XELOX Treatment Research Articles

A Retrospective Analysis of the Lauren Classification in the Choice of XELOX or SOX as an Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer.

We aim to retrospectively explore the guiding value of the Lauren classification for patients who have undergone D2 gastrectomy to choose oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) or oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) as a further systemic treatment after the operation. We collected data of 406 patients with stage III gastric cancer(GC)after radical D2 resection and regularly received XELOX or SOX adjuvant treatment after surgery and followed them for at least five years. According to the Lauren classification, we separated patients out into intestinal type (IT) GC together with non-intestinal type(NIT) GC. According to the chemotherapy regimen, we separated patients into the SOX group together with the XELOX group. Among non-intestinal type patients, the 3-year DFS rates in the SOX group and the XELOX group were 72.5%, respectively; 54.5% (P=0.037); The 5-year OS rates were 66.8% and 51.8% respectively (P=0.038), both of which were statistically significant. The patients of non-intestinal type GC may benefit from the SOX regimen. Differences were counted without being statistically significant with intestinal-type GC in the SOX or XELOX groups.

Effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for the therapy of locally advanced colorectal cancer: A retrospective study.

The goal of the present study was to appraise the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) in patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), as relevant data on its usage in this setting are lacking. A retrospective analysis was implemented on 100 patients with locally advanced CRC who received either neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with XELOX (N=50) or neoadjuvant XELOX alone (N=50). Radiological response and pathological complete response rates were evaluated. Furthermore, the researchers obtained data pertaining to disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, as well as adverse events. The consequences of the present study indicated that the neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with XELOX treatment approach yielded higher rates of radiological objective response (86.0 vs. 68.0%, P=0.032) and major pathological response (46.0 vs. 22.0%, P=0.011) compared with XELOX alone. These findings were further confirmed through multivariate logistic regression analyses (P=0.037 and P=0.008, respectively). Interestingly, the neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with XELOX treatment approach significantly prolonged DFS when compared with XELOX alone (P=0.033). In summary, the administration of neoadjuvant apatinib in combination with XELOX demonstrates superiority over the use of XELOX alone in terms of achieving a more favorable pathological response and a longer duration of DFS in patients diagnosed with locally advanced CRC.

Evaluating combined bevacizumab and XELOX in advanced colorectal cancer: Serum markers carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 199 analysis.

Colorectal cancer ranks third and second among common and fatal cancers. The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is generally based on XELOX in clinical practice, which includes capecitabine (CAP) and oxaliplatin. Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 125 and CA199 are prognostic factors for various tumors. To investigate evaluating combined bevacizumab (BEV) and XELOX in advanced colorectal cancer: Serum markers CEA, CA125, CA199 analysis. In this retrospective study, a total of 94 elderly patients diagnosed with mCRC were recruited and subsequently categorized into two groups based on the distinct treatment modalities they received. The control group was treated with XELOX plus CAP (n = 47), while the observation group was treated with XELOX plus CAP and BEV (n = 47). Several indexes were assessed in both groups, including disease control rate (DCR), incidence of adverse effects, serum marker levels (CEA, CA125, and CA19) and progression-free survival (PFS). After 9 wk of treatment, the serum levels of CEA, CA199 and CA125 in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the PFS of the observation group (9.12 ± 0.90 mo) was significantly longer than that of the control group (6.49 ± 0.64 mo). Meanwhile, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions and DCR between the two groups during maintenance therapy (P > 0.05). On the basis of XELOX treatment, the combination of BEV and CAP can reduce serum tumor marker levels and prolong PFS in patients with mCRC.

The significance of time interval between perioperative SOX/XELOX chemotherapy and clinical decision model in gastric cancer.

