Ongoing Colorectal Cancer Adjuvant Trials in Japan

In Japan, oral fluoropyrimidines have been used widely as adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancers. The 2009 Japanese guideline recommends uracil-tegafur (UFT) and capecitabine, in addition to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV), as adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. At present, seven studies are being conducted in Japan; all are evaluating the efficacy of oral fluoropyrimidines. The SACURA and Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment of Cancer (JFMC)38-0901 trials are investigating the efficacy of UFT and UFT plus polysaccharide K compared with surgery alone for stage II colorectal cancer. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG)-0205 trial is evaluating the equivalence of UFT/LV and infusional 5-FU/LV for the treatment of stage III colorectal cancer. The ACTS-CC trial is evaluating the noninferiority of S-1 compared with UFT/LV, whereas the JFMC35-C1 (ACTS-RC) trial is designed to evaluate the superiority of oral S-1 compared with UFT/LV in stage II and III rectal cancer patients. The JFMC37-0801 and JFMC33-0502 trials are evaluating the optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy with either capecitabine or UFT/LV.     

Patient preference and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin: a randomised crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancer

The aim of this study was to determine the patient's preference for oral UFT/leucovorin (LV) or intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare 5-FU exposure with these two treatment options. A total of 37 previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomised to start treatment with either oral UFT 300 mg/m2/day plus oral LV 90 mg/day for 28 days every 5 weeks or i.v. 5-FU 425 mg/m2/day plus LV 20 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 4 weeks. For the second treatment cycle, patients were crossed-over to the alternative treatment regimen. Prior to the first and after the second therapy cycle, patients were required to complete a therapy preference questionnaire (TPQ). The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU were determined by taking blood samples on days 8, 15 or 22 and 28 for UFT and on days 1 and 5 for i.v. 5-FU. 36 patients were eligible. 84% of the patients preferred oral UFT over i.v. 5-FU. After having experienced both treatment modalities, patients indicated taking the medication at home, less stomatitis and diarrhoea, and pill over injection as the most important reasons for their preference. The area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) for 5-FU after UFT administration was 113 microM x min on day 8, 114 on day 15 and 98 on day 28; the peak levels (Cmax) were 1.2, 1.3 and 1.0 microM, respectively. The AUC for the 5-FU/LV courses was 3083 microM x min for day 1 and 3809 for day 5 (P=0.002). The Cmax was 170.1 and 196.2 microM (P=0.06) and the clearance 2.6 and 1.9 l/min, respectively (P=0.002). Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer clearly preferred oral over i.v. chemotherapy treatment. This choice was most importantly influenced by convenience and toxicity considerations. Although i.v. bolus 5-FU leads to higher peak 5-FU concentrations and AUC values compared with oral UFT, this pharmacokinetic advantage of i.v. 5-FU seems to translate mainly into higher toxicity as seen in large randomised studies comparing oral UFT/LV with i.v. 5-FU/LV. Oral UFT/LV compares favourably with i.v. 5-FU/LV in terms of toxicity and patient's preference and leads to prolonged 5-FU exposure, which is comparable to continuous i.v. 5-FU treatment.     

Novel chemotherapy agents for colorectal cancer: Oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and raltitrexed

Agents now under investigation for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) include the oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and raltitrexed. Research efforts directed at finding agents that conveniently and effectively deliver 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in a protracted fashion have led to the development of several oral fluoropyrimidines. These agents, which include capecitabine; tegafur and uracil plus leucovorin (UFT/LV); eniluracil plus oral 5-FU; and S-1, are convenient and less toxic than intravenous bolus 5-FU. Oxaliplatin has a uniquely different mechanism of action compared with that of 5-FU and has demonstrated activity not only in the first-line treatment setting but also in patients whose disease has progressed during or following 5-FU treatment. In the first-line setting, when oxaliplatin is combined with 5-FU plus LV, response rates and time to disease progression are remarkably improved compared with 5-FU/LV alone. Raltitrexed, a unique thymidylate synthase inhibitor, has undergone extensive phase III evaluation in CRC. The advent of these novel agents has led to development of combined chemotherapy regimens now being introduced into the adjuvant setting.     

