Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil-based (neo-)adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced...
-
Upload
lucy-shepherd -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil-based (neo-)adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced...
Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil-based (neo-)adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer:
Long term results of a randomized phase III trial
R. Hofheinz, F. Wenz, S. Post, A. Matzdorff, S. Laechelt, J. Hartmann, L. Müller, H. Link, M. H. Moehler, E. Kettner, E. Fritz, U. Hieber,
H. W. Lindemann, M. Grunewald, S. Kremers, C. Constantin, M. Hipp, D. Gencer, I. Burkholder, A. Hochhaus,on behalf of the German MARGIT study group
Background
• Capecitabine (Cape), an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, has been shown to be equieffective with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) / leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer. [Twelves et al. N Engl J Med 2005]
• Cape was non-inferior to infusional 5-FU in combination with oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.[Cassidy et al. J Clin Oncol 2008]
• Cape has radiosensitizing properties. Several phase I and II trials investigated combined modality treatment using Cape in the perioperative treatment of rectal cancer. [e.g. Dunst et al. J Clin Oncol 2002]
• The present phase-III trial sought to compare Cape with 5-FU in the perioperative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.
Study design
• Primary aim To determine whether 5-year overall survival rate (SR5) was non-inferior in arm A (Cape) vs. arm B (5-FU) with non-inferior margin of 12.5%.
• Assumption: SR55-FU = 57.5%. Sample size calculation performed with β = 20%, α = 5% and a drop-out rate of 5%.
• Study was designed as a two-arm, two-strata multicenter, randomized, open phase III trial.
• N = 372 evaluable patients (186 per arm) required to evaluate non-inferiority with a follow-up time of 4 years.
Main inclusion & exclusion criteria
• Patients ≥18 years• Histologically proven rectal cancer (0 – 16 cm ab ano)• No distant metastases• Adequate hematological parameters: Leukocytes > 3,500/µl,
thrombocytes > 100,000/µl, hemoglobin > 10g/dl.• Adequate liver & renal function
Patients treated in adjuvant stratum• Total mesorectal resection performed (R0-resection)• Tumor stages pT3/4 Nany M0 or pTany N+ M0
Patients treated in neoadjuvant stratum
• uT3/4 uNany M0 or uTany uN+ M0 (staging with EUS)
• Total mesorectal excision mandatory
Treatment regimen
Arm A Chemoradiotherapy50.4 Gy + Cape 1,650 mg/m² days 1 – 38
plus 5 cycles of Cape 2,500 mg/m² d 1 – 14, rep. d 22
S I: 2 x Cape CRT 3 x Cape
S II: CRT TME surgery (4 – 6 weeks after CRT) Cape x 5
Arm B Chemoradiotherapy50.4 Gy + 5-FU 225 mg/m² c.i. daily [S I] or 5-FU 1,000 mg/m² c.i. d 1 – 5 and 29 – 33 [S II]
plus 4 cycles of bolus 5-FU 500mg/m² d 1 – 5, rep. d 29 S I: 2 x 5-FU CRT 2 x 5-FU
S II: CRT TME surgery (4 – 6 weeks after CRT) 5-FU x 4
