Combining gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (GEMOXEL) for patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC): a phase I/II trial

Evaluation of Phase II Trial Design in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated how well phase II trials in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer (LAMPC) meet current recommendations for trial design.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase II first-line treatment trial for LAMPC. We assessed baseline characteristics, type of comparison, and primary end point to examine adherence to the National Cancer Institute recommendations for trial design.

RESULTS

We identified 148 studies (180 treatment arms, 7505 participants). Forty-seven (32%) studies adhered to none of the 5 evaluated National Cancer Institute recommendations, 62 (42%) followed 1, 31 (21%) followed 2, and 8 (5%) followed 3 recommendations. Studies varied with respect to the proportion of patients with good performance status (range, 0%-80%) and locally advanced disease (range, 14%-100%). Eighty-two (55%) studies concluded that investigational agents should progress to phase III testing; of these, 24 (16%) had documented phase III trials. Three (8%) phase III trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements for investigational agents. One of 38 phase II trials that investigated biological investigational agents was enriched for a biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase II trials do not conform well to current recommendations for trial design in LAMPC.

Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms in Intensified Preoperative Therapy of Pancreatic Cancer to Predict Individual Risk of Relapse

Background: Although surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic cancer (PC), long-term outcomes of this treatment remain poor. The aim of this study is to describe the feasibility of a neoadjuvant treatment with induction polychemotherapy (IPCT) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) in resectable PC, and to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict risk of relapse. Methods: Forty patients with resectable PC treated in our institution with IPCT (based on mFOLFOXIRI, GEMOX or GEMOXEL) followed by CRT (50 Gy and concurrent Capecitabine) were retrospectively analyzed. Additionally, clinical, pathological and analytical data were collected in order to perform a 2-year relapse-risk predictive population model using machine-learning techniques. Results: A R0 resection was achieved in 90% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 33.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18 months and median overall survival (OS) was 39 months. The 3 and 5-year actuarial PFS were 43.8% and 32.3%, respectively. The 3 and 5-year actuarial OS were 51.5% and 34.8%, respectively. Forty-percent of grade 3-4 IPCT toxicity, and 29.7% of grade 3 CRT toxicity were reported. Considering the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, the number of resected lymph nodes, the presence of perineural invasion and the surgical margin status, a logistic regression algorithm predicted the individual 2-year relapse-risk with an accuracy of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.84, p = 0.005). The model-predicted outcome matched 64% of the observed outcomes in an external dataset. Conclusion: An intensified multimodal neoadjuvant approach (IPCT + CRT) in resectable PC is feasible, with an encouraging long-term outcome. Machine-learning algorithms might be a useful tool to predict individual risk of relapse. A small sample size and therapy heterogeneity remain as potential limitations.

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma neo-adjuvant FOLF(IRIN)OX-based chemotherapy - a multicenter, non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial (PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 study)

BACKGROUND

At time of diagnosis, less than 10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are considered to be immediately operable (i.e. resectable). Considering their poor overall survival (OS), only tumours without vascular invasion (NCCN 2017) should be considered for resection, i.e. those for which resection with disease-free margins (R0) is theoretically possible in absence of presurgery treatment. With regard to high R1 rates and undetectable locoregional and/or metastatic spreading prior to surgery explain (at least in part) the observed 1-year relapse and mortality rates of 50 and 25%, respectively. Today, upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the reference treatment in Europe. The main limitation of the adjuvant approach is the low rate of completion of the full therapeutic sequence. Indeed, only 47 to 60% patients received any adjuvant therapy after resection compared to more than 75% for neoadjuvant therapy. No previous prospective study has compared this approach to a neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX chemotherapy for resectable PDAC.

METHODS

PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 is a prospective multicentre controlled randomized non comparative Phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX) relative to the current reference treatment (surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with resectable PDAC. The main co-primary endpoints are OS rate at 12 months and the rate of patients undergoing the full therapeutic sequence.

DISCUSSION

The "ideal" cancer treatment for resectable PDAC would have the following characteristics: administration to the highest possible proportion of patients, ability to identify fast-progressing patients (i.e. poor candidates for surgery), a low rate of R1 resections (through optimisation of local disease control), and an acceptable toxicity profile. The neoadjuvant approach may meet all these criteria. With respect to published data on the efficacy of FOLFOX and mFOLFIRINOX, these two regimens are potential candidates for neoadjuvant use in the aim to optimising oncological outcomes in resectable PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02959879 . Trial registration date: November 9, 2016.

Efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A network meta-analysis

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the short- and long-term efficacy of Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1 (tegafur), Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin + irinotecan + fluorouracil + leucovorin), Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed, Gemcitabine + 5-FU, and S-1 in treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). The odds radios (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were evaluated by a combination of direct evidence and indirect evidence. In total twenty studies were included in this paper. For short-term efficacy, the overall response rate (ORR) was lower for patients treated with Gemcitabine compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan and S-1. The ORR for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine and Gemcitabine + Cisplatin. The disease control rate (DCR) for Gemcitabine was lower compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, and FOLFIRINOX. For long-term efficacy, the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, and Gemcitabine + pemetrexed. The SUCRA revealed that FOLFIRINOX was relatively better in both short- and long-term efficacy, while Gemcitabine was relatively poorer. In both short- and long-term efficacy, FOLFIRINOX had the best short- and long-term efficacy among the 12 chemotherapy regimens while efficacy of Gemcitabine was relatively poorer in the treatment of advanced or metastatic PC.

Gemcitabine-based combination therapy compared with gemcitabine alone for advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive malignancies and chemotherapy is an effective strategy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine (GEM) is one of first-line agents. However, GEM-based combination therapy has shown promising efficacy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of GEM-based combination therapy versus GEM alone in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search of literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed based on the inclusion criteria from all eligible randomized controlled trials. The outcome indicators included overall survival (OS), 6-month survival, 1-year survival, progression-free survival/time-to-progression (PFS/TTP), and toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of nine randomized controlled trials involving 1661 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was significant improvement in the GEM-based combination therapy with regard to the OS (HR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P=0.003), PFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90, P=0.002), 6-month survival (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.17, P=0.03), and the overall toxicity (RR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.52-1.86, P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the 1-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

GEM-based combination chemotherapy might improve the OS, 6-month survival, and PFS in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, combined therapy also added toxicity.

Hereditary Pancreatic Cancer Syndromes

Despite decades of scientific and clinical research, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a lethal malignancy. The clinical and pathologic features of PDAC, specifically the known environmental and genetic risk factors, are reviewed here with special emphasis on the hereditary pancreatic cancer (HPC) syndromes. For these latter conditions, strategies are described for their identification, for primary and secondary prevention in unaffected carriers, and for disease management in affected carriers. Nascent steps have been made toward personalized medicine based on the rational use of screening, tumor subtyping, and targeted therapies; these have been guided by growing knowledge of HPC syndromes in PDAC.

Phase II clinical trials on investigational drugs for the treatment of pancreatic cancers

INTRODUCTION

Despite some recent advances in treatment options, pancreatic cancer remains a devastating disease with poor outcomes. In a trend contrary to most malignancies, both incidence and mortality continue to rise due to pancreatic cancer. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and there are no treatment options for this stage that have demonstrated a median survival > 1 year. As the penultimate step prior to Phase III studies involving hundreds of patients, Phase II clinical trials provide an early opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of new treatments that are desperately needed for this disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the results of published Phase II clinical trials in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma published within the past 5 years. The treatment results are framed in the context of the current standards of care and the historic challenge of predicting Phase III success from Phase II trial results.

EXPERT OPINION

Promising therapies remain elusive in pancreatic cancer based on recent Phase II clinical trial results. Optimization and standardization of clinical trial design in the Phase II setting, with consistent incorporation of biomarkers, is needed to more accurately identify promising therapies that warrant Phase III evaluation.