A randomised cross-over trial comparing patient preference for oral capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been treated with intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV). The tumour-activated, oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine demonstrates superior activity and favourable safety compared with the Mayo regimen, while potentially avoiding the complications and inconvenience associated with i.v. regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with previously untreated advanced/MCRC were randomised to receive capecitabine followed by i.v. 5-FU/LV [Mayo Clinic, in-patient de Gramont (IPdG) or out-patient modified de Gramont (OPdG) regimens], or i.v. 5-FU/LV followed by capecitabine. RESULTS: Before treatment, of those patients for whom a preference was recorded, almost all (95%) preferred oral treatment (consistent across all treatment groups) and the majority retained this preference after treatment (64% overall; 86%, 63% and 50% in the Mayo, IPdG and OPdG groups, respectively). Following treatment, the principal reasons for oral treatment preference were increased convenience, home-based administration and tablet formulation. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher with capecitabine compared with Mayo (P<0.05) and with OPdG compared with capecitabine (P<0.05). Quality of life (QoL) was largely constant across the regimens, although it appeared better with OPdG than capecitabine (P<0.05). Grade 3/4 adverse events were uncommon in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that the majority of patients with MCRC prefer oral to i.v. therapy, although the OPdG regimen appears to be the most popular i.v. option. Capecitabine clearly represents an effective, well-tolerated oral alternative to i.v. 5-FU/LV.     

Oral fluoropyrimidines: a closer look at their toxicities.

Patient preferences, quality of life issues, and economic considerations are driving the development of orally administered chemotherapy. Oral fluorinated pyrimidines, which have been used in Japan, are attracting increasing interest as a means to provide convenient, less toxic treatment without compromising efficacy. The oral fluoropyrimidines provide prolonged 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) exposure at lower peak concentrations than those observed with bolus intravenous administration. Moreover, depending on the dose schedule, the pharmacokinetics of the oral fluoropyrimidines may mimic the pharmacokinetics of continuous-infusion 5-FU. This review focuses on the toxicity profiles of five emerging oral fluoropyrimidine antineoplastic drugs: combined uracil and tegafur (UFT), capecitabine, eniluracil, S-1, and emitefur (BOF-A2). Different patterns of toxicities emerge from an analysis of the clinical trials of these agents relative to 5-FU administered as an intermittent intravenous bolus or as continuous infusion. The results of ongoing phase III trials comparing the oral fluoropyrimidines with conventional regimens of 5-FU plus leucovorin and 5-FU by continuous intravenous infusion are necessary before their therapeutic role in the management of colorectal carcinoma can be defined.     

Oxaliplatin plus oral fluoropyrimidines in colorectal cancer

The medical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has rapidly evolved in recent years with the introduction of novel cytotoxic drugs into clinical practice such as irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine. Combination regimens using infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) plus either oxaliplatin or irinotecan have demonstrated clinically meaningful, high efficacy in advanced CRC. Based on the results of the Intergroup trial N9741, FOLFOX4, a combination of infusional plus bolus 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin, has emerged as the standard first-line therapy in the palliative setting. However, infusional 5-FU-based regimens carry the need for use of central venous lines and implantable ports to allow treatment on an outpatient basis and are thus inconvenient and expensive. The use of oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine or uracil/tegafur [UFT] plus LV) as substitutes for infusional 5-FU in combination protocols with oxaliplatin offers greater convenience, at the same time conceivably maintaining the high efficacy and tolerability observed with intravenous protocols. Various phase I/II trials have recently been reported that investigated oxaliplatin in combination with either capecitabine or UFT/LV in patients with advanced CRC. This review will detail the results of these trials focused on capecitabine-based combinations.     

