A Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial of Volasertib as Monotherapy and in Combination With Standard-Dose Pemetrexed Compared With Pemetrexed Monotherapy in Second-Line Treatment for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

UNLABELLED: Second-line therapy options that improve survival for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed. This randomized, phase II trial (n [ 143) investigated volasertib monotherapy or in combination with pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed monotherapy in patients with NSCLC whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The combination of volasertib with pemetrexed did not improve efficacy compared with pemetrexed monotherapy. INTRODUCTION: Volasertib is a potent, selective, cell cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Polo-like kinase. In this study we compared volasertib, volasertib with pemetrexed, and pemetrexed alone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A run-in phase (n = 12) was used to determine whether volasertib could be combined in full dose with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2). Subsequent patients were randomized to volasertib (n = 37), volasertib with pemetrexed (n = 47), or pemetrexed (n = 47) administered on day 1 every 21 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Volasertib 300 mg was chosen for the randomized phase. Recruitment to single-agent volasertib was stopped early because of lack of efficacy. Median PFS was 5.3 months with pemetrexed compared with 3.3 months with volasertib with pemetrexed (hazard ratio [HR], 1.141; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.771) and 1.4 months with volasertib (HR, 2.045; 95% CI, 1.27-3.292). ORRs were 10.6% with pemetrexed, 21.3% for volasertib with pemetrexed, and 8.1% with volasertib. The most common all-grade related adverse events (pemetrexed/volasertib with pemetrexed/volasertib) were: fatigue (28 [61%]/27 [59%]/11 [31%]), nausea (21 [46%]/19 [41%]/0 [0%]), decreased apetite (14 [31%]/13 [28%]/2 [6%]), neutropenia (4 [9%]/8 [17%]/9 [25%]), rash (9 [20%]/8 [17%]/2 [6%]), vomiting (6 [13%]/13 [28%]/0 [0%]), and diarrhea (8 [17%]/11 [24%]/0 [0%]). Pharmacokinetics analyses showed no drug-drug interactions between volasertib and pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: For treatment in the second-line for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, the combination of volasertib with standard pemetrexed did not increase toxicity significantly but also did not improve efficacy compared with single-agent pemetrexed.

Dacomitinib compared with placebo in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NCIC CTG BR.26): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with preclinical and clinical evidence of activity in non-small-cell lung cancer. We designed BR.26 to assess whether dacomitinib improved overall survival in heavily pretreated patients with this disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from 75 centres in 12 countries. Eligible patients had received up to three previous lines of chemotherapy and either gefitinib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational studies. Patients were stratified according to centre, performance status, tobacco use, best response to previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, weight loss within the previous 3 months, and ethnicity, and were then randomly allocated 2:1 to oral dacomitinib 45 mg once-daily or matched placebo centrally via a web-based system. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; secondary outcomes included overall survival in predefined molecular subgroups, progression-free survival, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, safety, and quality of life. This study is completed, although follow-up is ongoing for patients on treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000025. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2009, and June 11, 2013, we randomly assigned 480 patients to dacomitinib and 240 patients to placebo. At the final analysis (January, 2014), median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 15·6-29·6) for patients in the dacomitinib group and 24·4 months (11·5-38·9) for those in the placebo group. Dacomitinib did not improve overall survival compared with placebo (median 6·83 months [95% CI 6·08-7·49] for dacomitinib vs 6·31 months [5·32-7·52] for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·83-1·21]; p=0·506). However, patients in the dacomitinib group had longer progression-free survival than those in the placebo group (median 2·66 months [1·91-3·32] vs 1·38 months [0·99-1·74], respectively; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·79]; p<0·0001), and a significantly greater proportion of patients in the dacomitinb group achieved an objective response than in the placebo group (34 [7%] of 480 patients vs three [1%] of 240 patients, respectively; p=0·001). Compared with placebo, the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival seemed similar in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive tumours (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67-1·44) and EGFR wild-type tumours (0·93, 0·71-1·21; pinteraction=0·69). However, we noted qualitative differences in the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival for patients with KRAS-mutation-positive tumours (2·10, 1·05-4·22) and patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (0·79, 0·61-1·03; pinteraction=0·08). Compared with placebo, patients allocated dacomitinib had significantly longer time to deterioration of cough (p<0·0001), dyspnoea (p=0·049), and pain (p=0·041). 185 (39%) of 477 patients who received dacomitinib and 86 (36%) of 239 patients who received placebo had serious adverse events. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (59 [12%] patients on dacomitinib vs no controls), acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] vs four [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Dacomitinib did not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Pfizer.

