Comparison of oral capecitabine versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment in 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase III study.

PURPOSE: To compare the response rate, efficacy parameters, and toxicity profile of oral capecitabine with bolus intravenous (IV) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively randomized 605 patients to treatment with oral capecitabine for 14 days every 3 weeks or 5-FU/LV by rapid IV injection daily for 5 days in 4-week cycles. RESULTS: The overall objective tumor response rate among all randomized patients was significantly higher in the capecitabine group (24.8%) than in the 5-FU/LV group (15.5%; P =.005). In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, median times to disease progression were 4.3 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.72), median times to treatment failure were 4.1 and 3.1 months (P =.19), and median overall survival times were 12.5 and 13.3 months (P =.974), respectively. Capecitabine, compared with bolus 5-FU/LV treatment, produced a significantly lower incidence (P <.0002) of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia. Patients treated with capecitabine also displayed lower incidences of grade 3/4 stomatitis and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P <.0001) leading to significantly less neutropenic fever/sepsis. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia were the only toxicities more frequently associated with capecitabine than with 5-FU/LV treatment. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine was more active than 5-FU/LV in the induction of objective tumor responses. Time to disease progression and survival were at least equivalent for capecitabine compared with the 5-FU/LV arm. Capecitabine also demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits over bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of tolerability.     

Redefining adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer: X-ACT trial

The current standard adjuvant chemotherapy for suitable patients with stage III colon cancer is the combination of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (5-FU/LV). However, until recently and for many years prior to this, the accepted standard adjuvant chemotherapy was 6-8 months of bolus 5-FU/LV. However, bolus treatment was associated with significant toxicity, namely stomatitis, diarrhea and neutropenia, in addition to multiple hospital visits for drug administration for patients. The X-ACT trial (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Therapy) compared traditional bolus 5-FU/LV (as per the Mayo Clinic regimen) with capecitabine, in the adjuvant treatment of 1987 stage III colon cancer patients. The main safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomic results have all been published, and the updated 5-year efficacy results have also recently been presented. This trial demonstrated that capecitabine was at least as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of disease-free and overall survival, with trends towards superiority for both. Moreover, there was much less toxicity associated with capecitabine, apart from hand-foot syndrome which was significantly more prevalent. On the basis of the X-ACT trial, capecitabine was approved by the US FDA, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium as monotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.     

Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a large phase III study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Inc, Nutley, NJ), a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate designed to mimic continuous fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion but with preferential activation at the tumor site, with that of intravenous (IV) 5-FU plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively randomized 602 patients to treatment with capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) administered twice daily days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, or to the 4-weekly Mayo Clinic regimen (5-FU/LV) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: The primary objective, to demonstrate at least equivalent response rates in the two treatment groups, was met. The overall response rate was 18.9% for capecitabine and 15.0% for 5-FU/LV. In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, respectively, median time to disease progression was 5.2 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.65); median time to treatment failure was 4.2 and 4.0 months (log-rank P =.89); and median overall survival was 13.2 and 12.1 months (log-rank P =.33). The toxicity profiles of both treatments were typical of fluoropyrimidines. However, capecitabine led to significantly lower incidences (P <.00001) of stomatitis and alopecia, but a higher incidence of cutaneous hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001). Capecitabine also resulted in lower incidences (P <.00001) of grade 3/4 stomatitis and neutropenia, leading to a lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenic fever and sepsis. Only grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and uncomplicated grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia (P <.0001) were reported more frequently with capecitabine. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine achieved an at least equivalent efficacy compared with IV 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine demonstrated clinically meaningful safety advantages and the convenience of an oral agent.     

