Phase III trial comparing 3-6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX4/XELOX in stage II-III colon cancer: safety and compliance in the TOSCA trial

BACKGROUND

Six months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care for radically resected stage III colon cancer and an accepted option for high-risk stage II. A shorter duration of therapy, if equally efficacious, would be advantageous for patients and Health-Care Systems.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

TOSCA ['Randomized trial investigating the role of FOLFOX-4 or XELOX (3 versus 6 months) regimen duration and bevacizumab as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II/III colon cancer] is an open-label, phase III, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomizing patients with high-risk stage II or stage III radically resected colon cancer to receive 3 months (arm 3 m) versus 6 months (arm 6 m) of FOLFOX4/XELOX. Primary end-point was relapse-free survival. We present here safety and compliance data.

RESULTS

From June 2007 to March 2013, 3759 patients were accrued from 130 Italian sites, 64% receiving FOLFOX4 and 36% XELOX in either arm. Treatment completion rate without any modification was 35% versus 12% and with delays or dose reduction 52% versus 44% in arm 3 and 6 m. Treatment was permanently discontinued in 8% (arm 3 m) and 33% (arm 6 m). In arm 6 m, 50% of patients discontinuing treatment did so after completing 80% of planned program. Grade 3+ toxicities were higher in arm 6 m than that in 3 m. Grade 2+ neuropathy was 31.2% versus 8.8% (P < 0.0001) while grade 3+ was 8.4 versus 1.3 (P < 0.0001), in arm 3 and 6 m. Seven deaths within 30 days from last treatment administration in arm 6 m and three deaths in arm 3 m were observed (0.3% versus 0.1%, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

TOSCA is the first trial comparing 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy completing accrual within the international initiative of treatment duration evaluation (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant, IDEA). High compliance to treatment in control arm will allow a correct assessment of potential differences between the two treatment durations.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00646607.

Old and new oral anticoagulants for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, used in oral anticoagulation therapy currently represent the standard drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), with a relative risk reduction close to 70%. Newer oral anticoagulants, such as direct thrombin inhibitors (<em>i.e</em>., dabigatran) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (<em>i.e</em>., apixaban and rivaroxaban) have been recently compared with warfarin in large randomized trials for stroke prevention in AF. The new oral anticoagulants showed, compared with warfarin, no statistically significant difference in the rate of stroke or systemic embolism in secondary prevention (patients with previous transient ischemic attack or stroke) subgroups. With regard to safety, the risk of intracranial bleeding was reduced with new anticoagulants compared with warfarin. Indirect treatment comparisons of clinical trials on secondary prevention cohorts showed no significant difference in efficacy among apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran; but dabigatran 110 mg was associated with less intracranial bleedings than rivaroxaban.

A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2-C colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the third most lethal cancer in both men and women in developed countries. About 75% of cases are first diagnosed when the disease is classified as localized or regional, undergo potentially curative treatment and enter a post-treatment surveillance program. Although such programs drain significant resources from health systems, empirical evidence of their efficacy is scanty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Dukes B2-C colorectal cancer patients who had no evidence of disease at the end of their front-line treatment (surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, if indicated) were eligible for the trial and randomized to two different surveillance programs. These programs differed greatly in the frequency of diagnostic imaging. They had similar schedules of physical examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assessments. Patients received baseline and yearly health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and QoL.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2006, 1228 assessable patients were randomized, 933 with colon cancer and 295 with rectal cancer. More than 90% of patients had the expected number of diagnostic procedures. Median follow-up duration was 62 months [interquartile range (IQR) 51-86] in the minimal surveillance group and 62 months (IQR 50-85) in the intensive group. At primary analysis, 250 patients had recurred and 218 had died. Intensive surveillance anticipated recurrence, as shown by a significant difference in mean disease-free survival of 5.9 months. Comparison of OS curves of the whole intention-to-treat population showed no statistically significant differences. HR-QoL of life scores did not differ between regimens.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the conclusions of other randomized clinical trials, which show that early diagnosis of cancer recurrence is not associated with OS benefit.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT02409472.