Three-weekly oxaliplatin combined with gemcitabine and capecitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer

The primary objective of this study was to determine the activity and safety of 3-weekly oxaliplatin combined with gemcitabine and oral capecitabine in the first-line treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer. Treatment consisted of intravenous oxaliplatin 100 mg/m every 3 weeks combined with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8 and oral capecitabine 1500 mg/m 14 days on 21 in two divided doses. Treatment was administered until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal. Thirty-seven patients were enrolled: eight patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2 performance status at presentation. The overall response rate was 35.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.2-52.5%] and the disease control rate was 72.9%. The median progression-free survival was 9.4 months (95% CI: 4.1-12.2 months) and the median overall survival was 13.8 months (95% CI: 7.7-17.1 months). There were no grade 4 toxicities. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 13.5% of patients and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 10.8%. The present study suggests that 3-weekly oxaliplatin combined with gemcitabine and oral capecitabine is an active and well-tolerated chemotherapy regimen in the first-line treatment of metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (GEMOXEL) compared with gemcitabine alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a randomized phase II study

BACKGROUND

Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) has been considered for many years as the standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, recently, several studies reported encouraging activity and good tolerability for some combination regimens. Considering the apparently non-overlapping toxicity and the proved individual efficacy of GEM, oxaliplatin (L-OHP), and capecitabine (CAP), this randomized phase II study compared the activity and safety of the combination GEM, L-OHP, and CAP (GEMOXEL) versus GEM alone, in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The treatment in GEMOXEL arm consisted of GEM 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, L-OHP 100 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 2, and CAP 1,500 mg/m(2)/day in two divided doses on days 1-14, every 21 days (one cycle). In both treatment groups, GEM was administered weekly for seven consecutive weeks followed by 1-week rest for the first 8 weeks, and thereafter, GEM was continued on days 1, 8, 15, every 28 days. Chemotherapy was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-four were randomly assigned to GEMOXEL and 33 to GEM. At 4 months, disease control rate was 79.4% with GEMOXEL versus 45.4 % with GEM (p = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI 5.3-7.3 months) in GEMOXEL arm and 3.7 months (95% CI 2.9-4.7 months) in GEM arm (p < 0.001). The median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI 10.6-12.9 months) in GEMOXEL arm and 7.1 months (95% CI 5.5-9.1 months) in GEM arm (p < 0.001). Hematologic and non-hematologic toxicity was more severe with combination chemotherapy, yet still tolerable. No grade 4 adverse events were observed with either regimen.

CONCLUSION

GEMOXEL regimen seemed to be safe and more efficient than the standard therapy with GEM alone in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Phase I study of oxaliplatin in combination with gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (G-FLIE) in patients with metastatic solid tumors including adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in combination with fixed doses of gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (G-FLIE) in solid tumors, including advanced pancreatic cancer, and to evaluate the toxicity of the regimen.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic solid tumors were treated with a regimen consisting of gemcitabine (500 mg/m(2) by fixed-dose-rate infusion), irinotecan (120 mg/m(2)), leucovorin 300 mg, bolus/infusion 5-fluorouracil (400 and 1,500 mg/m2, respectively), and oxaliplatin at doses from 50 to 85 mg/m(2) according to the escalation schema. Treatment was repeated every 14 days.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 25 patients with a median age of 64 years and median Karnofsky performance score of 80. Patients had metastatic adenocarcinomas of pancreas (n = 9), as well as gastroesointestinal, hepatobiliary, or unknown primary tumors. With only one dose limiting toxicity (neutropenia and constipation), the MTD of oxaliplatin was not reached up to the pre-specified maximum level of 85 mg/m(2). Other toxicities predictably included cytopenias, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. Four partial responses and ten disease stabilizations were observed. The overall median time to disease progression was 17 weeks (2-110 weeks) with median overall survival of 31.5 weeks (7-139 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

G-FLIE is a tolerable multi-agent chemotherapy regimen with the oxaliplatin dose up to 85 mg/m(2). The combination of full-dose oxaliplatin with gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil is feasible with attenuated doses of the drugs, but further optimization is necessary before assessment of efficacy.

