Stephen Falk

Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status <or= 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted. RESULTS Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

Summary Background EGFR overexpression occurs in 27–55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 per day on days 1–21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. Findings Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11·3 months (95% CI 9·6–13·0) compared with 8·8 months (7·7–9·8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·07–1·76; p=0·013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3–4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). Interpretation Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Funding Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer--a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC Gemcitabine Group. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Three hundred patients with symptomatic, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not requiring immediate radiotherapy were enrolled into this randomized multicentre trial comparing gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC alone. Patients allocated gemcitabine received 1000 mg/m2on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of six cycles. The main aim of this trial was to compare patient assessment of a predefined subset of commonly reported symptoms (SS14) from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 scales. The primary end-points were defined as (1) the percentage change in mean SS14 score between baseline and 2 months and (2) the proportion of patients with a marked (≥ 25%) improvement in SS14 score between baseline and 2 months sustained for ≥4 weeks. The secondary objectives were to compare treatments with respect to overall survival, and multidimensional QL parameters.The treatment groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and disease stage (40% had metastatic disease). The percentage change in mean SS14 score from baseline to 2 months was a 10% decrease (i.e. improvement) for gemcitabine plus BSC and a 1% increase (i.e. deterioration) for BSC alone (P = 0.113, two-sample t -test). A sustained (≥ 4 weeks) improvement (≥25%) on SS14 was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of gemcitabine + BSC patients (22%) than in BSC alone patients (9%) (P = 0.0014, Pearsons chi-squared test). The QLQ-C30 and L13 subscales showed greater improvement in the gemcitabine plus BSC arm (in 11 domains) than in the BSC arm (one symptom item). There was greater deterioration in the BSC alone arm (six domains/items) than in the gemcitabine + BSC arm (three QL domains). Tumour response occurred in 19% (95% CI 13–27) of gemcitabine patients. There was no difference in overall survival: median 5.7 months (95% CI 4.6–7.6) for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.0–7.9) (log-rank, P = 0.84) for BSC patients, and 1-year survival was 25% for gemcitabine + BSC and 22% for BSC. Overall, 74 (49%) gemcitabine + BSC patients and 119 (79%) BSC patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median time to radiotherapy was 29 weeks for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 3.8 weeks for BSC. Patients treated with gemcitabine + BSC reported better QL and reduced disease-related symptoms compared with those receiving BSC alone. These improvements in patient-assessed QL were significant in magnitude and were sustained.

Randomized Comparative Study of Tegafur/Uracil and Oral Leucovorin Versus Parenteral Fluorouracil and Leucovorin in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE This phase III study compared the time to progression (TTP) of an oral regimen of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine composed of a fixed combination of tegafur and uracil in a 1:4 molar ratio (UFT) and leucovorin (LV) to intravenous (IV) fluorouracil (5-FU) and LV in previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients. Secondary end points were survival, tumor response, safety, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between May 1996 and July 1997, 380 patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (90 mg/d), administered for 28 days every 35 days, or 5-FU (425 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (20 mg/m(2)/d), given IV for 5 days every 35 days. RESULTS No statistically significant difference in TTP was observed between treatments. With 320 events assessed, the median TTP was 3.4 months (95% Confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 3.8) on UFT/LV and 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.7) on 5-FU/LV (P =.591, stratified log-rank test). There were no statistically significant differences in survival, tumor response, duration of response, and time to response. Substantial safety benefits were observed in patients treated with UFT/LV. They experienced significantly less stomatitis/mucositis (P <.001) and myelosuppression, resulting in fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and less documented infection (P =.04). Concomitant medication usage was significantly greater on 5-FU/LV (P =.010). With respect to quality of life, after correcting for baseline imbalances, there were no significant differences between treatments for any scale, except diarrhea. CONCLUSION The oral UFT/LV regimen failed to achieve improved TTP; however, the study confirms significant safety improvements compared with bolus IV 5-FU/LV for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC.

Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): an open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Second-line chemotherapy for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma refractory to platinum and fluoropyrimidines has not shown benefits in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed whether the addition of docetaxel to active symptom control alone can improve survival and HRQoL for patients. METHODS For this open-labelled, multicentre trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older from 30 UK centres. Patients were eligible if they had an advanced, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction, or stomach that had progressed on or within 6 months of treatment with a platinum-fluoropyrimidine combination. Patients could have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly assigned patients using a central, computerised minimisation procedure to receive docetaxel plus active symptom control, or active symptom control alone (1:1; stratified by disease status, disease site, duration of response to previous chemotherapy, and performance status). Docetaxel was given at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This is the report of the planned final analysis. This study is an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN13366390. FINDINGS Between April 21, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we recruited 168 patients, allocating 84 to each treatment group. After a median follow-up of 12 months [IQR 10-21]) and 161 (96%) deaths (80 in the docetaxel group, 81 in the active symptom control group), median overall survival in the docetaxel group was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.1-5.9) versus 3.6 months (3.3-4.4) in the active symptom control group (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p=0.01). Docetaxel was associated with higher incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (12 [15%] patients vs no patients), infection (15 [19%] patients vs two [3%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (six [7%] patients vs no patients). Patients receiving docetaxel reported less pain (p=0.0008) and less nausea and vomiting (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.02). Global HRQoL was similar between the groups (p=0.53). Disease specific HRQoL measures also showed benefits for docetaxel in reducing dysphagia (p=0.02) and abdominal pain (p=0.01). INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that docetaxel can be recommended as an appropriate second-line treatment for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma that is refractory to treatment with platinum and fluoropyrimidine. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2×2 factorial trial