Cape: capecitabine; CRT: chemoradiotherapy; TME: total mesorectal excision; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil
Treatment regimen Adjuvant stratum S IArm A
Arm B
1 5 9 13 17 21
Radiotherapy 50.4 Gy
Capecitabine 2,500mg/m²/day (during radiotherapy 1,650mg/m²/day)
Week
5-FU 500mg/m² day 1 – 5 (during radiotherapy 225 mg/m²/day)
Radiotherapy 50.4 Gy
Treatment regimen Neodjuvant stratum S IArm A
Arm B
1 5 16 24 28
Week
10 20
Surgery
Surgery
Capecitabine 2,500mg/m²/day (during radiotherapy 1,650mg/m²/day)
5-FU 500mg/m² day 1 – 5 (during radiotherapy 1000 mg/m² d 1 – 5, d 29 – 33)
Radiotherapy 50.4Gy
Radiotherapy 50.4Gy
Patients recruitment (n = 392)
2007
Baseline characteristics
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
Age, years Median (Range) 64.6 (29.6 – 84.8) 64.0 (32.8 – 86.3)Gender, n (%) Male Female
129 (65.5) 68 (34.5)
131 (67.2) 64 (32.8)
Stratum, n (%) Adjuvant Neoadjuvant
116 (58.9) 81 (41.1)
115 (59.0) 80 (41.0)
Tumor category (cT or pT), n (%) T1 or T2 T3 T4 Missing data
29 (14.7)150 (76.1) 15 (7.7) 3 (1.5)
36 (18.5)140 (71.8) 14 (7.2) 5 (2.6)
Nodal category (cN or pN), n (%) Node negative Node positive Missing data
78 (39.6)112 (56.9) 7 (3.6)
69 (35.4)120 (61.5) 6 (3.1)
Adjuvant stratum – % of patients receiving schedules cycles
Neoadjuvant stratum – % of patients receiving schedules cycles
Hematological and liver toxicity – NCI-CTC grades (v. 2.0)
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
p-value²
Total1 1/2 3/4 Total1 1/2 3/4
Hemoglobin 62 58 – 52 49 2 0.32
Leukocytes 50 47 3 68 50 16 0.047
Platelets 23 23 – 32 29 1 0.19
GGT 5 5 – 7 6 – 0.57
Bilirubin 8 6 1 2 1 1 0.10
1 CTC-grade is missing in some pts.2 p-value resulted from Chi-Square test comparing the total number of events between both treatment arms.
Gastrointestinal Toxicity – NCI-CTC grades (v. 2.0)
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
p-value²
Total1 1/2 3/4 Total1 1/2 3/4
Nausea 36 33 2 32 30 – 0.69
Vomiting 14 11 1 9 8 1 0.39
Diarrhea 104 83 17 85 76 4 0.07
Mucositis 12 11 1 17 15 2 0.34
Stomatitis 8 8 – 12 11 – 0.37
Abdominal pain 23 19 1 14 11 – 0.17
Proctitis 31 26 1 10 9 1 < 0.001
1 CTC-grade is missing in some pts.2 p-value resulted from Chi-Square test comparing the total number of events between both treatment arms.
Diarrhea – NCI-CTC grades (v. 2.0)
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
p-value
Diarrhea 47 43 0.72
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
p-value
Diarrhea 88 62 < 0.001
Cycles without radiotherapy
Cycles with radiotherapy (Cycle 3 in adjuvant strata & cycle 1 in neoadjuvant strata)
Other Toxicity – NCI-CTC grades (v. 2.0)
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FU n = 195
p-value²
Total1 1/2 3/4 Total1 1/2 3/4
Fatigue 55 50 – 29 27 2 0.002
Anorexia 13 13 – 6 5 1 0.16
Alopecia 4 4 – 11 10 – 0.07
Hand-foot skin reaction 62 56 4 3 3 – < 0.001
Radiation dermatitis 29 22 2 35 32 1 0.41
Thrombosis / Embolism 10 2 7 11 5 2 0.83
1 CTC-grade is missing in some pts.2 p-value resulted from Chi-Square test comparing the total number of events between both treatment arms.