Successful adjuvant bi-weekly gemcitabine chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer without impairing patients' quality of life

Background

Although adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM) chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is standard, the quality of life (QOL) in those patients is still impaired by the standard regimen of GEM. Therefore, we studied whether mild dose-intensity adjuvant chemotherapy with bi-weekly GEM administration could provide a survival benefit with acceptable QOL to the patients with pancreatic cancer.

Methods

After a phase I trial, an adjuvant bi-weekly 1,000 mg/m² of GEM chemotherapy was performed in 58 patients with pancreatic cancer for at least 12 courses (Group A). In contrast, 36 patients who declined the adjuvant bi-weekly GEM chemotherapy underwent traditional adjuvant 5FU-based chemotherapy (Group B). Careful periodical follow-ups for side effects of GEM and disease recurrence, and assessment of patients’ QOL using the EORTC QOL questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and pancreatic cancer-specific supplemental module (QLQ-PAN26) were performed. Retrospectively, the degree of side effects, patients’ QOL, compliance rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in Group A were compared with those in Group B.

Results

No severe side effects (higher than Grade 2 according to the common toxicity criteria of ECOG) were observed, except for patients in Group B, who were switched to the standard GEM chemotherapy. Patients’ QOL was better in Group A than B (fatigue: 48.9 ± 32.1 versus 68.1 ± 36.3, nausea and vomiting: 26.8 ± 20.4 versus 53.7 ± 32.6, diarrhea: 21.0 ± 22.6 versus 53.9 ± 38.5, difficulty gaining weight: 49.5 ± 34.4 versus 67.7 ± 40.5, P < 0.05). Compliance rates in Groups A and B were 93% and 47%. There was a significant difference in the median DFS between both groups (Group A : B =12.5 : 6.6 months, P < 0.001). The median OS of Group A was prolonged markedly compared with Group B (20.2 versus 11.9 months, P < 0.005). For OS between both groups, univariate analysis revealed no statistical difference in 69-year-old or under females, and T1–2 factors, moreover, multivariate analysis indicated three factors, such as bi-weekly adjuvant GEM chemotherapy, T2 or less, and R0.

Conclusions

Adjuvant chemotherapy with bi-weekly GEM offered not only the advantage of survival benefits but the excellent compliance with acceptable QOL for postoperative pancreatic cancer patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a critical review

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is among the deadliest tumors. Due to intrinsic chemo- and radio-resistance, surgical resection remains the only chance for cure. However surgery alone is unable to considerably improve survival and complementary chemotherapy and radiotherapy in a multimodal approach have been tested. Adjuvant chemotherapy yielded a modest outcome improvement, whereas the use of adjuvant chemoradiation is highly controversial. In this scenario, the neoadjuvant approach has a strong theoretical rationale, but limited information on the efficacy of this strategy is available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review critically overviews the current knowledge, the rationale, the available data and information on neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

The very early systemic dissemination of pancreatic cancer endorses the rationale for an up-front use of systemic therapy. However, evidence collected so far depends on retrospective data, small case series that did not balance the different characteristics of patients suitable for surgery before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Currently there is no straightforward evidence to support the routine clinical use of this strategy. Only a properly designed randomized trial testing combination chemotherapy regimens selected on the basis of their efficacy and activity against metastatic disease can address this issue.

Overcoming nucleoside analog chemoresistance of pancreatic cancer: a therapeutic challenge

Clinical refractoriness to nucleoside analogs (e.g., gemcitabine, capecitabine) is a major scientific problem and is one of the main reasons underlying the extremely poor prognostic state of pancreatic cancer. The drugs' effects are suboptimal partly due to cellular mechanisms limiting their transport, activation, and overall efficacy. Nonetheless, novel therapeutic approaches are presently under study to circumvent nucleoside analog resistance in pancreatic cancer. With these new approaches come additional challenges to be addressed. This review describes the determinants of chemoresistance in the gemcitabine cytotoxicity pathways, provides an overview of investigational approaches for overcoming chemoresistance, and discusses new challenges presented. Understanding the future directions of the field may assist in the successful development of novel treatment strategies for enhancing chemotherapeutic efficacy in pancreatic cancer.