Redefining adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer: X-ACT trial

The current standard adjuvant chemotherapy for suitable patients with stage III colon cancer is the combination of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (5-FU/LV). However, until recently and for many years prior to this, the accepted standard adjuvant chemotherapy was 6–8 months of bolus 5-FU/LV. However, bolus treatment was associated with significant toxicity, namely stomatitis, diarrhea and neutropenia, in addition to multiple hospital visits for drug administration for patients. The X-ACT trial (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Therapy) compared traditional bolus 5-FU/LV (as per the Mayo Clinic regimen) with capecitabine, in the adjuvant treatment of 1987 stage III colon cancer patients. The main safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomic results have all been published, and the updated 5-year efficacy results have also recently been presented. This trial demonstrated that capecitabine was at least as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of disease-free and overall survival, with trends towards superiority for both. Moreover, there was much less toxicity associated with capecitabine, apart from hand–foot syndrome which was significantly more prevalent. On the basis of the X-ACT trial, capecitabine was approved by the US FDA, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium as monotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.     

Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Therapy (X-ACT) trial: overview of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness

The X-ACT (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Therapy) trial compared the efficacy and safety of the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine with bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV; Mayo Clinic regimen) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. A total of 1987 patients were enrolled at 164 centers worldwide. Disease-free survival (primary study endpoint) in the capecitabine arm was at least equivalent to that in the 5-FU/LV arm; the upper limit of the hazard ratio was significantly (P < 0.001) below the predefined margins for noninferiority. Capecitabine was also associated with significantly fewer fluoropyrimidine-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; P < 0.001) and fewer AE-related hospital admissions/days than 5-FU/LV. Pharmacoeconomic analyses performed in several countries show that the savings in direct costs (drug administration and AE-related costs) associated with capecitabine versus 5-FU/LV offset the acquisition costs of the drug. Furthermore, capecitabine reduces patient travel time and costs, making it a "dominant" strategy (ie, less costly and more effective) in the adjuvant setting. In conclusion, efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost findings from the X-ACT trial show that capecitabine offers at least equivalent clinical benefit compared with bolus 5-FU/LV and can replace intravenous 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer. The X-ACT trial has not only helped to better define the role of capecitabine but has also broadened the options available to patients with early-stage disease to include a uniquely effective oral outpatient treatment.     

Capecitabine

Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, is adopted worldwide. As the treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, capecitabine showed at least comparable efficacy with a favorable safety profile to bolus 5-FU/LV. In a large phase III trial (Xeloda Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial: X-ACT), as the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III colon cancer, capecitabine showed at least comparable disease-free survival, overall survival, and relapse-free survival with a favorable safety profile to bolus 5-FU/LV. Additionally, capecitabine-based combination regimens with oxaliplatin or irinotecan are now under evaluation. In phase II studies, capecitabine has shown the promising results in combination therapy. In Japan, capecitabine has been evaluated since 1994. In a recent phase II study, which evaluated the global dose as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, the response rate was 35% (95% CI 23.1-48.4). The median time to disease progression was 169 days and the median overall survival was 617 days. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS), a characteristic adverse event of capecitabine, was observed in 73.3% of the patients, but the grade 3/4 was observed in 13.3% of the patients and only one patient discontinued the treatment due to HFS. An immediate approval of capecitabine in Japan is expected.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-FU/LV in Dukes' C colon cancer: the X-ACT trial

Oral capecitabine (Xeloda) is an effective drug with favourable safety in adjuvant and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based therapy is becoming standard for Dukes' C colon cancer in patients suitable for combination therapy, but is not yet approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant capecitabine is at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), with significant superiority in relapse-free survival and a trend towards improved disease-free and overall survival. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine from payer (UK National Health Service (NHS)) and societal perspectives. We used clinical trial data and published sources to estimate incremental direct and societal costs and gains in quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV, but higher 5-FU/LV administration costs resulted in 57% lower chemotherapy costs for capecitabine. Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV-associated adverse events required fewer medications and hospitalisations (cost savings pound3653). Societal costs, including patient travel/time costs, were reduced by >75% with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV (cost savings pound1318), with lifetime gain in QALMs of 9 months. Medical resource utilisation is significantly decreased with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV, with cost savings to the NHS and society. Capecitabine is also projected to increase life expectancy vs 5-FU/LV. Cost savings and better outcomes make capecitabine a preferred adjuvant therapy for Dukes' C colon cancer. This pharmacoeconomic analysis strongly supports replacing 5-FU/LV with capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in the UK.     

