Powered by OpenAIRE graph

A randomized trial of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer (BICC-C)

Authors: B. Wang; Vinod Ganju; Rafal Wierzbicki; James R. Marshall; M. Morrison; Donald A. Richards; Edith P. Mitchell; +3 Authors

A randomized trial of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer (BICC-C)

Abstract

3506 Background: This multicenter, randomized study assessed efficacy & safety for 3 irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC. In a 3 × 2 factorial design, we also assessed whether celecoxib added to chemotherapy (CT) improved CT efficacy and/or reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts were randomized to: FOLFIRI - irinotecan (I) 180 mg/m2, leucovorin (LV) 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, & infusional 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours q 2 wks; modified IFL (m-IFL) - I 125 mg/m2, LV 20 mg/m2, & bolus 5-FU 500 mg/m2 wkly × 2, q 3 wks; or CapeIri - I 250 mg/m2 day 1 & capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 po BID × 14 days, q 3 wks. Pts were also randomized to concurrent celecoxib (400 mg po BID) or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Time to progression (TTP) was the primary endpoint. Results: 430 pts were enrolled from 2/03 to 4/04, prior to an amendment that added bevacizumab to CT arms. Baseline characteristics were balanced. TTP for FOLFIRI (median = 8.2 mos) was significantly better than for either m-IFL (6.0 mos; p = 0.01) or CapeIri (5.7 mos; p = 0.01). Overall survival (OS) also favored FOLFIRI (median = 23.1 mos) compared to either m-IFL (17.6 mos; p=0.10) or CapeIri (18.8 mos; p = 0.19). Common grade ≥ 3 toxicities are listed below. CapeIri had the highest rates of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration & hand-foot syndrome, whereas FOLFIRI had lower rates. Among all 430 pts, median TTP did not differ for pts randomized to celecoxib compared to placebo (6.9 vs 6.9 mos; p=0.71). Median OS was also similar for celecoxib vs placebo (19.5 vs 18.8 mos; p=0.63). CT toxicities did not differ for celecoxib vs placebo. Rates for MI/stroke were 1.5% for celecoxib and 1.9% for placebo. Conclusions: First-line FOLFIRI offers a superior TTP when compared to m-IFL or CapeIri; OS & toxicity analyses also favored FOLFIRI. Celecoxib neither improved CT efficacy nor reduced CT toxicity. Updated survival data & data on pts enrolled after the addition of bevacuzimab will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    50
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
50
Average
Top 10%
Top 1%
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research