Powered by OpenAIRE graph
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Cancerarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Cancer
Article
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Cancer
Article . 2009 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Cancer
Article . 2009
versions View all 2 versions

Comparing safety and efficacy of first‐line irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine combinations in elderly versus nonelderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Findings from the bolus, infusional, or capecitabine with camptostar‐celecoxib study
Authors: Nadine Jackson; Xiaoxi Zhang; John L. Marshall; José Barrueco; Raoudha Soufi-Mahjoubi; Edith P. Mitchell; Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt;

Comparing safety and efficacy of first‐line irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine combinations in elderly versus nonelderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

AbstractBACKGROUND:Irinotecan‐based chemotherapy regimens are 1 option for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The authors report the safety and efficacy of such regimens in elderly patients using a large phase III trial (bolus, infusional, or capecitabine with camptostar‐celecoxib [BICC‐C]) cohort.METHODS:In period 1, 430 previously untreated patients with mCRC were randomized in a 3‐by‐2 design to receive irinotecan plus infusional 5‐fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI), irinotecan plus bolus 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin (mIFL), and irinotecan plus oral capecitabine (CapeIRI). In period 2, an additional 117 patients were randomized to receive FOLFIRI or mIFL and bevacizumab. In both periods patients were also randomized to a double‐blind treatment with celecoxib or placebo. A secondary analysis was conducted examining the safety and efficacy of these regimens in elderly (age >70 years) versus nonelderly (age ≤70 years) patients.RESULTS:In period 1, 19.5% of patients were elderly, compared with 24.8% in period 2. Rates of grade 3 and higher toxicity did not differ significantly between age groups in either period by treatment arm, with the exception of asthenia in the FOLFIRI and CapeIRI arms (P= .05 andP= .03, respectively) and dehydration in the CapeIRI arm in period 1 (P= .02). Overall progression‐free survival for FOLFIRI in both periods was not statistically different by age. Objective responses and overall survival did not differ by patient age within treatment arms and periods.CONCLUSIONS:Irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine combinations are well tolerated in the elderly population, with similar efficacy to that found in nonelderly patients in first‐line mCRC. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Keywords

Male, Sulfonamides, Age Factors, Leucovorin, Administration, Oral, Irinotecan, Deoxycytidine, Survival Rate, Celecoxib, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Humans, Pyrazoles, Camptothecin, Female, Fluorouracil, Neoplasm Metastasis, Colorectal Neoplasms, Infusions, Intravenous, Capecitabine, Aged

  • 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).
    61
    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.
    Top 10%
    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 10%
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!
61
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
bronze
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research