11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Randomized study comparing full dose monotherapy (S-1 followed by irinotecan) and reduced dose combination therapy (S-1/oxaliplatin followed by S-1/irinotecan) as initial therapy for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: NORDIC 9

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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.

          Abstract

          Background

          Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a disease of older age, but there is a relative lack of knowledge about effects of chemotherapy in older patients as they are under-represented in clinical trials. Little data can guide whether the strategy in older mCRC patients should be a sequential full-dose monotherapy chemotherapy approach or a dose-reduced combination chemotherapy approach. The oral 5FU prodrug S-1 seems to have less side effects than capecitabine and should be an optimal drug for older patients, but few data are available. Improved geriatric assessments are needed to select which older patients should receive therapy.

          Methods

          The NORDIC 9 trial is a Nordic multicenter randomized phase II study comparing full dose monotherapy (S-1 30 mg/m 2 twice daily days 1–14 every 3 weeks, followed by second line irinotecan 250–350 mg/m 2 iv day 1 every 3 weeks or 180–250 mg/m 2 iv day 1 every 2 weeks) with reduced dose combination therapy (S-1 20 mg/m 2 days 1–14 + oxaliplatin 100 mg/m 2 iv day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by second line S-1 20 mg/m 2 days 1–14 + irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 day 1 every 3 week) for older patients (≥70 years) with mCRC who are not candidates for full-dose standard combination therapy. Additional bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) is optional in first-line. Blood samples and tumor tissue will be collected to investigate predictive markers. Geriatric screening tools (G-8, VES-13, Timed-Up-and-Go and Handgrip strength), Charlson Comorbidty Index and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) will be evaluated as predictors of efficacy and toxicity. The target sample size is 150 patients.

          The primary endpoint is progression-free survival and secondary endpoints are time-to-failure of strategy, overall survival, response rate, toxicity, and correlations between biomarkers, pre-treatment characteristics and geriatric assessments.

          Discussion

          The study will add knowledge on how to treat older mCRC patients who are not candidates for standard combination therapy. Furthermore it may provide understanding of efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in older cancer patients and thus offer a better chance for tailored treatment strategies in these patients.

          Trial registration

          EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT no. 2014–000394-39. Registered 05 May 2014.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

          As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancer patients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancer patients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancer patients. A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancer patients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
            Bookmark
            • 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

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Irinotecan plus S-1 (IRIS) versus fluorouracil and folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomised phase 2/3 non-inferiority study (FIRIS study).

              Fluorouracil and folinic acid with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) are widely used as first-line or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, infusional fluorouracil-based regimens, requiring continuous infusion and implantation of an intravenous port system, are inconvenient. We therefore planned an open-label randomised controlled trial to verify the non-inferiority of irinotecan plus oral S-1 (a combination of tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine, and potassium oxonate; IRIS) to FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Between Jan 30, 2006, and Jan 29, 2008, 426 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer needing second-line chemotherapy from 40 institutions in Japan were randomly assigned by a computer-based minimisation method to receive either FOLFIRI (n=213) or IRIS (n=213). In the FOLFIRI group, patients received folinic acid (200 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (150 mg/m(2)) and then a bolus injection of fluorouracil (400 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (2400 mg/m(2)) over 46 h, repeated every 2 weeks. In the IRIS group, patients received irinotecan (125 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 15 and S-1 (40-60 mg according to body surface area) twice daily for 2 weeks, repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 1.333. Statistical analysis was on the basis of initially randomised participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00284258. All randomised patients were included in the primary analysis. After a median follow-up of 12.9 months (IQR 11.5-18.2), median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the FOLFIRI group and 5.8 months in the IRIS group (hazard ratio 1.077, 95% CI 0.879-1.319, non-inferiority test p=0.039). The most common grade three or four adverse drug reactions were neutropenia (110 [52.1%] of 211 patients in the FOLFIRI group and 76 [36.2%] of 210 patients in the IRIS group; p=0.0012), leucopenia (33 [15.6%] in the FOLFIRI group and 38 [18.1%] in the IRIS group; p=0.5178), and diarrhoea (ten [4.7%] in the FOLFIRI group and 43 [20.5%] in the IRIS group; p<0.0001). One treatment-related death from hypotension due to shock was reported in the FOLFIRI group within 28 days after the end of treatment; no treatment-related deaths were reported in the IRIS group. Progression-free survival with IRIS is not inferior to that with FOLFIRI in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Treatment with IRIS could be an additional therapeutic option for second-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stine.winther@rsyd.dk
                pia.osterlund@helsinki.fi
                ake.berglund@igp.uu.se
                bengt.glimelius@igp.uu.se
                camilla.qvortrup@rsyd.dk
                halfdan.sorbye@helse-bergen.no
                per.pfeiffer@rsyd.dk
                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2407
                16 August 2017
                16 August 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 548
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0512 5013, GRID grid.7143.1, Department of Oncology, , Odense University Hospital, ; Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000 Odense C, Denmark
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9950 5666, GRID grid.15485.3d, Department of Oncology, , Helsinki University Central Hospital, ; Stenbäckinkatu 9, PO BOX 100, FI-00029 Helsinki, Finland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0410 2071, GRID grid.7737.4, , Clinicum, Helsinki University, ; Haartmaninkatu 8, 3th floor, PO BOX 63, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9457, GRID grid.8993.b, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, , Uppsala University, ; Dag Hammarskjölds väg 20, 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9753 1393, GRID grid.412008.f, Department of Oncology and Department of Clinical Science, , Haukeland University Hospital, ; Postboks 1400, 5021 Bergen, Norway
                Article
                3526
                10.1186/s12885-017-3526-8
                5559862
                28814275
                c125bb15-4196-467a-aa2a-db50d0121e87
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 31 August 2016
                : 1 August 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Taiho Pharmaceutical (JP)
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                randomized phase ii,non-intensive,sox,iris,oral,geriatric assessment,metastatic colorectal cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article