首页> 外文期刊>Clinical colorectal cancer >FOLFOX4 with cetuximab vs. UFOX with cetuximab as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The randomized phase II FUTURE study
【24h】

FOLFOX4 with cetuximab vs. UFOX with cetuximab as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The randomized phase II FUTURE study

机译:FOLFOX4联合西妥昔单抗与UFOX联合西妥昔单抗作为转移性结直肠癌的一线治疗:II期随机研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX4, comprising infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab compared with UFOX, comprising UFT, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, LV, and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab as first-line treatment for mCRC. Patients and Methods Patients, unselected by tumor KRAS status, were randomized 1:1 to FOLFOX4 with cetuximab or UFOX with cetuximab. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, and safety. Outcome according to KRAS mutation status was investigated. Results Recruitment was curtailed at 302 patients after reporting of the importance of tumor KRAS mutation status for cetuximab activity. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. PFS was significantly longer in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group compared with UFOX with cetuximab group (median 8.2 vs. 6.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.89; P =.0048). The response rate was also significantly greater in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group (51.3% vs. 37.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78; P =.0160), although overall survival was comparable. In the KRAS wild type subgroup, efficacy outcomes were similar to those in the intention-to-treat population. Side effect profiles were manageable and consistent with expectations. Conclusion In the first-line treatment of mCRC, UFOX with cetuximab had an acceptable safety profile but inferior activity compared with FOLFOX4 with cetuximab in relation to PFS and response. The regimens were comparable with regard to overall survival.
机译:引言这项研究的目的是评估包含输注5-氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)/亚叶酸钙(LV)和奥沙利铂的FOLFOX4的疗效和安全性,与包含UFT(5-FU口服前药)的UFOX相比,西妥昔单抗与西妥昔单抗比较,LV和奥沙利铂,将西妥昔单抗作为mCRC的一线治疗。患者和方法将未按肿瘤KRAS病情选择的患者按1:1的比例随机分配至FOLFOX4与西妥昔单抗或UFOX与西妥昔单抗。继续治疗直至疾病进展或不可接受的毒性。在意向性治疗人群中评估的主要终点是无进展生存期(PFS)。次要终点包括肿瘤反应,总体生存率和安全性。结果根据KRAS突变状态进行了调查。结果在报告肿瘤KRAS突变状态对西妥昔单抗活性的重要性后,302名患者的招募减少。治疗组之间基线特征平衡。与UFOX联合西妥昔单抗组相比,FOLFOX4和西妥昔单抗组的PFS显着更长(中位8.2比6.6个月;危险比0.68; 95%置信区间[CI]为0.52-0.89; P = 0.0048)。西妥昔单抗组的FOLFOX4的应答率也显着更高(分别为51.3%比37.5%;比值比为1.76; 95%CI为1.11-2.78; P = .0160),尽管总体生存率是可比的。在KRAS野生型亚组中,疗效结局与意向性治疗人群相似。副作用情况可控且符合预期。结论在mCRC一线治疗中,与FOLFOX4和西妥昔单抗相比,西妥昔单抗UFOX在PFS和反应方面具有可接受的安全性,但活性较差。该方案在总体生存率方面具有可比性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号