Oral therapy for colorectal cancer: how to choose

Either alone or in combination with other antineoplastics, fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the mainstay of treatment of gastrointestinal, breast, and head and neck cancers for the past 40 years. Numerous active 5-FU schedules are in clinical use, but erratic oral bioavailability has historically mandated intravenous administration. Recently, two methods have been used to overcome the poor oral bioavailability of 5-FU. The first involves the use of prodrugs that are absorbed intact in the gastrointestinal tract and are ultimately converted to 5-FU in normal or tumor tissues. An alternate approach involves the inhibition of gastrointestinal degradation via coadministration of an inhibitor of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the rate-limiting enzyme in 5-FU catabolism. The oral fluoropyrimidines currently in development result in prolonged exposure to 5-FU and, therefore, have the potential to achieve clinical benefits similar to those seen with protracted intravenous infusions of 5-FU, but without the cost, complications, and inconvenience of ambulatory infusion pumps. This review describes several oral fluoropyrimidine regimens with activity in colorectal cancer: capecitabine (Xeloda), tegafur, UFT, S-1, and eniluracil plus 5-FU. An understanding of the distinct mechanisms of action and toxicity patterns of each regimen may ultimately guide treatment selection when multiple choices become available.     

The role of UFT and the combination of UFT/leucovorin in non-small cell lung cancer.

Although 5-FU administered as a single agent in different intravenous bolus schedules has been shown to have minimal activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), several lines of experimental evidence suggest that 5-FU in combination regimens may be synergistic with the 'anchor' drug of the combination. Moreover, the recent availability of oral formulations of 5-FU together with the ability to modulate the anabolic and catabolic metabolism of 5-FU with leucovorin and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) inhibitors, respectively, may provide a substantial improvement in the ease of administration and the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine therapy. Several oral fluoropyrimidines are under investigation. Orzel [UFT (uracil:tegafur) plus oral leucovorin] is the first oral DPD-inhibitory fluoropyrimidine. Orzel administered daily achieves similar concentrations of 5-FU obtained with continuous-infusion 5-FU. This paper reviews the clinical experience with UFT and Orzel in the treatment of NSCLC.     

New options for outpatient chemotherapy--the role of oral fluoropyrimidines.

For several decades fluoropyrimidines, especially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), have played a role in standard chemotherapy regimens for a range of solid tumours, including breast and colorectal cancers. In recent years, schedule modification and biomodulation have achieved improved efficacy and tolerability. However, the complications arising from infused intravenous administration are well-recognized and there is an unmet medical need for oral agents with improved efficacy and tolerability, offering more convenient outpatient therapy.Several oral fluoropyrimidines are in development, including capecitabine, UFT (uracil plus tegafur), S-1 and eniluracil. As yet, only UFT/leucovorin and capecitabine have been evaluated in randomized phase III clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer. Both have demonstrated safety benefits and equivalent survival compared with the Mayo Clinic regimen, and capecitabine has demonstrated a significantly superior response rate. Time to disease progression was equivalent to the Mayo Clinic regimen with capecitabine, but inferior with UFT/leucovorin. Capecitabine is also effective in patients with taxoid-pretreated metastatic breast cancer, a population which previously had no established treatment options.Both capecitabine and UFT/leucovorin are being evaluated in combination with irinotecan and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer, and vinorelbine and docetaxel/paclitaxel in breast cancer. In the future, these more convenient, oral fluoropyrimidines may replace intravenous 5-FU in the treatment of breast and colorectal cancer.     

