Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Summary of our results and relevant clinical trials for mCRC

From: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin combined with bevacizumab are feasible for treating selected Japanese patients at least 75 years of age with metastatic colorectal cancer

Study/first author Phase Treatment Country n ECOG PSa Age (median) RR PFS (month) OS (month) Neuropathy (G3/4) Ref
XELOX
 Cassidy J 2 XELOX 6 European, Canada 96 0–1 34–79 (64) 55 % 7.7 19.5 17 % 12
 TREE-1 Hochster HS 2 mFOLFOX6 vs FOL vs XELOX United States 150 0–1 31–84 (62) 41 % vs 20 % vs 27 % 8.7 vs 6.9 vs 5.9 19.2 vs 17.9 vs 17.2 18 % vs 10 % vs 21 % 33
 Ducreux M 3 XELOX vs FOLFOX6 France 306 0–2 32–84 (65) 42 % vs 46 % 8.9 vs 9.3 20.1 vs 18.9 11.0 % vs 25.5 % 15
BEV
 AVF2107g Hurwitz H 3 IFL vs IFL + Bev United States, Australia, New Zealand 813 0–1 18–(59) 35 % vs 45 % 6.2 vs 10.6 15.6 vs 20.3 - 17
 E3200 Giantonio BJ 3 FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 + BEV vs BEV United States, South Africa 829 0–2 21–85 (61) 8.6 % vs 22.7 % vs 3.3 % 4.7 vs 7.3 vs 2.7 - 9.2 % vs 16.3 % vs 0.8 % 18
 FIRE-3 Heinemann V 3 FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + BEV Germany, Austria 592 0–2 27–79 (65) 62 % vs 58 % 10.0 vs 10.3 28.7 vs 25.0 0.7 % vs 1.4 % 4
 CALGB/SWOG 80405b 3 FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 + BEV United States 1137 0–1 20–89 (59) - 10.5 vs 10.8 29.9 vs 29.0 12 % vs 14 % 5
XELOX + BEV
 Wong NS 2 XELOX + BEV United States 50 0–2 24–81 (55) 50 % 10.3 23.3 14 % 11
 TREE-2 Hochster HS 2 mFOLFOX6 + BEV vs FOL + BEV vs XELOX + BEV United States 223 0–1 30–85 (61) 52 % vs 39 % vs 46 % 9.9 vs 8.3 vs 10.3 26.1 vs 20.4 vs 24.6 11 % vs 9 % vs 11 % 33
 16966 trial Saltz LB 3 FOLFOX4/XELOX vs FOLFOX4/XELOX + BEV Worldwide 1401 0–1 18–86 (60) 38 % vs 38 % 8.0 vs 9.4 19.9 vs 21.3 - 27
Elderly            
 ASCA trial Munemoto Y 2 XELOX + BEV Japan 36 0.–1 75–86 (78) 56 % 11.7 22.9 13.9 % -
 SGOSG-CR0501 Matsumoto T 2 UFT + LV Japan 21 0–2 75–83 (79) 33 % 5.3 18 0 % 21
 Feliu J 2 Capecitabine + BEV Spain 59 0–2 73–79 (75) 34 % 10.8 18.0 0 % 24
 Feliu J 2 XELOX Spain 54 0–2 70–82 (76) 36 % 5.8 13.2 2 % 25
 BECOX Feliu J 2 XELOX + BEV Spain 69 0–1 70–85 (75) 31 % 11.1 20.4 4 % 28
 BASIC trial Yoshida M 2 S-1 + BEV Japan 56 0–1 66–85 (75) 57 % 9.9 25.0 0 % 26
 AVEX Cunningham D 3 Capecitabine vs capecitabine + BEV Worldwide 280 0–2 70–87 (76) 10 % vs 19 % 5.1 vs 9.1 16.8 vs 20.7 0 % 22
 FOCUS2 Seymour MT 3 FL vs OxFU vs Capecitabine vs XELOX United Kingdom 459 0–2 35–87 (74) 11 % vs 38 % vs 14 % vs 32 % 3.5 vs 5.8 vs 5.2 vs 5.8 10.1 vs 10.7 vs 11.0 vs 12.4 0 % vs 1 % vs 0 % vs 4 % 23
  1. ECOG the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, PS performance status, RR response rate, PFS progression free survival, OS overall survival
  2. aIn the eligibility criteria
  3. bData from the 10th interim analysis (2014)