Oral capecitabine: bridging the Atlantic divide in colon cancer treatment

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (LV) has been the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), with infused schedules more widely adopted in Europe and bolus schedules preferred in North America. However, the effective, oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is increasingly replacing intravenous (IV) 5-FU/LV on both sides of the Atlantic. Capecitabine generates 5-FU preferentially in tumor and is a well-established, first-line treatment for metastatic CRC. In this setting, capecitabine achieves a superior response rate, at least equivalent time to disease progression (TTP) and overall survival, and favorable safety compared with bolus 5-FU/LV. The benefits of capecitabine have been transfered into the adjuvant setting. Recent data from a large, international, randomized trial (Xeloda Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial [X-ACT]) confirm that capecitabine (Xeloda, Roche Laboratories, Nutley, NJ) achieves favorable safety versus 5-FU/LV (Mayo Clinic regimen) and is at least as effective as IV 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Capecitabine is also an effective and well-tolerated combination partner for oxaliplatin (XELOX) and irinotecan (XELIRI), achieving high efficacy with a good safety profile. An extensive phase III clinical trial program is further establishing the potential of the simplified capecitabine combinations to improve outcomes and unify treatment practices in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. New combinations with novel agents such as capecitabine/oxaliplatin plus erlotinib or bevacizumab are currently under investigation. Capecitabine has also shown promising activity and good tolerability in combination with radiotherapy in rectal cancer.     

First-line oral capecitabine therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a favorable safety profile compared with intravenous 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety profile of capecitabine using data from a large, well-characterized population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in two phase II studies. In these trials, capecitabine achieved significantly superior response rates, equivalent time to disease progression and equivalent survival compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1207) were randomized to either oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on days 1-14 every 21 days) or intravenous (i.v.) bolus 5-FU/leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen). RESULTS: Capecitabine demonstrated a safety profile superior to that of 5-FU/leucovorin, with a significantly lower incidence of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, alopecia and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia leading to significantly fewer neutropenic fever/sepsis cases and fewer hospitalizations. All patients in the capecitabine group received a starting dose of 1250 mg/m2 twice daily and the majority (66%) did not require dose modification for adverse events. In the 5-FU/leucovorin group, 58% of patients did not require dose reduction for toxicities. The capecitabine dose-modification scheme reduced the recurrence of key toxicities without compromising efficacy. In both treatment arms, patients with moderate renal impairment at baseline (estimated creatinine clearance 30-50 ml/min) experienced a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. This increase was more pronounced with 5-FU/leucovorin. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine is at least as effective, better tolerated and more convenient than i.v. 5-FU/leucovorin as treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Analysis of data from two large phase III trials demonstrates that efficacy is not compromised in patients requiring a dose reduction for adverse events. The phase III data and an additional pharmacokinetic study support a lower starting dose in patients with moderate renal impairment at baseline (calculated creatinine clearance 30-50 ml/min) and a contra-indication in patients with severely impaired creatinine clearance at baseline (<30 ml/min). For patients with normal or mildly impaired renal function at baseline, the standard starting dose is well tolerated. The incidence and severity of adverse events in patients with moderate renal impairment at baseline who were treated with 5-FU/leucovorin was more pronounced, indicating that capecitabine provides a better-tolerated alternative.     