A randomized phase 2 study of paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without conatumumab for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of conatumumab combined with paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients (aged >18 years) with previously untreated advanced or recurrent NSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 (stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and disease stage) to receive up to six 3-week cycles of PC combined with conatumumab (arm 1, 3 mg/kg; arm 2, 15 mg/kg) or placebo (arm 3) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00534027). RESULTS: Between August 8, 2007 and April 9, 2009, 172 patients were randomized (arm 1, n = 57; arm 2, n = 56; arm 3, n = 59). Median PFS was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-6.3) in arm 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI 0.57-1.24]; p = 0.41), 4.8 months (95% CI 3.2-6.5) in arm 2 (HR 0.93 [0.64-1.35]; p = 0.57), and 5.5 months (95% CI 4.3-5.7) in arm 3. There was an interaction between tumor histology and the effect of conatumumab on PFS (squamous HR 0.47 [0.23-0.94]; nonsquamous HR 1.08 [0.74-1.57]; interaction p = 0.039).The most common grade of three or more adverse events were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. There was no evidence of pharmacokinetic interactions between conatumumab and PC. Of 158 patients assessable for FCGR3A polymorphisms, conatumumab treatment was associated with a trend toward longer overall survival (HR 0.72 [0.43-1.23]) among V-allele carriers (V/V or F/V; n = 54) but not among F-allele homozygotes (n = 34; HR 1.37 [0.66-2.86]). CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, the addition of conatumumab to PC did not improve outcomes in unselected patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC.

Mapping the complex morphology of cell interactions with nanowire substrates using FIB-SEM.

Using high resolution focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM) we study the details of cell-nanostructure interactions using serial block face imaging. 3T3 Fibroblast cellular monolayers are cultured on flat glass as a control surface and on two types of nanostructured scaffold substrates made from silicon black (Nanograss) with low- and high nanowire density. After culturing for 72 hours the cells were fixed, heavy metal stained, embedded in resin, and processed with FIB-SEM block face imaging without removing the substrate. The sample preparation procedure, image acquisition and image post-processing were specifically optimised for cellular monolayers cultured on nanostructured substrates. Cells display a wide range of interactions with the nanostructures depending on the surface morphology, but also greatly varying from one cell to another on the same substrate, illustrating a wide phenotypic variability. Depending on the substrate and cell, we observe that cells could for instance: break the nanowires and engulf them, flatten the nanowires or simply reside on top of them. Given the complexity of interactions, we have categorised our observations and created an overview map. The results demonstrate that detailed nanoscale resolution images are required to begin understanding the wide variety of individual cells' interactions with a structured substrate. The map will provide a framework for light microscopy studies of such interactions indicating what modes of interactions must be considered.

Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL).

PURPOSE: This trial assessed the ability to enhance health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation in trials and patient management using computer assistance with a handheld device, called a personal digital assistant. The study assessed ease of use and psychometric properties of this approach, comparing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) paper form with the electronic (eLCSS-QL). Objectives were to: (1) measure completion times; (2) evaluate acceptability by patients, nurses, and physicians; (3) determine the correlation of the eLCSS-QL with the paper version; and (4) determine the feasibility of using a shorter visual analogue scale (VAS) in the electronic version. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were entered at 12 COMET clinics. All had: (a) stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, (b) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 60, (c) no prior chemotherapy, and (d) received initial courses of docetaxel + platinum. Of the 148 patients enrolled, characteristics were: men, 57 %; median, KPS 80 %; and median age, 67 years. Of these, 131 patients completed the evaluation form. RESULTS: The eLCSS-QL had excellent acceptance by patients, nurses, and physicians. Patients required 2.2 min (mean) to complete the eLCSS-QL. Reliability coefficients using Cronbach's alpha were high for the paper (0.84) and electronic (0.88) versions. The correlation coefficient between forms was high (0.92). The length of the VAS on the handheld pc (53 mm versus 100 mm on the paper format) resulted in nearly identical scores. CONCLUSIONS: The high acceptance rate by patients and professionals, the rapid completion time, ease of use, and strong psychometric properties confirm that the electronic LCSS (eLCSS-QL) is practical for use in trials and patient management. This study indicates that computer assistance helps overcome barriers associated with evaluating HRQL and PROs.

