Oncotarget

Research Papers:

Prospective randomized phase II study of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a Chinese Western Cooperative Gastrointestinal Oncology Group Study

Qiu Li, Feng Wen, Chengya Zhou, Meng Qiu, Jiyan Liu, Jing Chen, Cheng Yi, Zhiping Li, Deyun Luo, Feng Xu, Xiaohong Cai, Feng Bi _ and Western Cooperative Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of China

PDF  |  HTML  |  Supplementary Files  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:97890-97899. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18426

Metrics: PDF 1559 views  |   HTML 2004 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Qiu Li1,*, Feng Wen1,*, Chengya Zhou2,*, Meng Qiu1, Jiyan Liu1, Jing Chen2, Cheng Yi1, Zhiping Li1, Deyun Luo1, Feng Xu1, Xiaohong Cai2, Feng Bi1 and Western Cooperative Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of China

1Department of Medical Oncology, Laboratory of Signal Transduction and Molecular Targeting Therapy, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, P.R. China

2Oncology Department, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, P.R. China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence to:

Feng Bi, email: [email protected]

Keywords: gastric cancer, mFOLFIRI, mFOLFOX7

Received: March 08, 2017     Accepted: May 06, 2017     Published: June 09, 2017

ABSTRACT

Until now, no standard chemotherapy has been widely accepted for advanced gastric cancer (GC). The current research aimed to compare folinic acid, fluorouracil with irinotecan (mFOLFIRI) or with oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX7) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced GC in an open, randomized, phase II study. Previously untreated metastatic or recurrent GC patients with measurable disease received mFOLFIRI (arm A) or mFOLFOX7 (arm B) every 2 weeks. The defined second-line treatment was mFOLFOX7 for arm A and mFOLFIRI for arm B. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and toxicity. The evaluable population consisted of 128 patients (54 in arm A; 74 in arm B). Median PFS of arm A was 2.9 months (m) (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.9 to 4.1 m) versus 4.1 m (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.8 m) for arm B (p = 0.109). Median OS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 13.5 m) for arm A versus 12.0 m for arm B (95% CI, 10.3 to 13.7m; p = 0.431). DCRs for arm A and arm B were 59.3% and 66.3%, respectively (p = 0.850). In subgroup analysis of the patients who completed both treatment lines per protocol, the median first-line PFS was 2.1 m for the mFOLFIRI/mFOLFOX7arm versus 8.0 m for the mFOLFOX7/mFOLFIRI arm (p = 0.053), and the median second-line PFS values were 1.2 m versus 5.1 m (p = 0.287). Total PFS and OS were 8.1m and 11.0 m for the mFOLFIRI/mFOLFOX7 group compared with 12.2m and 20.2 m for the mFOLFOX7/mFOLFIRI group (p = 0.008, p = 0.030). Both regimens were well-tolerated with acceptable and manageable toxicities. Hence, there was no significant difference in the PFS or DCR. However, mFOLFOX7 followed by mFOLFIRI might have a better OS.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 18426