Capecitabine as first-line treatment in colorectal cancer. Pooled data from two large, phase III trials

The oral, tumour-selective fluoropyrimidine capecitabine represents a major new strategy for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Pooled results from two large, multicentre, open-label, phase III studies comparing oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks) with the Mayo Clinic regimen (5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 425 mg/m2 plus leucovorin 20 mg/m2 days 1-5, every 4 weeks) provide information on over 1200 patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Analysis of all randomised patients demonstrated a significantly superior overall response rate as assessed by the investigator for capecitabine compared with 5-FU/leucovorin (25.7% versus 16.7%, P<0.0002), reinforcing the individual trial results. Median time to disease progression, overall survival and duration of response were equivalent in the two treatment groups. Furthermore, capecitabine showed a superior safety profile compared with 5-FU/leucovorin, with a significantly lower incidence (P<0.001) of diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and alopecia, together with a reduced treatment-related hospitalisation rate. In addition, the incidence of neutropenic fever/sepsis was significantly lower in patients receiving capecitabine.     

Capecitabine (Xeloda) improves medical resource use compared with 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin in a phase III trial conducted in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma

Standard therapy for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer consists of 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) administered intravenously (i.v.). Capecitabine (Xeloda), an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate which is preferentially activated by thymidine phosphorylase in tumour cells, mimics continuous 5-FU and is a recently developed alternative to i.v. 5-FU/LV. The choice of oral rather than intravenous treatment may affect medical resource use because the two regimens do not require the same intensity of medical intervention for drug administration, and have different toxicity profiles. Here we examine medical resource use in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer patients with capecitabine compared with those receiving the Mayo Clinic regimen of 5-FU/LV. In a prospective, randomised phase III clinical trial, 602 patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer recruited from 59 centres worldwide were randomised to treatment with either capecitabine or the Mayo regimen of 5-FU/LV. In addition to clinical efficacy and safety endpoints, data were collected on hospital visits required for drug administration, hospital admissions, and drugs and unscheduled consultations with physicians required for the treatment of adverse events. Capecitabine treatment in comparison to 5-FU/LV in advanced colorectal carcinoma resulted in superior response rates (26.6% versus 17.9%, P=0.013) and improved safety including less stomatitis and myelosuppression. Capecitabine patients required substantially fewer hospital visits for drug administration than 5-FU/LV patients. Medical resource use analysis showed that patients treated with capecitabine spent fewer days in hospital for the management of treatment related adverse events than did patients treated with 5-FU/LV. In addition, capecitabine reduced the requirement for expensive drugs, in particular antimicrobials fluconazole and 5-HT3-antagonists to manage adverse events. As anticipated with an oral home-based therapy patients receiving capecitabine needed more frequent unscheduled home, day care, office and telephone consultations with physicians. In the light of clinical results from the phase III trial demonstrating increased efficacy in terms of response rate, equivalent time to progression (TTP) and survival (OS), and a superior safety profile, the results from this medical resource assessment indicate that capecitabine treatment of colorectal cancer patients results in a substantial resource use saving relative to the Mayo Clinic regimen of 5-FU/LV. This benefit is derived principally from the avoidance of hospital visits for i.v. drug administration, less expensive drug therapy for the treatment of toxic side-effects, and fewer treatment-related hospitalisations required during the course of therapy for adverse drug reactions in comparison to patients treated with 5-FU/LV.     

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the treatment of colorectal cancer

Based on improved safety and efficacy results, advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment has recently shifted from intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy to standard combinations of prolonged intravenous 5-FU infusion with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Capecitabine, a rationally designed oral fluoropyrimidine that is converted into 5-FU preferentially at the tumor site, could replace infusional 5-FU as the mainstay of combined chemotherapy treatment for metastatic CRC. Evidently, oral medication obviates the drawbacks of prolonged intravenous infusion. The combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin is especially attractive owing to its favorable tolerability profile, good activity and convenient administration schedule. Phase III trials comparing capecitabine/oxaliplatin with infusional regimens of 5-FU +/- LV and oxaliplatin in advanced CRC show similar toxicity and efficacy outcomes with both regimens. Capecitabine has the potential to replace 5-FU/LV as the optimal combination partner for oxaliplatin at a higher cost. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin concomitantly with radiation therapy has been evaluated before surgery in rectal cancer treatment. The combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin, with or without bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody blocking VEGF, is also being evaluated in early stage colon cancer.     

Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer: where are we now?

Fluorouracil (5-FU) remains the most widely used agent for colorectal cancer. Capecitabine is a rationally designed 5-FU pro-drug developed to mimic the continuous infusion of 5-FU while avoiding complications and inconvenience of intravenous administration. Capecitabine is absorbed intact from the gastrointestinal tract, converted enzymatically to active 5-FU, and released directly into the tumor. Capecitabine’s efficacy and safety are shown in multiple phase III trials across different disease stages and therapy lines. Three randomized phase III trials demonstrated the equivalence of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-FU/leucovorin (LV)/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). The safety of capecitabine compared with 5-FU depends on the regimen of 5-FU used. The adverse event rate with oxaliplatin in combination with infusional 5-FU is similar to that of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin but is associated with more neutropenia and venous thrombotic events; capecitabine plus oxaliplatin-based regimens tend to be associated with more grade 3 diarrhea and hand-foot skin reaction. Combination therapy with capecitabine and irinotecan (CapeIRI) versus 5-FU/LV and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) had more variable results; some former schedules resulted in excessive treatment-related toxicity. More recent data show that lower capecitabine and irinotecan doses, different schedules, and combination with targeted agents (e.g, bevacizumab) have resulted in more favorable outcomes.     

Fluoropyrimidine therapy: hyperbilirubinemia as a consequence of hemolysis

Background: Hemolytic anemia has been noted during treatment with a variety of chemotherapeutic agents. We observed mild compensated hemolytic anemia in a patient receiving capecitabine during a randomized, controlled trial of adjuvant therapy. In order to investigate the hypothesis that hemolysis is the underlying cause of the hyperbilirubinemia sometimes observed during capecitabine treatment, we evaluated factors associated with hemolysis in ten patients. Factors were also analyzed in ten patients receiving 5-fluorourocil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV). Methods: Twenty chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing surgery for Dukes C colon cancer were included in the phase III, X-ACT trial, and randomized to receive 24-week adjuvant treatment with either oral capecitabine (eight cycles of 1,250 mg/m² twice daily for 14 days, followed by a 7-day rest period) (n=10) or 5-FU/LV administered according to the Mayo Clinic regimen (six cycles of LV 20 mg/m² followed by 5-FU 425 mg/m², administered as an i.v. bolus on days 1–5 every 28 days) (n=10). Ten patients randomized in each treatment arm were evaluated. Hemolytic parameters evaluated included bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase, haptoglobin, and reticulocytes. Results: Seven patients receiving capecitabine and three patients receiving 5-FU/LV experienced grade 1/2 elevations of bilirubin during the 24-week treatment period. In most cases, hyperbilirubinemia was associated with concomitant alterations in other hemolytic parameters. Five episodes of grade 1 compensated hemolytic anemia were reported in four capecitabine-treated patients, all of which were associated with hyperbilirubinemia. Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine or 5-FU/LV in a small sample of patients with Dukes C colon cancer was associated with alterations in hemolytic parameters. These alterations, in particular hyperbilirubinemia, were associated in some patients with low-grade compensated hemolytic anemia. All changes were clinically insignificant, fully reversible, and may represent a fluoropyrimidine class effect. Further studies are indicated to evaluate the incidence and implications of this effect.     