Quality of life analysis of TORCH, a randomized trial testing first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The TORCH (Tarceva or Chemotherapy) trial randomized patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer to first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine versus. standard inverse sequence. The trial, designed to test noninferiority in overall survival, was stopped at interim analysis because of inferior survival in the experimental arm. Quality of life (QoL), a secondary outcome, is reported here. METHODS: QoL was assessed at baseline and every 3 weeks during first-line, using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 and QLQ-lung cancer specific module (LC13). Mean changes from baseline within arms were reported. QoL response and time-to-deterioration of QoL using a competing-risk approach were compared between treatment arms. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty patients (83%) completed baseline questionnaires. Compliance was affected by differential treatment efficacy, but was similar between arms for patients without progression or death. Significant differences in QoL responses were observed favoring chemotherapy for pain, sleeping, dyspnea, diarrhea, and favoring erlotinib for vomiting, constipation, sore mouth, and alopecia. In the small subset of patients with EGFR-mutated tumors, all selected items (global QoL, physical functioning, cough, dyspnea and pain) improved, whereas worsening or no change was observed in wild-type patients. Improvement was particularly evident in the first-line erlotinib arm as for global QoL and physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: QoL was impacted by differential toxicity and efficacy between arms. Functional domains and global QoL did not differ, although some symptoms were better controlled with chemotherapy in unselected non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

First-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TORCH randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib prolonged survival of unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were not eligible for further chemotherapy, and two phase II studies suggested it might be an alternative to first-line chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial was designed to test whether first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was not inferior in terms of survival to the standard inverse sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion or supraclavicular nodes) to IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. With a 95% CI upper limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided α = .025, and two interim analyses, a sample size of 900 patients was planned. RESULTS: At the first planned interim analysis with half the events, the inferiority boundary was crossed, and the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the study. Seven hundred sixty patients (median age, 62 years; range, 27 to 81 years) had been randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms. As of June 1, 2011, median follow-up was 24.3 months, and 536 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm). Median survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 13.3 months) in the standard arm and 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.5 months) in the experimental arm. Adjusted HR of death in the experimental arm was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.47). There was no heterogeneity across sex, smoking habit, histotype, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. CONCLUSION: In unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was significantly inferior in terms of overall survival compared with the standard sequence of first-line chemotherapy followed by erlotinib.

Cell motility, morphology, viability and proliferation in response to nanotopography on silicon black.

Knowledge of cells' interactions with nanostructured materials is fundamental for bio-nanotechnology. We present results for how individual mouse fibroblasts from cell line NIH3T3 respond to highly spiked surfaces of silicon black that were fabricated by maskless reactive ion etching (RIE). We did standard measurements of cell viability, proliferation, and morphology on various surfaces. We also analyzed the motility of cells on the same surfaces, as recorded in time lapse movies of sparsely populated cell cultures. We find that motility and morphology vary strongly with nano-patterns, while viability and proliferation show little dependence on substrate type. We conclude that motility analysis can show a wide range of cell responses e.g. over a factor of two in cell speed to different nano-topographies, where standard assays, such as viability or proliferation, in the tested cases show much less variation of the order 10-20%.

Sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.

A phase II, multicenter study of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with refractory, metastatic colorectal carcinoma with absent epidermal growth factor receptor immunostaining.

PURPOSE: To determine antitumor activity of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) with lack of specific membrane immunostaining for the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had immunohistochemical (IHC)-determined mCRC with absent EGFR immunostaining that progressed after receiving at least one standard, fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapeutic regimen. Absent EGFR immunostaining was defined as the IHC absence of specific membrane staining in ≥500 cancer cells examined in well-preserved tissue. The study was performed prior to results of studies linking cetuximab sensitivity to K-ras mutation status. Patients received 400 mg/m(2) of intravenous (i.v.) cetuximab followed by once-weekly i.v. cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were evaluated for objective response at least every 6 weeks. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for duration of response, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seven (8.2%) of 85 mCRC patients whose tumors lacked EGFR immunostaining had major responses following cetuximab treatment. The median duration of response was 5.1 months. Median TTP and OS were 2.5 months and 10.0 months, respectively; the 1-year survival rate was 39.6%. The most frequently reported cetuximab-related adverse events were acneiform dermatitis, fatigue, headache, and dry skin. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab monotherapy produces objective antitumor activity in patients with mCRC that does not express EGFR as determined by IHC. The activity and safety profiles of cetuximab monotherapy in mCRC lacking EGFR immunostaining are similar to previous observations in EGFR IHC-positive disease that was not selected based on K-ras mutation status.

Micro cantilever movement detection with an amorphous silicon array of position sensitive detectors.