Neoadjuvant stratum – CONSORT diagram
Informed consent withdrawn, n = 1Refused port implantation, n = 1
Protocol violation (sigma CA), n = 1Primary resection, n = 2No start (worsening renal function), n = 1
No surgery (refusal, n = 2; PD, n = 1)
Deep anterior resection, n = 58Abdominoperineal resection, n = 16
Not resectable, n = 1
No surgery (pCR n = 1, PD n = 1)Died during RChT (accident, n = 1; heart attack, n = 1)
Deep anterior resection, n = 53Abdominoperineal resection, n = 19Local excision, n = 1
Randomized n = 161
Capecitabine, n = 815-Fluorouracil, n = 80
Commenced RChT, n = 78 Commenced RChT, n = 77
Surgery, n = 75
Died ≤ 30 days post surgery, n = 3
Surgery, n = 73
Died ≤ 30 days post surgery, n = 1
Neoadjuvant stratumComparison Arm A & Arm B
Capecitabine 5-FU p-value (² test)
Type of resection, % Deep anterior Abdominoperineal Local excision
n = 7372.626.0 1.4
n = 7478.421.6
0p = 0.56
Resection status, % R0 R1/R2 Unknown
n = 7295.8 4.2
0
n = 7491.9 2.7 5.4
p = 1.00
ypT- status, % ypT 0 ypN 0 (pCR) ypT 0 – 2 ypT 3 – 4
n = 7313.555.444.6
n = 74 5.439.260.8
p = 0.16p = 0.07
pCR: pathological complete remission
Neoadjuvant stratumComparison Arm A & Arm B
Capecitabine 5-FU
Clinical staging Pathohistology Clinical staging Pathohistology
T status
0, 1, 2
3, 4
n = 80
8.8%
91.2%
n = 73
55.4%
44.6%
n = 76
5.3%
94.7%
n = 74
39.2%
60.8%
N status
0, X
1, 2, 3
n = 75
48.0%
52.0%
n = 73
71.2%
28.8%
n = 75
52.0%
48.0%
n = 74
56.8%
43.2%
Neoadjuvant stratum – Trend of improved downstaging with Capecitabine
Patients receiving capecitabine exhibited
• less ypN-positive tumors (p = 0.09)
• improved T-downstaging (i.e. ypT0 – 2) (p = 0.07)
• more pCR (ypT0 ypN0): 13.2 % vs. 5.4% (p = 0.16)
Comparison (² test)
Clinical staging Pathohistology
T status p = 0.5 p = 0.07
N status p = 0.7 p = 0.09
Disease related events
Localization of recurrence and death
Capecitabinen = 197
5-FUn = 195
p-value ² test
Local recurrence 12 (6.1) 14 (7.2) p = 0.7795
Distant metastases 37 (18.8) 54 (27.7) p = 0.0367
Deaths, n (%)
Disease related
Other causes
Unknown
38 (19.3)
26 (13.2)
12 (6.1)
0
55 (28.2)
37 (19.0)
15 (7.7)
3 (1.5)
p = 0.0380
Disease free survival (DFS)Secondary endpoint (Median Follow-up 52 mon.)
Overall survival (OS)Primary endpoint (Median Follow-up 52 mon.)
Hand-foot skin reaction (HFS) and survivalComparison of 3-y DFS and 5-y OS
CapecitabineAny grade HFS
n = 62
CapecitabineNo HFS
n = 135
5-FUAll patients
n = 195
3-y DFS 83.2%1 71.4% 66.6%
95%-CI (%) 71.0 – 90.6 62.6 – 78.4 59.1 – 73.0
5-y OS 91.4%2 68.0% 66.6%
95%-CI (%) 80.5 – 96.3 56.6 – 77.0 57.7 – 74.0
1 Test for superiority: p = 0.031 versus Cape no-HFS (n = 135) & p = 0.004 versus remaining population (n = 330)2 Test for superiority: p = 0.001 versus Cape no-HFS (n = 135) & p < 0.0001 versus remaining population (n = 330)
Conclusions
• Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. Cape patients had more all grade HFS, proctitis, diarrhea and fatigue, while alopecia and leukopenia were more frequently observed with 5-FU.
• In the neo-adjuvant stratum Cape led by trend to improved downstaging and a numerical higher rate of pCR.
• Cape was non-inferior to 5-FU regarding 5-year survival.
– Exploratory test for superiority was borderline significant.
• 3-year DFS was significantly better with Cape.
• HFS indicated superior 3-year DFS and 5-year OS.
• Capecitabine may replace 5-FU in the perioperative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.