TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality-of-life findings from a randomised phase-III study of XELOX vs FOLFOX-6 in metastatic colorectal cancer
AU - Conroy, T.
AU - Hebbar, M.
AU - Bennouna, J.
AU - Ducreux, M.
AU - Ychou, M.
AU - Llédo, G.
AU - Adenis, A.
AU - Faroux, R.
AU - Rebischung, C.
AU - Kockler, L.
AU - Douillard, J. Y.
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial support for this research was provided by Roche. We thank st[è]ve consultants for writing the paper and for performing additional statistical analyses (test of internal validity of both questionnaires and completion rate/missing data analysis). In addition to the investigators in the author list, we acknowledge the following investigators who also participated in this trial: N-E Achour, Clinique Pasteur; J Alexandre, Hôpital Cochin, Paris; Y Bécouarn, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux; A Bidault, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre; C Boaziz, Clinique Claude Bernard, Ermont; L Cany, Clinique Francheville, Périgueux; I Cumin, Centre Hospitalier Bretagne Sud, Lorient; F Cvitkovic, Centre René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud; P Dalivoust, Clinique La Casamance, Aubagne; JP Delord, Centre Claudius Régaud, Toulouse; P De Guiral, Centre Hospitalier Général, Saint Nazaire; MP Galais, Centre Franc¸ois Baclesse and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Caen; F Guichard, Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord, Bordeaux; F Husseini, Hôpital Pasteur, Colmar; M Nadrigny, Laurent Clinique du Château, Garches; S Négrier, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; B Paillot, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen; P Piedbois, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil; L Poincloux, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Hôtel Dieu, Clermont Ferrand; JM Tigaud, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, Villeneuve-Saint-Georges; L Vayre, Centre Hospi-talier, Brive; J Vignoud, Centre Libéral de Radiothérapie et d’Oncologie Médicale, Béziers; JP Wagner, Cabinet d’Oncologie Médicale, Strasbourg, France. We also acknowledge the major contribution made by Sandrine Kraemer to this trial.
PY - 2010/1/1
Y1 - 2010/1/1
N2 - Background: A phase-III trial showed the non-inferiority of oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) in terms of efficacy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. A secondary objective was to compare the quality of life (QoL) and health-care satisfaction of patients.Methods: Patients were randomised to receive XELOX (n156) or FOLFOX-6 (n150) for 6 months. Quality of life and satisfaction were assessed by the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Chemotherapy Convenience and Satisfaction Questionnaire (FACIT-CCSQ), respectively. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, at Cycle3 (C3) and Cycle (C6) (XELOX) or at C4 and C8 visits (FOLFOX-6) and at their final visit.Results: A total of 245 and 225 patients were assessed using QLQ-C30 and FACIT-CCSQ, respectively. The completion rates were >80%. Global QoL scores did not differ significantly between groups during the study. According to FACIT-CCSQ, XELOX seemed more convenient (C3/C4, P0.001; C6/C8, P0.009) and satisfactory to patients (C6/C8, P0.003) than FOLFOX-6. At the final visit, XELOX patients spent fewer days on hospital visits (3.3 vs 5.3 days, P0.045) and lost fewer hours of work/daily activities (10.2 vs 37.1 h lost, P0.007).Conclusion: XELOX has a similar QoL profile, but seemed to be more convenient in terms of administration at certain time points and reduced time lost for work or other activities compared with FOLFOX-6.
AB - Background: A phase-III trial showed the non-inferiority of oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) in terms of efficacy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. A secondary objective was to compare the quality of life (QoL) and health-care satisfaction of patients.Methods: Patients were randomised to receive XELOX (n156) or FOLFOX-6 (n150) for 6 months. Quality of life and satisfaction were assessed by the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Chemotherapy Convenience and Satisfaction Questionnaire (FACIT-CCSQ), respectively. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, at Cycle3 (C3) and Cycle (C6) (XELOX) or at C4 and C8 visits (FOLFOX-6) and at their final visit.Results: A total of 245 and 225 patients were assessed using QLQ-C30 and FACIT-CCSQ, respectively. The completion rates were >80%. Global QoL scores did not differ significantly between groups during the study. According to FACIT-CCSQ, XELOX seemed more convenient (C3/C4, P0.001; C6/C8, P0.009) and satisfactory to patients (C6/C8, P0.003) than FOLFOX-6. At the final visit, XELOX patients spent fewer days on hospital visits (3.3 vs 5.3 days, P0.045) and lost fewer hours of work/daily activities (10.2 vs 37.1 h lost, P0.007).Conclusion: XELOX has a similar QoL profile, but seemed to be more convenient in terms of administration at certain time points and reduced time lost for work or other activities compared with FOLFOX-6.
KW - CCSQ-FACIT
KW - Capecitabine
KW - Colorectal cancer
KW - QLQ-C30
KW - QoL
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74249098021&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605442
DO - 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605442
M3 - Article
C2 - 19920832
AN - SCOPUS:74249098021
SN - 0007-0920
VL - 102
SP - 59
EP - 67
JO - British Journal of Cancer
JF - British Journal of Cancer
IS - 1
ER -