4.7 Article

Pooled analysis of safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 25, 页码 4085-4091

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.9039

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin are commonly used to treat advanced and resected colorectal cancer. This analysis compares the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly (FOLFOX4) in patients age younger than and at least 70 years. Patients and Methods This retrospective analysis included 3,742 colorectal cancer patients (614 age >= 70) from four clinical trials testing FOLFOX4 in the adjuvant, first-, and second-line settings. End points included grade >= 3 adverse events, response rate (in advanced disease), progression or relapse-free survival, dose-intensity, and overall survival in the studies with mature survival data. Results Grade >= 3 hematologic toxicity (neutropenia [43% v 49%; P = .04] and thrombocytopenia [2% v 5%; P = .04]) were significantly higher in older patients. Older age was not associated with increased rates of severe neurologic adverse events, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, infection, overall incidence of grade >= 3 toxicity (63% v 67%; P = .15), or 60-day mortality (1.1% v 2.3%; P = .20). The relative benefit of FOLFOX4 versus control did not differ by age for response rate, progression or recurrence free-survival (hazard ratio, 0.70 for FOLFOX4 v control for age < 70, 0.65 for age >= 0; P = .42), or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.77 age < 70, 0.82 age >= 70; P = .79). Dose-intensity did not differ by age at cycles 1, 3, 6, or 12. Conclusion FOLFOX4 maintains its efficacy and safety ratio in selected elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Its judicious use should be considered without regard to patient age, although scant data are available among patients older than 80 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据