To investigate the influences of time interval between multimodality therapies on survival for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) patients, 627 patients were included in a retrospective study, and 350 who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) based on SOX (S-1 plus Oxaliplatin)/XELOX (Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin) treatment, radical surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) from 2005.01 to 2018.06 were eligible for analyses. Three factors were used to assess influences, including time interval from NACT accomplishment to AC initiation (PECTI), time to surgery after NACT accomplishment (TTS), and time to adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (TAC). Concerning PECTIs, 99 (28.29%) experienced it within 9 weeks, 188 (53.71%) within 9-13 weeks, 63 (18.00%) over 13 weeks. Patients' 5-year overall survival (OS) significantly decreased as trichotomous PECTI increased (78.6% vs 66.7% vs 55.7%, P = .02). Analogously, there was a significant decrease for dichotomous TTS (within vs over 5 weeks) in OS (P = .03) and progression free survival (PFS) (P = .01) but not for dichotomous TAC (within vs over 6 weeks) in OS and PFS (P = .40). Through multivariate Cox analyses, patients with PECTI over 13 weeks had significantly worse OS (P = .03) and PFS (P = .02). Furthermore, extended TTS had significantly worse OS and PFS but insignificantly worse OS and PFS than extended TAC. Therefore, gastric patients receiving perioperative SOX/XELOX chemotherapy and surgery with extended PECTI over 9 weeks or TTS over 5 weeks would have a negative correlation with PFS and OS, and worse when PECTI over 13 weeks. Nomograms (including PECTI, ypT, ypN, Area Under Curve (AUC) = 0.81) could predict patient survival probability and guide intervention with net benefit. In control of PECTI, TTS could be extended appropriately, and shortened TAC might make a remedy, and delayed TAC might be allowed when TTS was shortened.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Versus Gemcitabine Plus Oxaliplatin as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers.

Background: In the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancers (BTCs), XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) showed comparable clinical efficacy and safety to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX), with fewer visits and better treatment management. Our study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX as the first-line therapy for BTCs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare systems and to provide valuable suggestions for clinical decision-making. Methods: A Markov model was developed using the phase 3 randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470443) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used as the primary outcomes of the model. Uncertainty was assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The QALYs for the XELOX and GEMOX groups were 0.66 and 0.54, respectively. In China, the total cost of XELOX treatment is US $12,275.51, which is lower than that of the GEMOX regimen. In addition, XELOX is more effective than GEMOX, making it the preferred regimen. A sensitivity analysis determined that XELOX therapy has a stable economic advantage in China. Conclusion: Compared to GEMOX, XELOX is a more cost-effective treatment as a first-line treatment for advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

Is adjuvant chemotherapy necessary for early gastric cancer?

Objective:To quantify the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) with respect to survival, and to identify factors for predicting prognoses in early gastric cancer patients.Methods:Patients with pT1 gastric cancer (GC) who underwent radical resection with D2 lymphadenectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Based on lymph node metastasis (LNM) status and treatment regimens, patients were classified into groups, and clinicopathological variables, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared.Results:Of 1,050 enrolled patients, 151 patients (14.4%) had a positive LNM status. Submucosal invasion, undifferentiated state, tumor size > 2 cm, ulceration, and lymphovascular invasion were independent risk factors for LNM using multivariate analyses. The 5-year OS of all patients was 96.4%. HER2 positive, perineural invasion, and LNM were independent factors for worse survival. Patients with pT1N3 GC had a worse 5-year OS and DSS than pT1N0, pT1N1, and pT1N2 patients (P < 0.001). The 5-year OS and DSS for pT1N1 patients showed no significant difference between ACT and surgery only patients. For pT1N2 patients, the 5-year OS and DSS showed no significant difference between S-1 and Xelox treatments. For pT1N3 patients, 7 (36.8%) received S-1, while 12 (63.2%) received Xelox treatment. Patients receiving Xelox treatment showed a better 5-year OS (75.0% vs. 14.3%) and DSS (81.8% vs. 20.0%) than patients receiving S-1 (P < 0.05).Conclusions:Curative surgery only was adequate for patients with pT1N0 and pT1N1. Xelox showed no survival benefits for pT1N2 patients. Therefore, S-1 is the optimal choice for pT1N2 patients, when considering adverse effects. Xelox is recommended for pT1N3 patients.

GALC Triggers Tumorigenicity of Colorectal Cancer via Senescent Fibroblasts.

