Truong T

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) vs capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX or CAPOX) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in both the adjuvant (aCRC) and metastatic (mCRC) setting in Veterans at the Southern Arizona Veteran Affairs Health Care System (SAVAHCS).

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect efficacy and toxicity data. Subjects were included based on age, treatment setting, and regimen in the preset 5-year period, and appropriate diagnosis via International Classification of Diseases-Revision 9 (ICD-9) codes. Efficacy was measured via 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) for aCRC, progression-free survival (PFS) for mCRC, and overall survival (OS) for both settings.

Results: A total of 79 subjects were initially evaluatedwith 51 and 54 all-male subjects included in the efficacy and toxicity analysis, respectively. Mean range of age was 63-72 years old. Subjects were divided into four groups: FOLFOX aCRC (N = 17) and mCRC (N = 19), XELOX aCRC (N = 10) and mCRC (N = 8). No difference was found in 1-year DFS and OS between aCRC treatment groups, and PFS between mCRC groups. A higher incidence of 1-year OS with FOLFOX in the mCRC setting was noted (P = .03). No difference was found in the incidence of most of the toxicities between FOLFOX and XELOX, except a higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome was seen in XELOX (P = .0007) treated patients.

Conclusions: In this patient population, the efficacy between FOLFOX and XELOX in aCRC and mCRC was similar, while toxicity was slightly more prevalent with XELOX treatment due to increased hand-foot syndrome incidence. These findings are consistent with the results reported by previous larger prospective clinical trials.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) vs capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX or CAPOX) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in both the adjuvant (aCRC) and metastatic (mCRC) setting in Veterans at the Southern Arizona Veteran Affairs Health Care System (SAVAHCS).

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect efficacy and toxicity data. Subjects were included based on age, treatment setting, and regimen in the preset 5-year period, and appropriate diagnosis via International Classification of Diseases-Revision 9 (ICD-9) codes. Efficacy was measured via 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) for aCRC, progression-free survival (PFS) for mCRC, and overall survival (OS) for both settings.

Results: A total of 79 subjects were initially evaluatedwith 51 and 54 all-male subjects included in the efficacy and toxicity analysis, respectively. Mean range of age was 63-72 years old. Subjects were divided into four groups: FOLFOX aCRC (N = 17) and mCRC (N = 19), XELOX aCRC (N = 10) and mCRC (N = 8). No difference was found in 1-year DFS and OS between aCRC treatment groups, and PFS between mCRC groups. A higher incidence of 1-year OS with FOLFOX in the mCRC setting was noted (P = .03). No difference was found in the incidence of most of the toxicities between FOLFOX and XELOX, except a higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome was seen in XELOX (P = .0007) treated patients.

Conclusions: In this patient population, the efficacy between FOLFOX and XELOX in aCRC and mCRC was similar, while toxicity was slightly more prevalent with XELOX treatment due to increased hand-foot syndrome incidence. These findings are consistent with the results reported by previous larger prospective clinical trials.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) vs capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX or CAPOX) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in both the adjuvant (aCRC) and metastatic (mCRC) setting in Veterans at the Southern Arizona Veteran Affairs Health Care System (SAVAHCS).

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect efficacy and toxicity data. Subjects were included based on age, treatment setting, and regimen in the preset 5-year period, and appropriate diagnosis via International Classification of Diseases-Revision 9 (ICD-9) codes. Efficacy was measured via 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) for aCRC, progression-free survival (PFS) for mCRC, and overall survival (OS) for both settings.

Results: A total of 79 subjects were initially evaluatedwith 51 and 54 all-male subjects included in the efficacy and toxicity analysis, respectively. Mean range of age was 63-72 years old. Subjects were divided into four groups: FOLFOX aCRC (N = 17) and mCRC (N = 19), XELOX aCRC (N = 10) and mCRC (N = 8). No difference was found in 1-year DFS and OS between aCRC treatment groups, and PFS between mCRC groups. A higher incidence of 1-year OS with FOLFOX in the mCRC setting was noted (P = .03). No difference was found in the incidence of most of the toxicities between FOLFOX and XELOX, except a higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome was seen in XELOX (P = .0007) treated patients.

Conclusions: In this patient population, the efficacy between FOLFOX and XELOX in aCRC and mCRC was similar, while toxicity was slightly more prevalent with XELOX treatment due to increased hand-foot syndrome incidence. These findings are consistent with the results reported by previous larger prospective clinical trials.