Systemic treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer belongs to the most malignant gastrointestinal cancers and, in its advanced stage, remains a deadly disease for nearly all affected patients. Treatment of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas not only involves chemotherapy and targeted therapy, but also requires attention to accompanying comorbidities as well as frequently intensive supportive treatment and psychosocial support. Gemcitabine-based combinations with fluoropyrimidines and platin analogs have essentially failed to provide a substantial prolongation of survival and may constitute a treatment option only in patients with a good performance status. Among targeted therapies, only the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib has shown activity which is marginal in the overall population, but clinically relevant in patients developing skin rash. New avenues of polychemotherapy are presently explored since the gemcitabine-free FOLFIRINOX-regimen (infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was shown to be markedly superior to gemcitabine in selected good-performance patients. Pancreatic cancer is notably characterized as a hypovascular tumor rich in desmoplastic stromal tissue. An innovative approach to treatment therefore focuses on peritumoral fibroblasts and aims to induce a depletion of the stroma either by inhibition of the hedgehog pathway or by targeting SPARC (secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine) via application of albumin-bound paclitaxel.

A randomized phase II trial of two different 4-drug combinations in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: cisplatin, capecitabine, gemcitabine plus either epirubicin or docetaxel (PEXG or PDXG regimen)

PURPOSE

PEFG regimen (P:cisplatin, E:epirubicin, F:5-fluorouracil, G:gemcitabine) significantly prolonged progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) with respect to standard gemcitabine. The current trial was aimed at assessing whether the replacement of E with docetaxel (D) may improve 6 months PFS (PFS6).

METHODS

Chemo-naive patients with stage III or metastatic PA received P (30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15), G (800 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15), and capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2)/day days 1-28, without a break) and were randomized to receive either D at 25-30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15 (arm A: PDXG regimen) or E at 30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15 (arm B: PEXG regimen). Cycles were repeated every 28 days for a maximum of 6 months. The Fleming design was used to calculate the sample size on the probability of being PFS6. Assuming P0 = 40% and P1 = 60%, α = 0.05 and β = 0.10; the study was to enroll 52 patients per arm.

RESULTS

Between July 2005 and September 2008, 105 patients were enrolled, stratified by stage and randomized. Patients' characteristics were (A/B) the following: median age 61/59, PS >70 92/88%, metastatic disease 66/65%. PFS6 was 58%, and median OS was 11 months in both arms. A partial response was observed in 60/37% of patients. Main per cycle G3-4 toxicity was the following: neutropenia 4/13%, thrombocytopenia 2/4%, anemia 4/4%, and fatigue 6/3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of D instead of E yielded more objective response and less G3-4 neutropenia but did not improve PFS and OS. The present trial confirms the relevant impact on outcome of advanced PA of 4-drug regimens.

Combining capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and gemcitabine (XELOXGEM) for colorectal carcinoma patients pretreated with irinotecan: a multicenter phase I/II trial

PURPOSE

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is an effective second-line regimen for advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients pretreated with irinotecan. Previous studies have shown supra-additive anti-tumor activity of gemcitabine (GEM) when administered with oxaliplatin. We investigated the dose, toxicity, and efficacy of a second-line XELOXGEM regimen in CRC patients pretreated with irinotecan.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC who failed after a first-line irinotecan-containing regimen received escalating doses of gemcitabine (600, 800, 1,000 mg/m(2) d1, d8) followed by capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d d1-14) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2) d1) on a 21-day cycle.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were treated. At 800 mg/m(2), two of six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (diarrhea and thrombocytopenia). Therefore, the clinically recommended dose was defined as 600 mg/m(2) gemcitabine (d1, d8) followed by 1,000 mg/m(2) capecitabine (b.i.d dl-14) and 100 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin (d1). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (13%), anemia (11%), and peripheral neuropathy (11%). Ten (26.3%) and 23 (60.5%) patients experienced partial response and stable disease, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.4 months (95% CI 3.8-6.9 months) and 17.7 months (95% CI 8.4-26.9 months), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The XELOXGEM triplet combination is an active and safe second-line regimen for advanced CRC patients pretreated with irinotecan.