Randomised prospective phase II study of combination chemotherapy epidoxorubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF) versus epidoxorubicin, cisplatin, capecitabin (ECX) in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer

Abstract

4571 Background: In phase II studies ECF with 5- FU inf. resulted in response rates (RR) > 50 %. Despite high responses the potential drawback of ECF may be the poor patient’s (pts) acceptability of the indwelling catheter and external infusion pump and related complications: sepsis, catheter-related infections, shoulder pain, thrombosis and pneumothorax. Capecitabin can maintain a constant level of 5- FU without complications and inconvenience associated with central venous access. The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety ECF versus ECX. Secondary endpoint was overall survival. Methods: Pts with histological proven, previously untreated advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, >18 years, ECOG performance status 0- 2 and adequate organ and hematological function were randomized to ECF or ECX. In ECF epidoxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 were administrated on day 1 by i.v., 5- FU 200 mg/m2/day was administrated by cont. inf. day 1- 14 of each cycle. Cycle was repeated every 3 weeks. In ECX epidoxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 were administrated on day 1 by i.v., capecitabin 825 mg/m2 twd was administrated orally day 1- 14. Cycle was repeated every 3 weeks. Results: Seventy- one pts were enrolled in this study between Jan 03 to Dec 05. Male 80 %, median age 56 yrs (40- 77). Thirty pts received ECF and 41 pts received ECX . All pts were assessable for responses and toxicity. The overall clinical RR were 45 % including 12.9 % partial responses (PR) and 6.4 % complete responses (CR) in ECF group and 69 % including 21.4 % PR and 4.7 % CR in ECX group. Median OS and TTP were 8.8 months (mos) ± 7.8 and 6.0 mos ± 4.4 in ECF group and 10.5 mos ± 7.2 and 7.0 mos ± 4.6 in ECX group respectively. The most frequent grade ¾ side effects graded according to CTCAE - 3 were fatigue - 20 % in ECF group and 19.5 % in ECX group, hematological (neutropenia) - 16 % in ECF group and 4.8 % in ECX group, nausea - 10 % in ECF group and 7.3 % in ECX group, diarrhea - 2.4 % in ECX group, hand- foot syndrome - 2.4 % in ECX group. Conclusions: ECX is at least effective as ECF with less toxic pattern and more convenient for pts and could replace ECF in first- line therapy in pts with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.