Colorectal cancer (CRC)-associated senescent fibroblasts may play a crucial role in tumor progression, but the mechanism remains unclear. In order to solve this complicated problem, we randomly collected 16 patients with CRC, who had been treated with oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX). Hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining revealed that the tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) of CRC was affected by XELOX treatment. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SAβG) staining were used to verify a stable model of senescent fibroblasts. IHC analysis showed that high expression levels of galactosylceramidase (GALC) and significant senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SAβG) staining were associated with CRC patient survival. We observed that fibroblasts overexpressing GALC underwent cell cycle arrest. Changes in cell morphology and cell cycle characteristics were accompanied by the upregulation of the p16, p21, and p53 gene, and the downregulation of hTERT expression. In a co-culture system, fibroblasts overexpressing GALC significantly increased the proliferation of CRC cells. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis confirmed that GALC overexpression fibroblasts co-cultured with CRC caused changes in CRC cell morphology. The aging fibroblast co-culture group (70%) had a higher migration ability. In vivo experiments and transcriptomics analysis were performed to verify the effect of senescent fibroblasts on tumor formation and to identify the potential mechanisms for the above results. We found that a high expression of ATF3 was related to good survival rates. However, a high expression of KIAA0907 was bad for survival rates (p < 0.05). The knockdown of ATF3 can promote cell proliferation, migration, and clonogenic assays, while downregulation of KIAA0907 inhibits cell proliferation, migration, and clonogenic assays. The results demonstrate that senescent fibroblasts with a high level of GALC regulated several aspects of the tumor growth process, including migration and invasion.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant systemic treatments against resectable colon cancer: a network meta-analysis.

Background:Currently, 6-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has been recommended as the preferred adjuvant treatment against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer patients.Methods:Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meeting libraries from inception to November 2019. Regarding survival and tolerability, randomized controlled trials comparing different adjuvant systemic regimens against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer were eligible. Disease-free survival was primary endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model, and relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by p score.Results:A total of 30 trials were included, corresponding to 54,109 patients. Regarding disease-free survival, none of the analyzed regimens displayed significant superiority against common comparator 6-month capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX), while 12-month [network hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.60–1.10); 0.79 (0.57–1.10)] and 3-month XELOX [0.95 (0.86–1.04); 0.93 (0.83–1.05)] were top-ranking regimens showing non-inferiority among overall and stage 3 patients. Moreover, by pairwise meta-analysis, 3-month XELOX demonstrated significant superiority against 6-month XELOX among low-risk stage 3 patients [pairwise HR 0.78 (0.63–0.97)]. Concerning adverse events, 3-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly better than the 6-month counterpart with respect to peripheral sensory neuropathy, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The 12-month capecitabine monotherapy failed to display non-inferiority among other major adverse events.Conclusions:The 3-month XELOX treatment could be an alternative option of the 6-month regimen among low-risk stage 3 patients. Among high-risk stage 3 patients, 6-month oxaliplatin-based regimens still seem more competitive. In addition, clinical application of 12-month capecitabine monotherapy should be cautious, despite its top rankings, especially among non-Asian countries.

Autocuidado e Quimioterapia Oral Domiciliar: Avaliação das Práticas Educativas dos Enfermeiros sob a Perspectiva de Pacientes

Introdução: Ante a vida prática dos pacientes, indaga-se sobre a melhor forma de aquisição de saberes para o autocuidado. Objetivo: Avaliar, na perspectiva dos pacientes, convergências e divergências entre orientações para o autocuidado, compreensão quanto às orientações e sua aplicação. Método: Estudo avaliativo, qualitativo, sob a perspectiva hermenêutico-dialética, em hospital oncológico no Rio de Janeiro. Quinze participantes com câncer de cólon e reto com delimitação amostral distribuída por três grupos (ciclos iniciais, centrais e finais) do protocolo de tratamento XELO X. Adoção da amostra por conveniência sob os critérios: maioridade, ciência do tratamento, lucidez, funções cognitivas preservadas, ausência de metástase cerebral e em quimioterapia oral domiciliar. Produção de dados por entrevistas semiestruturadas entre setembro e outubro de 2012, levadas ao ponto da saturação teórica, numa cooperação entre participantes e pesquisadores para iluminar a experiência a ser explorada. Resultados: Oitenta e nove recortes de falas agrupados em três categorias empíricas e suas respectivas subcategorias, a saber: a categoria da orientação à compreensão, com oito subcategorias; a categoria descrição das práticas educativas, com quatro subcategorias; a categoria da compreensão à aplicação, com 11 subcategorias. Conclusão: Como há aprimoramentos possíveis ao longo do processo, na transição de uma etapa para a outra, são propostas uma ação anterior de identificação dos fatores socioculturais, uma ação posterior de caráter avaliativo e ações de acompanhamento entre um ciclo e outro.

Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin as a Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase II Trial.

Background: Although biliary tract cancer (BTC) has a very aggressive nature, some patients maintain a relatively good performance status after failure with first-line treatment of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC). Thus, tolerable, feasible, and useful second-line treatments are needed for these patients. We investigated the efficacy of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as a second-line therapy for patients with advanced BTC who failed first-line GC treatment.Methods: In this prospective, phase II trial, we investigated XELOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) as a second-line treatment, given every 3 weeks, totaling 8 cycles in patients with metastatic BTC who failed first-line GC treatment. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).Results: From December 2015 to November 2016, 50 patients with metastatic intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder (GB) cancer were enrolled. The regimen was well tolerated. Toxicities mainly consisted of grade 1 or 2 events, and thrombocytopenia and neuropathy had the highest incidence. In intent-to-treat analysis, one complete response (CR) and six partial responses (PRs) were recorded with XELOX treatment. The overall response rate and the disease control rate from the intent-to-treat analysis were 14% and 52%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 15.6 months, PFS after XELOX was a median of 15.4 weeks (95% CI, 8.5-22.3). This PFS value supported the statistical hypothesis of this study. The median overall survival was 32.7 weeks (95% CI, 21.4-43.9).Conclusion: This phase II trial showed that XELOX treatment was efficacious and had a tolerable toxicity profile in patients with advanced BTC who failed first-line treatment of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Examination of the expression levels of MACC1, Filamin A and FBXW7 genes in colorectal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer observed in cancer-related mortality because it has a high metastasis ratio. This study aims to investigate the expression levels of several genes, including metastasis-related colon cancer 1 (MACC1), Filamin A (FLNA), F-box/WD repeat-containing protein 7 (FBXW7), which has an important role in cell signaling, migration and adhesion through the remodeling of the cell skeleton.METHODS:In this study, 21 patients with a precise diagnosis of CRC and 21 controls were included. Gene expressions were examined using the RT-PCR technique. To define the relationship of the genes with metastasis, blood samples were collected from all patients with colon/rectal cancer diagnosis without metastasis at six months before and after the medication with Xelox.RESULTS:Our findings showed that no significant difference was observed in the pre-treatment values compared to the control group, whereas FLNA (p=0.001) expression was observed to be significantly increased following treatment with Xelox.CONCLUSION:To our knowledge, our study is the first study to investigate the effects of Xelox treatment on the expression levels of MACC1, FBXW7 and FLNA genes in non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients in Turkey.

Self-Reported Adherence to Capecitabine on XELOX Treatment as Adjuvant Therapy for Colorectal Cancer.

Adherence has become an important issue in modern oncology treatment. Most studies have included heterogeneous target tumor types, regimens, and therapy settings. Our study focused on capecitabine during capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) treatment as an adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. The main aims of this study were to evaluate real-life adherence to capecitabine and to investigate candidate factors that might decrease adherence. We studied 338 consecutive patients who received XELOX treatment between December 1, 2011, and April 30, 2015, at the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research. Our study assessed adherence to capecitabine through patient-reported treatment diaries and interviewed nonadherents to determine the reasons for not taking capecitabine at a pharmaceutical outpatient clinic. We calculated the adherence rate in a cycle as: number of times the patient took capecitabine/28. Relative dose intensities and factors associated with deteriorating adherence to capecitabine were retrospectively surveyed from electronic patient records. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate factors associated with optimal adherence. The study covered 282 patients who received 2,055 cycles of XELOX. Median adherence rate was 94.0% in the first cycle, and median relative dose intensity of capecitabine was 77.8%. The most common reasons for nonadherence were nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. The presence of the following factors was not significantly associated with adherence: ECOG performance status ≥1 (p = 0.715), clinical stage (p = 0.408), primary tumor site (p = 0.576), age ≥70 years at study entry (p = 0.757), female gender (p = 0.504), and not living alone (p = 0.579). The adherence rate from this study was significantly higher than the adherence from metastatic settings. Adherence-enhancing interventions for capecitabine in XELOX treatment as adjuvant therapy comprised management of nausea/vomiting and diarrhea.

Reduction in Peripheral CD19+CD24hCD27+ B Cell Frequency Predicts Favourable Clinical Course in XELOX-Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that regulatory B cells (Bregs) play an important role in modulating the immune response to tumours. Our previous study indicated that a small percentage of peripheral CD19⁺CD24^hCD27⁺ Breg cells slowed gastric cancer progression in XELOX-treated patients. Here, we further investigated the relationship between dynamic changes in circulating Breg cells and the clinical course in XELOX-treated gastric cancer patients. Methods: A total of 52 patients with advanced gastric cancer were enrolled in this study. The frequencies of CD19⁺CD24^hCD27⁺ cells in peripheral blood were tested before (as a baseline) and 9 weeks after administration of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX). The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival time (PFS) of the patients. The overall survival (OS) and adverse events of chemotherapy were also recorded. Results: The median PFS of patients was 6 months (95% CI, 5.27-6.73) with effective rate of 46.2%. The percentage of CD19⁺CD24^hCD27⁺ cells in lymphocytes ranged from 0.007% to 1.94%, with a median value of 0.45%. The median percentage of CD19⁺CD24^hCD27⁺ lymphocytes was 0.59% (0.01%-6.02%) 9 weeks after treatment. There were no significant differences for this index. However, the patients with decreased Breg frequencies after XELOX treatment had a longer PFS time (7.0 months vs. 5.0 months, p=0.01) than those with increased Breg frequencies. Conclusion: Patients with downtrend of CD19⁺CD24^hCD27⁺ B lymphocytes during early stages of chemotherapy relative to their initial values had longer PFS times, and this could be used to predict the efficacy of chemotherapy and help physicians adjust treatments accordingly.

Erratum to: The COMET Open-label Phase II Study of Neoadjuvant FOLFOX or XELOX Treatment Combined with Molecular Targeting Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with Resectable Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer.

Background Advantages of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with monoclonal antibodies for treating patients with resectable colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CLM) have not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin-based regimen (FOLFOX or XELOX) plus monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or bevacizumab) treatment in patients with resectable CLM.

A Phase II Study of XELOX and Cetuximab as First-Line Therapy in Patients With KRAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (FLEET2 Study)

BackgroundDespite the comparable clinical benefit of XELOX (capecitabine with oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), the value of XELOX treatment in combination with cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains largely unknown. Patients and MethodsIn this clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy and safety of weekly/biweekly cetuximab administration combined with biweekly XELOX in patients with previously untreated v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild type mCRC. The primary end point was response rate (RR) with confirmation, and the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), dose intensity, and the safety of the protocol treatment. ResultsForty patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria participated in this study. The median treatment cycle number was 8 and the median dose intensities were 218 mg/m2/wk for cetuximab, 34 mg/m2/wk for oxaliplatin, and 821 mg/m2/d for capecitabine. One patient showed complete response and partial response was observed in 19 patients, giving an overall RR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.8%-66.2%). Stable disease was obtained in 13 patients, resulting in a DCR of 82.5% (95% CI, 67.2%-92.7%). The PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.6 months), and the OS was 24.3 months (95% CI, 14.9-33.7 months). The safety profile revealed the common Grade 3/4 adverse events to be acneiform eruption (12.5%), peripheral neuropathy (7.5%), and elevated alanine transaminase levels (7.5%). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred only in 5.0% and 2.5% of the patients, respectively. Grade 1 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was not uncommon (20%), whereas Grade 2/3 HFS occurred in only 3 patients (7.5%). No deaths were reported within 30 days of the last dose. ConclusionCetuximab with XELOX showed a confirmed overall RR of 50%, which was within the previously reported range of RR. The safety profile showed an acceptable rate and severity of adverse events. In light of the several advantages of XELOX, including convenience and the reported cost-saving aspects, further study of this combination therapy is warranted.

A clinical study of XELOX chemotherapy combined with Chinese herbal medicines for obstructive colorectal cancer

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of XELOX chemotherapy combined with Chinese herbal medicines in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. Methods A total of 70 patients with obstructive colorectal cancer were recruited and divided into a XELOX treatment group and a combined treatment group, 35 in each group. The XELOX treatment group received XELOX chemotherapy, while the combined treatment group were received XELOX chemotherapy combined with Chinese herbal medicines. All patients received a 3-week treatment as a cycle, and for 4 cycles. The outcomes were Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and the Zubrod-ECOG-WHO Scale (ZPS). Adverse effects were recorded. Results After the treatment, the clinical symptoms score (1.62±0.21 vs. 2.12±0.31; t=7.900, P<0.01) and ZPS score (1.07±0.33 vs. 2.88±0.41; t=20.346, P<0.01) in the combined treatment group were significantly lower than those in the XELOX treatment group, but the KPS score was significantly higher (93.42±5.56 vs. 86.43±5.93; t=5.087, P<0.01). The follow-up showed that the 3-year survival rates in the combined treatment group was significantly lower than those in the XELOX treatment group (80.00% vs. 57.14%; χ2=4.242, P=0.039). The incidence of leukopenia (11.43% vs. 34.29%; χ2=3.970, P<0.05), anemia (5.71% vs. 22.86%; χ2=4.200, P<0.05), nausea/vomiting (8.57% vs. 28.57%; χ2=4.629, P<0.05), and diarrhea (2.86% vs. 20.00%; χ2=5.081, P<0.05) in the combined treatment group were significantly lower than those in the XELOX treatment group. Conclusion XELOX chemotherapy combined with Chinese herbal medicines can improve clinical symptoms, performance status, and alleviate adverse effects in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. Key words: Colorectal neoplasms; Intestinal obstruction; Antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols; Traditional Chinese medicine therapy

Patients' self-reported adherence to capecitabine on XELOX treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: findings from a retrospective cohort analysis.

BackgroundCapecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) has been established as a first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Adherence is particularly important with capecitabine to maintain appropriate curative effect. In this study, we monitored the adherence to capecitabine on XELOX treatment and investigated which factors might decrease compliance.MethodsThe study included 242 consecutive patients who received XELOX treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer between October 2009 and March 2012. Adherence to capecitabine was checked by pharmacists with a patient-reported treatment diary at a pharmaceutical outpatient clinic. Adherence rate was defined as the number of times that a patient took capecitabine in a 14-day cycle/28 prescribed doses. We retrospectively surveyed median relative dose intensities of capecitabine and the factors deteriorating adherence across eight cycles from electronic patient records and examined differences in compliance rates according to age.ResultsThe study included 144 male and 98 female patients. The overadherence rate was 1.5% (n=23). The median adherence rate was 93.5% (n=242) in the first cycle of XELOX treatment, which gradually rose to 96.1% (n=148) in the eighth cycle. The median relative dose intensity of capecitabine was 79.2%. The main factors contributing to decreased adherence to capecitabine were diarrhea (22.5%, 352 instances) and nausea/vomiting (13.8%, 215 instances). The rate of missed dose was 12.1%. Analysis of adherence issues in relation to patient age showed a trend toward worse adherence to capecitabine therapy in the group of patients aged ≥80 years (hazard ratio =3.83; 95% confidence interval 2.48–5.91, P<0.001 versus 70–80 years group and versus <70 years group, chi-square test).ConclusionPatient-reported adherence to capecitabine on XELOX treatment in clinical practice is high but adversely affected by side effects. Patients aged 80 years or more exhibit a significant decrease in compliance compared with younger patients.

Patient's self-reported adherence to capecitabine on XELOX as adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer.

690 Background: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) has been established as adjuvant therapy for stage II/III colon cancer. Adherence to capecitabine is particularly important with XELOX to maintain appropriate curative effect. In this study, we monitored the adherence to capecitabine during adjuvant treatment with XELOX, and investigated the candidate factors that might decrease the adherence. Methods: The study included 139 consecutive patients who received XELOX treatment as adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer between November 2011 and March 2014. Adherence to capecitabine was checked by pharmacists using a patient-reported treatment diary at a pharmaceutical outpatient clinic. Adherence rate was defined as the number of which a patient took capecitabine between d1 evening and d15 morning per 28 in each treatment cycle. The relative dose intensities and the deteriorating factors of adherence to capecitabine were retrospectively surveyed from electronic patient records. Results: 70 male and 69 female patients received adjuvant XELOX. Median adherence rate was 95.4% (n=139) in the first cycle of XELOX treatment, which gradually rose to 98.3% (n=121) in the eighth cycle. The median relative dose intensity of capecitabine was 76.7%. The main factors contributing to decreased adherence to capecitabine were diarrhea (34.7%) and nausea/vomiting (20.2%), peripheral neuropathy (10.7%). Conclusions: In this study, patient-reported adherence to capecitabine on XELOX treatment in clinical practice was highly maintained during all treatment cycles, and poor-adherence appeared to correlate with gastrointestinal events such as diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Our results suggest that assessment for compliance along with management of adverse events is needed to maintain treatment effect in clinical practice.

Bevacizumab + Capecitabine as Maintenance Therapy after Initial Bevacizumab + XELOX Treatment in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ‘Stop and Go' Study Results - A Turkish Oncology Group Trial

Objective: It was the aim of this study to evaluate maintenance therapy with bevacizumab + capecitabine following induction with bevacizumab + capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus bevacizumab + XELOX until progression as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Patients received either bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks) until disease progression (arm A) or the same doses of bevacizumab + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by bevacizumab + capecitabine until disease progression (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: One hundred and twenty-three patients were randomized. Treatment compliance was similar in both groups. Median PFS was significantly longer for arm B than for arm A (11.0 vs. 8.3 months; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between the two arms for ORR (66.7 vs. 59.0%; p = 0.861) or median OS (23.8 vs. 20.2 months; p = 0.100). Tolerability was acceptable in both treatment arms; the most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (arm B vs. arm A) were fatigue (6.6 vs. 16.1%), diarrhoea (3.3 vs. 11.3%), anorexia (3.3 vs. 11.3%), and neuropathy (1.6 vs. 8.1%). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab + capecitabine can be considered an appropriate option following induction bevacizumab + XELOX in patients with mCRC instead of continuation of bevacizumab + XELOX.

Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Zhuang B, Xu J, Xu K, Wang J. Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny. 2013;8(4):257-261. doi:10.5114/pg.2013.37489. APA Zhuang, B., Xu, J., Xu, K., & Wang, J. (2013). Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, 8(4), 257-261. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2013.37489 Chicago Zhuang, Baoxiong, Junyao Xu, Kang Xu, and Jie Wang. 2013. "Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients". Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny 8 (4): 257-261. doi:10.5114/pg.2013.37489. Harvard Zhuang, B., Xu, J., Xu, K., and Wang, J. (2013). Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, 8(4), pp.257-261. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2013.37489 MLA Zhuang, Baoxiong et al. "Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients." Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, vol. 8, no. 4, 2013, pp. 257-261. doi:10.5114/pg.2013.37489. Vancouver Zhuang B, Xu J, Xu K, Wang J. Clinical analysis of concurrent 3DCRT and XELOX treatment for postoperative local recurrence of rectal carcinoma in elderly patients. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny. 2013;8(4):257-261. doi:10.5114/pg.2013.37489.