similar.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet Publishing Group
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                21 May 2011
                21 May 2011
                : 377
                : 9779
                : 1749-1759
                Affiliations
                [a ]St James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [b ]Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
                [c ]Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [d ]Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
                [e ]Velindre Hospital NHS Trust and University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
                [f ]Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Matthew T Seymour, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK m.seymour@ 123456ncrn.org.uk
                [‡]

                FOCUS2 Investigators listed at end of paper

                Article
                LANCET60399
                10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60399-1
                3109515
                21570111
                58a5fbf0-a99e-4597-9e3b-643a5b3fef7a
                © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article