Oxaliplatin/capecitabine versus oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: The MRC COIN Trial.

Background:

COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC).


Methods:

Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment.


Results:

In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(±cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (±cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(±cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50–80?ml?min-1 on OxCap(±cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function.


Conclusions:

Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50–80?ml?min-1 on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

A microbiological study of Papillon-Lefévre syndrome in two patients

AIM: To analyse the microflora of subgingival plaque from patients with Papillon-Lefévre syndrome (PLS), which is a very rare disease characterised by palmar-plantar hyperkeratosis with precocious periodontal destruction.

METHODS: Bacterial isolates were identified using a combination of commercial identification kits, traditional laboratory tests, and gas liquid chromatography. Some isolates were also subjected to partial 16S rDNA sequencing. Plaque samples were also assayed for the presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in a quantitative enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using monoclonal antibodies.

RESULTS: The culture results showed that most isolates were capnophilic and facultatively anaerobic species-mainly Capnocytophaga spp and Streptococcus spp. The latter included S. constellatus, S. oralis, and S. sanguis. Other facultative bacteria belonged to the genera gemella, kingella, leuconostoc, and stomatococcus. The aerobic bacteria isolated were species of neisseria and bacillus. Anaerobic species included Prevotella intermedia, P. melaninogenica, and P. nigrescens, as well as Peptostreptococcus spp. ELISA detected P gingivalis in one patient in all sites sampled, whereas A. actinomycetemcomitans was detected in only one site from the other patient. Prevotella intermedia was present in low numbers.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PLS have a very complex subgingival flora including recognised periodontal pathogens. However, no particular periodontopathogen is invariably associated with PLS.