Citations

Purpose Six randomized phase II and III trials have investigated the role of oxaliplatin (OX) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) or infusional fluorouracil (FU) in metastatic colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of CAP/OX compared with infusional FU/OX. Patients and Methods This analysis compared all published CAP/OX versus infusional FU/OX regimens. A total of 3,494 patients (FU, n = 1,737; CAP, n = 1,757) were analyzed for response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results The fixed-effect pooled estimate for RR showed higher RR for FU-based regimens (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P = .02) whereas the analysis of chemotherapy-only trials, excluding the bevacizumab containing NO16966 and TREE 2 trials, led to an OR of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .007). However, for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.12; P = .17) and OS (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.12; P = .41) all models suggested similar outcome within the range of noninferiority. Grade 3/4 toxicities (thrombocytopenia—HR = 2.07, 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.03; P < .0002; diarrhea—HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.66; P < .0009; and grade 2/3 hand-foot-syndrome [HFS]—HR = 3.54; 95% CI, 2.07 to 6.05; P < .00001) were less prominent with FU-based regimens whereas neutropenia (HR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.19; P < .00001) was lower in the CAP regimens. Conclusion The combination of CAP and OX resulted in lower RR, but this did not affect PFS and OS, which were similar in both treatment arms. The toxicity analysis showed the characteristic toxicity of each of the different FU schedules, with thrombocytopenia and HFS consistently more prominent in the CAP regimens.

Purpose To compare the use of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) with infusional fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FUFOX) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 474 patients with MCRC received either CAPOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid, days 1 to 14 plus oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, repeated every 22 days) ) or FUFOX (oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 followed by leucovorin 500 mg/m2 plus FU 2,000 mg/m2 as a 22-hour infusion days 1, 8, 15, and 22, repeated every 36 days). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and toxicity. The study was designed to determine noninferiority for the CAPOX regimen. Results Median PFS was 7.1 months in the CAPOX arm and 8.0 months in the FUFOX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.43; P = .117). Median OS was 16.8 months (CAPOX) and 18.8 months (FUFOX; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = .26). Overall RRs were 48% for CAPOX (95% CI, 41% to 54%) and 54% for FUFOX (95% CI, 47% to 60%). Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although there was a significantly higher incidence of grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in the CAPOX arm (P = .028). Conclusion CAPOX resulted in a slightly inferior efficacy than FUFOX. With respect to PFS, the best estimate of the HR of 1.17 was within the prespecified equivalence range. However, a relevant inferiority cannot be excluded. Both regimens were generally well tolerated but there was a significantly higher rate of grade 2/3 HFS in the CAPOX arm.

Background— The importance of completeness of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease is unclear in that there is little information on the impact of incomplete revascularization outside of randomized trials. The objective of this study is to compare long-term mortality and subsequent revascularization for percutaneous coronary intervention patients receiving stents who were completely revascularized (CR) with those who were incompletely revascularized (IR). Methods and Results— Patients from New York State’s Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System were subdivided into patients who were CR and IR. Then subsets of IR patients were contrasted with CR patients. Differences in long-term survival and subsequent revascularization for CR and IR patients were compared after adjustment for differences in preprocedural risk. A total of 68.9% of all stent patients with multivessel disease who were studied were IR, and 30.1% of all patients had total occlusions and/or ≥2 IR vessels. At baseline, the following patients were at higher risk: those who were older and those with more comorbid conditions, worse ejection fraction, and more renal disease and stroke. After adjustment for these baseline differences, IR patients were significantly more likely to die at any time (adjusted hazard ratio=1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.30) than CR patients. IR patients with total occlusions and a total of ≥2 IR vessels were at the highest risk compared with CR patients (hazard ratio=1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.66). Conclusions— IR with stenting is associated with an adverse impact on long-term mortality, and consideration should be given to either achieving CR, opting for surgery, or monitoring percutaneous coronary intervention patients with IR more closely after discharge.

Purpose Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. Methods We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. Results Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of ≤ 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of ≤ 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. Conclusion The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.

Background— Most studies that are the basis of recommended volume thresholds for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) predate the routine use of stent placement. Methods and Results— Data from New York’s Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Reporting System in 1998 to 2000 (n=107 713) were used to examine the impact of annual hospital volume and annual operator volume on in-hospital mortality, same-day coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, and same-stay CABG surgery after adjustment for differences in patients’ severity of illness. For a hospital-volume threshold of 400, the odds ratios for low-volume hospitals versus high-volume hospitals were 1.98 (95% CI, 1.17, 3.35) for in-hospital mortality, 2.07 (95% CI, 1.36, 3.15) for same-day CABG surgery, and 1.51 (95% CI, 1.03, 2.21) for same-stay CABG surgery. For an operator-volume threshold of 75, the odds ratios for low-volume versus high-volume operators were 1.65 (95% CI, 1.05, 2.60) for same-day CABG surgery and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10, 2.18) for same-stay CABG surgery. Operator volume was not significantly associated with mortality. Also, for hospital volumes below 400 and operator volumes below 75, the respective odds of mortality, same-day CABG surgery, and same-stay CABG surgery were 5.92, 4.02, and 3.92 times the odds for hospital volumes of 400 or higher and operator volumes of 75 or higher. Conclusions— Higher-volume operators and hospitals continue to experience lower risk-adjusted PCI outcome rates.

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.