Multicenter phase III study of uracil/tegafur and oral leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III study was designed to demonstrate equivalence in survival of oral uracil/tegafur (UFT) and oral leucovorin (LV) to conventional intravenous (IV) fluorouracil (5-FU) and LV in previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Safety was also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred sixteen patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (75 or 90 mg/d) for 28 days every 35 days or IV bolus 5-FU (425 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (20 mg/m(2)/d) for 5 days every 28 days. RESULTS: UFT/LV produced survival comparable to the IV 5-FU/LV regimen. Median survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2 to 13.6 months) with UFT/LV and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 15.4 months) with 5-FU/LV (P =.630). The hazard ratio for survival was 0.964 (95.6% CI, 0.826 to 1.125), supporting equivalent survival. The overall response rate did not differ between treatment arms (UFT/LV, 11.7%; 5-FU/LV, 14.5%; P =.232). Median time to progression favored 5-FU/LV (UFT/LV, 3.5 months; 5-FU/LV, 3.8 months; P =.011), but tumor assessment schedules differed between arms. UFT/LV significantly improved safety compared with 5-FU/LV. Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and stomatitis and mucositis were significantly less frequent with UFT/LV, as was myelosuppression. Patients treated with UFT/LV had fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and documented infections (P <.05). Increased bilirubin, without other liver function abnormalities, was observed more often with UFT/LV (P <.001). Concomitant medications were more frequent with 5-FU/LV, including use of antibiotics, growth factors, and antiemetics. CONCLUSION: UFT/LV provided a safer, more convenient oral alternative to a standard bolus IV 5-FU/LV regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer while producing equivalent survival.     

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.     

Twelve weeks of protracted venous infusion of fluorouracil (5-FU) is as effective as 6 months of bolus 5-FU and folinic acid as adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer

We performed a multicentre randomised trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of 12 weeks of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) delivered by protracted intravenous infusion (PVI 5-FU) against the standard bolus regimen of 5-FU and folinic acid (5-FU/FA) given for 6 months as adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer. A total of 716 patients with curatively resected Dukes' B or C colorectal cancer were randomised to 5-FU/FA (5-FU 425 mg m(-2) i.v. and FA 20 mg m(-2) i.v. bolus days 1-5 every 28 days for 6 months) or to PVI 5-FU alone (300 mg m(-2) day for 12 weeks). With a median follow-up of 19.8 months, 133 relapses and 77 deaths have been observed. Overall survival did not differ significantly (log rank P=0.764) between patients receiving 5-FU/FA and PVI 5-FU (3-year survival 83.2 vs 87.9%, respectively). Patients in the 5-FU/FA group had significantly worse relapse-free survival (RFS, log rank P=0.023) compared to those receiving PVI 5-FU (3-year RFS, 68.6 vs 80%, respectively). Grades 3-4 neutropenia, diarrhoea, stomatitis and severe alopecia were significantly less (P<0.0001) and global quality of life scores significantly better (P&<0.001) for patients in the PVI 5-FU treatment arm. In conclusion, infused 5-FU given over 12 weeks resulted in similar survival to bolus 5-FU and FA over a 6 month period, but with significantly less toxicity.     

A randomised comparison between 6 months of bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin and 12 weeks of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicentre randomised trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of 12 weeks of protracted venous infusion (PVI) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) against the standard bolus monthly regimen of 5-FU/leucovorin (LV) given for 6 months as adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with curatively resected stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to 5-FU/LV [5-FU 425 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) and LV 20 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus days 1-5 every 28 days for 6 months] or to PVI 5-FU (300 mg/m(2)/day for 12 weeks). RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2003, 801 eligible patients were randomised to 5-FU/LV (n=404) or PVI 5-FU (n=397). With a median follow-up of 5.3 years, 231 relapses and 220 deaths have been observed. Five-year relapse-free survival (RFS) was 66.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 61.6% to 71.3%] and 73.3% (95% CI 68.4% to 77.6%) with bolus 5-FU/LV and PVI 5-FU, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.8; 95% CI 0.62-1.04; P=0.10]. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 71.5% (95% CI 66.4% to 75.9%) and 75.7% (95% CI 70.8% to 79.9%) with bolus 5-FU/LV and PVI 5-FU, respectively (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.61-1.03; P=0.083). There was a significant survival advantage for patients starting adjuvant chemotherapy within 8 weeks (P=0.044). Significantly less diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and vomiting, alopecia, lethargy, and neutropenia (all with P <0.0001) were seen with PVI 5-FU. CONCLUSIONS: There was no OS difference between the two arms, although PVI 5-FU was associated with a trend towards better RFS and OS compared with bolus 5-FU/LV, as well as significantly less toxicity. Based on our results, the probability of 12 weeks of PVI 5-FU being inferior to 6 months of bolus 5-FU/LV is extremely low (P <0.005), and therefore shorter duration of adjuvant treatment should be explored further.     

The evolution of fluoropyrimidine therapy: from intravenous to oral

Chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer is based on i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Numerous attempts have been made to increase the therapeutic benefit of 5-FU through schedule modification and biomodulation, but only modest improvements have been achieved. Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine that was developed in response to the clinical need for new therapeutic options offering improved efficacy, tolerability, and convenience for patients. Capecitabine was rationally designed to mimic continuous infusion 5-FU. It is rapidly and almost completely absorbed through the gastrointestinal wall and is converted to 5-FU via a three-step enzymatic cascade. 5-FU is generated preferentially in tumor by exploiting the higher activity of thymidine phosphorylase in tumor tissue compared with normal tissue. Results of a randomized, phase II trial led to the selection of a regimen of capecitabine for further clinical development (1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days followed by a 7-day rest period). Subsequently, two large, randomized, phase III trials were conducted to compare capecitabine with i.v. bolus 5-FU/leucovorin ([LV]; Mayo Clinic regimen) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A prospective, integrated analysis of data from the studies showed that capecitabine offers superior activity and an improved safety profile compared with 5-FU/LV. This article summarizes these developments in the treatment of colorectal cancer and assesses the feasibility of replacing i.v. 5-FU-based therapy with oral capecitabine. In addition, retrospective analyses assessing the impact of the dose modification scheme on the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine are presented, and dose recommendations in special populations are reviewed.     

Phase II trial of capecitabine/irinotecan and capecitabine/oxaliplatin in advanced gastrointestinal cancers

Combination protocols of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin have demonstrated high activity in metastatic colorectal cancer. Capecitabine, an oral 5-FU prodrug, may replace infusional 5-FU/LV in combination protocols with irinotecan or oxaliplatin. We therefore initiated a phase II study with capecitabine plus either irinotecan or oxaliplatin to determine the efficacy and toxicity of specific combination protocols in patients with advanced gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. Capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) taken orally twice a day on days 1-14, plus oxaliplatin 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, or irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8; repeated every 3 weeks in an outpatient setting. Patient and tumor characteristics were as follows: median age, 68 years (range, 34-77 years); sex: 10 women, 33 men; tumor types: 35 colorectal cancer; 8 other GI tumors including 5 gastric, 2 pancreatic, and 1 duodenal cancer. All 43 patients treated were evaluable for toxicity (capecitabine/oxaliplatin, 24 patients; capecitabine/irinotecan, 19 patients), and 39 were evaluable for efficacy (capecitabine/oxaliplatin, 22; capecitabine/irinotecan, 17). Grade 3/4 toxicities (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2.0) were limited to diarrhea, 9 patients (capecitabine/irinotecan, n = 5; capecitabine/oxaliplatin, n = 4); hand-foot syndrome, 1 patient (capecitabine/irinotecan); nausea, 2 patients (capecitabine/oxaliplatin); vomiting, 1 patient (capecitabine/oxaliplatin); and peripheral neuropathy, 1 patient (capecitabine/oxaliplatin). No grade 3/4 myelosuppression was noted for either protocol. Capecitabine/irinotecan and capecitabine/oxaliplatin demonstrated significant clinical activity in colorectal cancer and other GI cancers as first-line and salvage therapy. Capecitabine/oxaliplatin and capecitabine/irinotecan show an excellent safety profile and clinical activity in colorectal cancer and other advanced GI tumors. The main toxicity in both arms was manageable diarrhea. This trial served as basis for a randomized multicenter phase II study comparing capecitabine/oxaliplatin and capecitabine/irinotecan as first-line therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.