Integrating the oral fluoropyrimidines into the management of advanced colorectal cancer

In colorectal cancer, leucovorin-modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the mainstay of both adjuvant treatment and treatment of metastatic disease for many years. In advanced disease, response rates of 10-43% are reported; efforts to improve efficacy through schedule modification, including prolonged infusions, have led to limited success. New agents with improved efficacy, tolerability and ease of administration are required. Among the newer drugs, irinotecan and oxaliplatin are becoming established as first- and second-line treatment for advanced disease. Their novel mechanisms of action have proven to be of value in 5-FU-resistant patients. In tandem with these developments, thymidylate synthase inhibition has remained an important objective and oral fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine and UFT (uracil plus tegafur)/leucovorin have been developed with this goal in mind. Two large, phase III studies of capecitabine in metastatic disease demonstrated objective response rates of 26.6 and 24.8%. UFT/leucovorin has also been evaluated in phase III trials, with an 11.7% response rate reported. Both agents are being evaluated in combination with oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and ultimately oral fluoropyrimidines as monotherapy or combination therapy may replace intravenous (i.v.) 5-FU as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.     

UFT plus oral leucovorin calcium (Orzel) and radiation in combined modality therapy: a comprehensive review

5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has become the most commonly used drug in combination with radiation therapy. The recent availability of oral formulations of 5-FU in conjunction with the ability to modulate the anabolic and catabolic metabolism of 5-FU with leucovorin and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) inhibitors, respectively, may provide a substantial improvement in the ease of administration and the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine therapy. Several oral fluoropyrimidines are under investigation. UFT (uracil:tegafur) plus oral leucovorin (Orzel) is the first oral DPD-inhibitory fluoropyrimidine. With daily administration, Orzel achieves similar concentrations of 5-FU obtained with continuous-infusion 5-FU. This paper summarizes the therapeutic rationale for Orzel and reviews the clinical experience with UFT and UFT/LV in combined modality therapy regimens.     

Oral fluoropoyrimidines

Protracted intravenous infusions of fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of colorectal cancer have been associated with a reduction in toxicity and enhanced clinical activity compared with bolus 5-FU schedules. However, these protracted infusions require portable infusion pumps and central venous lines, which are associated with complications of venous thrombosis, infection, and line slippage. An effective oral 5-FU formulation could provide a more convenient protracted treatment method with fewer complications. Because of its inconsistent and erratic absorption, the use of oral 5-FU was abandoned decades ago. The inconsistent absorption of oral 5-FU may be attributed to varying levels of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) in the gastrointestinal tract. Two methods have been used to circumvent 5-FU's metabolism by DPD in the gastrointestinal tract. First, DPD may be inactivated, allowing for reliable, consistent absorption of 5-FU. Second, 5-FU prodrugs can be administered, being absorbed as intact molecules via the gastrointestinal tract and subsequently converted to 5-FU. The oral fluoropyrimidines discussed here are capable of providing prolonged 5-FU exposure with a reduced incidence of toxicity.     

Is XELOX Equivalent to FOLFOX or Other Continuous-Infusion 5-Fluorouracil Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer?

Continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin is a frequently used regimen in metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuous-infusion 5-FU imposes constraints on patients and institutions. Oral fluoropyrimidines that mimic continuous-infusion 5-FU are now available and can be combined with oxaliplatin. In addition, it has been shown in small randomized trials that oral fluoropyrimidines are preferred by patients. Several randomized trials have compared continuous-infusion 5-FU/oxaliplatin with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. In all of these trials, noninferiority was demonstrated for the use of oral fluoropyrimidines on the predefined endpoints such as progression-free survival, overall survival, or response rate. In all trials, however, the hazard ratios were always in favor of the use of continuous-infusion 5-FU/LV even though noninferiority was demonstrated. This could question the need to use oral fluoropyrimidines instead of continuous-infusion 5-FU. Patient preference, quality of life, and cost of treatment could also be considered in this setting, wherein most of the patients are not in a curative situation.     