BACKGROUND Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. METHODS In this 2 × 2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m(2) on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. FINDINGS We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR 3.9-6.9). 391 of 432 (90.5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89.6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference -0.9%, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.1; p=0.64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69-77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68-77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p=0.70). INTERPRETATION The results of our trial--the largest in anal cancer to date--show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50.4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial

BACKGROUND Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use. METHODS In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479. FINDINGS 258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]). INTERPRETATION The addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil; Docetaxel and Cisplatin; and Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil As Systemic Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE This randomized phase II trial evaluated two docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to overall response rate (ORR) for comparison in a phase III trial with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil (ECF) as first-line advanced gastric cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric carcinoma, a performance status <or= 1, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function randomly received <or= eight 3-weekly cycles of ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil [FU] 200 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 21), TC (docetaxel initially 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 [later reduced to 75 mg/m(2) as a result of toxicity] and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1), or TCF (TC plus FU 300 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 14). Study objectives included response (primary), survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 13% to 41%) for ECF, 18.5% (95% CI, 9% to 34%) for TC, and 36.6% (95% CI, 23% to 53%) for TCF (n = 119). Median overall survival times were 8.3, 11.0, and 10.4 months for ECF, TC, and TCF, respectively. Toxicity was acceptable, with one toxic death (TC arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in more treatment cycles with docetaxel (TC, 49%; TCF, 57%; ECF, 34%). Global health status/QOL substantially improved with ECF and remained similar to baseline with both docetaxel regimens. CONCLUSION Time to response and ORR favor TCF over TC for further evaluation, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting. A trend towards increased myelosuppression and infectious complications with TCF versus TC or ECF was observed.

Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial

Summary Background Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. Results Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. Interpretation Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. Funding Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.

Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial.

Summary Background When cure is impossible, cancer treatment should focus on both length and quality of life. Maximisation of time without toxic effects could be one effective strategy to achieve both of these goals. The COIN trial assessed preplanned treatment holidays in advanced colorectal cancer to achieve this aim. Methods COIN was a randomised controlled trial in patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer. Patients received either continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination (arm A), continuous chemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent (arm C) chemotherapy. In arms A and B, treatment continued until development of progressive disease, cumulative toxic effects, or the patient chose to stop. In arm C, patients who had not progressed at their 12-week scan started a chemotherapy-free interval until evidence of disease progression, when the same treatment was restarted. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and B is described in a companion paper. Here, we compare arms A and C, with the primary objective of establishing whether overall survival on intermittent therapy was non-inferior to that on continuous therapy, with a predefined non-inferiority boundary of 1·162. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to continuous and 815 to intermittent therapy). Median survival in the ITT population (n=815 in both groups) was 15·8 months (IQR 9·4–26·1) in arm A and 14·4 months (8·0–24·7) in arm C (hazard ratio [HR] 1·084, 80% CI 1·008–1·165). In the per-protocol population (arm A, n=467; arm C, n=511), median survival was 19·6 months (13·0–28·1) in arm A and 18·0 months (12·1–29·3) in arm C (HR 1·087, 0·986–1·198). The upper limits of CIs for HRs in both analyses were greater than the predefined non-inferiority boundary. Preplanned subgroup analyses in the per-protocol population showed that a raised baseline platelet count, defined as 400 000 per μL or higher (271 [28%] of 978 patients), was associated with poor survival with intermittent chemotherapy: the HR for comparison of arm C and arm A in patients with a normal platelet count was 0·96 (95% CI 0·80–1·15, p=0·66), versus 1·54 (1·17–2·03, p=0·0018) in patients with a raised platelet count (p=0·0027 for interaction). In the per-protocol population, more patients on continuous than on intermittent treatment had grade 3 or worse haematological toxic effects (72 [15%] vs 60 [12%]), whereas nausea and vomiting were more common on intermittent treatment (11 [2%] vs 43 [8%]). Grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (126 [27%] vs 25 [5%]) and hand–foot syndrome (21 [4%] vs 15 [3%]) were more frequent on continuous than on intermittent treatment. Interpretation Although this trial did not show non-inferiority of intermittent compared with continuous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in terms of overall survival, chemotherapy-free intervals remain a treatment option for some patients with advanced colorectal cancer, offering reduced time on chemotherapy, reduced cumulative toxic effects, and improved quality of life. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with normal baseline platelet counts could gain the benefits of intermittent chemotherapy without detriment in survival, whereas those with raised baseline platelet counts have impaired survival and quality of life with intermittent chemotherapy and should not receive a treatment break. Funding Cancer Research UK.