Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of this phase II randomised trial was to determine which of two schemes, raltitrexed-irinotecan or raltitrexed-oxaliplatin, offered better activity and less toxicity in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 94 patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC were included and randomised to receive raltitrexed 3 mg m(-2) followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) on day 1 (arm A), or CPT-11 350 mg m(-2) followed by raltitrexed 3 mg m(-2) (arm B). In both arms treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an overall response rate of 46% (95% CI, 29.5-57.7%) for arm A, and 34% (95% CI, 19.8-48.4%) for arm B. Median time to progression was 8.2 months for arm A and 8.8 months for arm B. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 69% of patients included in arm A were still alive, compared to 59% of those included in arm B. Overall, 31 patients (65%) experienced some episode of toxicity in arm A and 32 patients (70%) in arm B, usually grade 1-2. The most common toxicity was hepatic, with 29 patients (60%) in arm A and 24 patients (62%) in arm B, and was grade 3-4 in four (8%) and four (9%) patients, respectively. In all, 14 patients (29%) from arm A and 24 patients (52%) from arm B had some grade of diarrhoea (P<0.03). Neurologic toxicity was observed in 31 patients (64%) in arm A, and was grade 3-4 in five patients (10%), while a cholinergic syndrome was detected in nine patients (19%) in arm B. There were no differences in haematologic toxicity. One toxic death (2%) occurred in arm A and three (6.5%) in arm B. In conclusion, both schemes have high efficacy as first-line treatment in metastatic CRC and their total toxicity levels are similar. Regimens with raltitrexed seem a reasonable alternative to fluoropyrimidines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feliú et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: