RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Data concerning the prevalence of and outcomes related to thromboembolic events (TEs) in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, exploratory analysis of TEs in a randomized, controlled trial of 964 patients recruited between 2000 and 2005 and treated with epirubicin/platinum/fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for advanced/locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Regimens were epirubicin (E), cisplatin (C), fluorouracil (F; ECF); E, C, capecitabine (X; ECX); E, F, oxaliplatin (O; EOF); and EOX. Continuously infused F was administered via a central venous access device (CVAD) with 1 mg of warfarin for thromboprophylaxis. The principal outcome was the incidence of TEs (venous and arterial) in the whole treated patient cohort, according to chemotherapy, associated with CVADs and TE-related prognoses. RESULTS: The incidences of any, of venous, and of arterial TEs among 964 treated patients were 12.1% (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.3), 10.1% (95% CI, 8.3 to 12.3), and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4) respectively. There were fewer TEs in the O compared with the cisplatin groups (EOF/EOX v ECF/ECX: 7.6% v 15.1%; P = .0003). C was identified as a risk factor for TE in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76; P = .001). There was no difference in the incidence of TEs for the F group compared with the capecitabine groups. The incidence of CVAD-related thrombosis was 7.0% (ECF/EOF arms). Overall survival was worse for patients who experienced TEs versus no TEs (median survival, 7.4 v 10.5 months; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.99; P = .043). CONCLUSION: This analysis has prospectively quantified the incidence/pattern of TEs among patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who were treated with four triplet regimens, has demonstrated a differential thrombogenic effect according to platinum use, and has noted a poorer outcome associated with TE during treatment. Chemotherapy-related TE should contribute to the risk/benefit assessment of treatment.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administración & dosificación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Gástricas/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia/epidemiología , Tromboembolia/etiología , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Antimetabolitos Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Capecitabina , Cisplatino/administración & dosificación , Cisplatino/efectos adversos , Desoxicitidina/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Epirrubicina/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias Esofágicas/complicaciones , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Unión Esofagogástrica/patología , Femenino , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Fluorouracilo/análogos & derivados , Humanos , Incidencia , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Compuestos Organoplatinos/administración & dosificación , Compuestos Organoplatinos/efectos adversos , Oxaliplatino , Estudios Prospectivos , Neoplasias Gástricas/complicaciones , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Tromboembolia/inducido químicamente , Tromboembolia/prevención & control , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Warfarina/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We evaluated capecitabine (an oral fluoropyrimidine) and oxaliplatin (a platinum compound) as alternatives to infused fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, for untreated advanced esophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In a two-by-two design, we randomly assigned 1002 patients to receive triplet therapy with epirubicin and cisplatin plus either fluorouracil (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or triplet therapy with epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either fluorouracil (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). The primary end point was noninferiority in overall survival for the triplet therapies containing capecitabine as compared with fluorouracil and for those containing oxaliplatin as compared with cisplatin. RESULTS: For the capecitabine-fluorouracil comparison, the hazard ratio for death in the capecitabine group was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99); for the oxaliplatin-cisplatin comparison, the hazard ratio for the oxaliplatin group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10). The upper limit of the confidence intervals for both hazard ratios excluded the predefined noninferiority margin of 1.23. Median survival times in the ECF, ECX, EOF, and EOX groups were 9.9 months, 9.9 months, 9.3 months, and 11.2 months, respectively; survival rates at 1 year were 37.7%, 40.8%, 40.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. In the secondary analysis, overall survival was longer with EOX than with ECF, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.80 in the EOX group (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.02). Progression-free survival and response rates did not differ significantly among the regimens. Toxic effects of capecitabine and fluorouracil were similar. As compared with cisplatin, oxaliplatin was associated with lower incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, alopecia, renal toxicity, and thromboembolism but with slightly higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51678883 [controlled-trials.com].).