dc.contributor.author | Yalcin, Suayib | |
dc.contributor.author | Uslu, Ruchan | |
dc.contributor.author | Dane, Faysal | |
dc.contributor.author | Yilmaz, Ugur | |
dc.contributor.author | Zengin, Nurullah | |
dc.contributor.author | Buyukunal, Evin | |
dc.contributor.author | Buyukberber, Suleyman | |
dc.contributor.author | Camci, Celalettin | |
dc.contributor.author | Sencan, Orhan | |
dc.contributor.author | Kilickap, Sadettin | |
dc.contributor.author | Ozdener, Fatih | |
dc.contributor.author | Cevik, Duygu | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-10T11:10:30Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-10T11:10:30Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0030-2414 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1159/000355914 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11655/14872 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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/m(2) 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 bevacizunnab + XELOX in patients with mCRC instead of continuation of bevacizumab + XELOX. (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Karger | |
dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1159/000355914 | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.subject | Oncology | |
dc.title | Bevacizumab + Capecitabine As Maintenance Therapy After Initial Bevacizumab + Xelox Treatment In Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase Ill 'Stop And Go' Study Results - A Turkish Oncology Group Trial | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
dc.relation.journal | Oncology | |
dc.contributor.department | İç Hastalıkları | |
dc.identifier.volume | 85 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 328 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 335 | |
dc.description.index | WoS | |
dc.description.index | Scopus | |