The movement of a micro cantilever was detected via a self constructed portable data acquisition prototype system which integrates a linear array of 32 1D amorphous silicon position sensitive detectors (PSD). The system was mounted on a microscope using a metal structure platform and the movement of the 30 µm wide by 400 µm long cantilever was tracked by analyzing the signals acquired by the 32 sensor array electronic readout system and the relevant data algorithm. The obtained results show a linear behavior of the photocurrent relating X and Y movement, with a non-linearity of about 3%, a spatial resolution of less than 2 µm along the lateral dimension of the sensor as well as of less than 3 µm along the perpendicular dimension of the sensor, when detecting just the micro-cantilever, and a spatial resolution of less than 1 µm when detecting the holding structure.

Randomized phase II study of gefitinib compared with placebo in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status.

PURPOSE: To compare gefitinib with placebo in chemotherapy naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients (chemotherapy naïve, WHO performance status 2 or 3; unfit for chemotherapy; stage IIIB/IV) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d) plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 100) or placebo plus BSC (n = 101). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and safety. Correlation of gefitinib efficacy with EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH]) was explored. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs; gefitinib:placebo) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.12; P = .217) for PFS and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.15; P = .272) for OS. As expected for this patient population, OS for both arms was poor, at about 3 months. ORRs were 6.0% (gefitinib) and 1.0% (placebo). QOL and PSI rates were 21.1% and 28.3% (gefitinib) and 20.0% and 28.3% (placebo), respectively. In EGFR FISH-positive patients (n = 32), HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.73) for PFS and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.12) for OS. No unexpected adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and ORRs after treatment with gefitinib or placebo, in the overall population; improvements in QOL and symptoms were similar in both groups. Tolerability profile of gefitinib was consistent with previous studies. PFS was statistically significantly improved for gefitinib-treated patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab, an IgG1 chimeric monoclonal antibody against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has activity against colorectal cancers that express EGFR. METHODS: From December 2003 to August 2005, 572 patients who had colorectal cancer expressing immunohistochemically detectable EGFR and who had been previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin or had contraindications to treatment with these drugs underwent randomization to an initial dose of 400 mg of cetuximab per square meter of body-surface area followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg per square meter plus best supportive care (287 patients) or best supportive care alone (285 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: In comparison with best supportive care alone, cetuximab treatment was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.92; P=0.005) and in progression-free survival (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). These benefits were robust after adjustment in a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model. The median overall survival was 6.1 months in the cetuximab group and 4.6 months in the group assigned to supportive care alone. Partial responses occurred in 23 patients (8.0%) in the cetuximab group but in none in the group assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001); the disease was stable in an additional 31.4% of patients assigned to cetuximab and in 10.9% of patients assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001). Quality of life was better preserved in the cetuximab group, with less deterioration in physical function and global health status scores (both P<0.05). Cetuximab treatment was associated with a characteristic rash; a rash of grade 2 or higher was strongly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.50; P<0.001). The incidence of any adverse event of grade 3 or higher was 78.5% in the cetuximab group and 59.1% in the group assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cetuximab improves overall survival and progression-free survival and preserves quality-of-life measures in patients with colorectal cancer in whom other treatments have failed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Randomized, controlled trial of irinotecan plus infusional, bolus, or oral fluoropyrimidines in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the BICC-C Study.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared the safety and efficacy of the following three different irinotecan-containing regimens in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: irinotecan plus infusional fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) (FOLFIRI), irinotecan plus bolus FU/LV (mIFL), and irinotecan plus oral capecitabine (CapeIRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 430 previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI (n = 144), mIFL (n = 141), or CapeIRI (n = 145). Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment with celecoxib or placebo. After a protocol amendment, an additional 117 patients were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI+Bev; n = 57) or mILF plus bevacizumab (mIFL+Bev; n = 60), whereas the CapeIRI arm was discontinued. The primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary end points of overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: Median PFS was 7.6 months for FOLFIRI, 5.9 months for mIFL (P = .004 for the comparison with FOLFIRI), and 5.8 months for CapeIRI (P = .015). Median OS was 23.1 months for FOLFIRI, 17.6 months for mIFL (P = .09), and 18.9 months for CapeIRI (P = .27). CapeIRI was associated with higher rates of severe vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. After the amendment to add bevacizumab, the median survival time has not yet been reached for FOLFIRI+Bev and was 19.2 months for mIFL+Bev (P = .007). FOLFIRI+Bev was associated with a higher rate of > or = grade 3 hypertension than mIFL+Bev. CONCLUSION: FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI+Bev offered superior activity to their comparators and were comparably safe. An infusional schedule of FU should be the preferred irinotecan-based regimen in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer.