4.7 Article

Toxicity associated with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer before and after an institutional policy of capecitabine dose reduction

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages 43-50

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605995

Keywords

colorectal cancer; oxaliplatin; capecitabine

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health Service
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10154] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) is an established treatment option in colorectal cancer, but can be associated with severe toxicities. METHODS: Following reporting of severe diarrhoea and dehydration with capecitabine 2000 mg m(-2) per day plus oxaliplatin every 3 weeks (CAPOX 2000) in 2006, we instituted a policy change to reduce capecitabine dose to 1700 mg m(-2) per day (CAPOX 1700). We undertook a retrospective analysis comparing toxicities encountered before and after this dose change. RESULTS: Of the 400 patients treated, no significant differences were seen between the CAPOX 2000 and CAPOX 1700 in grades 3 and 4 diarrhoea (21% vs 19%; P = 0.80), stomatitis (0% vs 1%; P = 0.50) or grades 2-4 hand foot syndrome (16% vs 11%; P = 0.18). Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia (9.5% vs 3.5%; P = 0.03) and all grades hyperbilirubinaemia (60% vs 40%; P<0.0001) were significantly reduced with CAPOX 1700. Rates of hospitalisation due to toxicities were not different between two groups (13% vs 11%; P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: No clinically or statistically significant differences in gastrointestinal toxicities or hospitalisation rate were seen after reducing our routine capecitabine dose from CAPOX 2000 to CAPOX 1700. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 43-50. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605995 www.bjcancer.com Published online 9 November 2010 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available