Oral uracil/ftorafur (UFT) plus leucovorin as first-line chemotherapy and salvage therapy with weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and toxicity of uracil/ftorafur (UFT) plus oral leucovorin (LV) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and salvage chemotherapy with weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV 24 h infusion. METHODS: Adult patients with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic diseases were enrolled to receive oral UFT 300 mg/m(2)/d plus LV 90 mg/d for 28 days. Treatment was given continuously for 28 days followed by a 7 day rest period from all treatment. For UFT failed patients, weekly 24 h infusion of 5-FU 2600 mg/m(2) plus LV 100 mg/m(2) was used as salvage therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. The objective response rate was 29.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.8-45.2%] among the 44 evaluable patients and 25.5% in the intent-to-treat population. The median survival for all 51 patients was 16.6 months. The median time to progression was 5.9 months. Diarrhea was the major adverse effect of UFT/LV that made patients reduce dosage. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea developed in 13.7% of patients. Twenty-six patients were treated with weekly 24 h infusional 5-FU/LV as salvage therapy and only two patients responded. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that this 28 day schedule of UFT/LV regimen may offer a well-tolerated, full oral treatment option with efficacy that appears comparable to that of intravenous 5-FU/LV regimens. Parenteral 5-FU/LV as salvage therapy for UFT refractory patients is not recommended.     

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.     

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.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine, UFT and leucovorin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

The combination of gemcitabine with protracted 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer has shown activity with tolerable toxicity. The administration of UFT may simulate the effects of a protracted infusion of 5-FU. Patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable measurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma received gemcitabine (800 mg/m2 i.v., administered as an 80-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15), UFT (200 mg/m2/day, on days 1 to 21), and oral leucovorin (90 mg/day, on days 1 to 21). Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Five patients had partial responses, with an overall response rate of 17% (5/30), using the intent-to-treat principle (95% confidence interval (CI), 3-30%). Nine out of 25 (36%) patients experienced clinical benefit responses (95% CI; 17-55%). The median time to progression was 3.0 months, and the median overall survival was 7.2 months. The principal adverse event was neutropenia. The combination of gemcitabine, UFT, plus oral leucovorin shows significant antitumor activity and a beneficial clinical effect with an acceptable level of toxicity.     

Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, UFT and Leucovorin in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

The combination of gemcitabine with protracted 5-fluorouracil(5-FU) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer has shown activity with tolerable toxicity. The administration of UFT may simulate the effects of a protracted infusion of 5-FU. Patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable measurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma received gemcitabine (800 mg/m2 i.v., administered as an 80-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15), UFT (200 mg/m2/day, on days 1 to 21), and oral leucovorin (90 mg/day, on days 1 to 21). Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Five patients had partial responses, with an overall response rate of 17% (5/30), using the intent-to-treat principle (95% confidence interval (CI), 3-30%). Nine out of 25 (36%) patients experienced clinical benefit responses (95% CI; 17-55%). The median time to progression was 3.0 months, and the median overall survival was 7.2 months. The principal adverse event was neutropenia. The combination of gemcitabine, UFT, plus oral leucovorin shows significant antitumor activity and a beneficial clinical effect with an acceptable level of toxicity.     

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.     

The role of new agents in the treatment of colorectal cancer

New drugs improved efficacy or convenience of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidines capecitabine and UFT are less toxic but equally efficacious relative to intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA). These agents might be beneficial for patients who unlikely benefit from the more intensive combination therapy with infusional 5-FU/FA and irinotecan or oxaliplatin. First-line therapy with irinotecan or oxaliplatin and 5-FU/FA induces an objective response in up to 50% of the patients and may allow neoadjuvant concepts in unresectable liver metastasis. The combination therapy increased progression-free survival and in the case of irinotecan/5-FU/FA also overall survival when compared to 5-FU/FA. Sequential treatment with infusional 5-FU/FA plus oxaliplatin followed by 5-FU/FA plus irinotecan or vice versa results in a median survival exceeding 20 months. Thus, patients in a good performance status and with favorable prognostic parameters should be offered first-line combination treatment of irinotecan or oxaliplatin with 5-FU/FA, whereby 5-FU is preferably administered as an infusion for combination therapy. New targets in the treatment of colorectal cancer are the EGF and VEGF receptor. The monoclonal EGF receptor antibody cetuximab alone and in combination with irinotecan is active in second-line treatment. The VEGF antibody bevacizumab prolongs survival when given in combination with 5-FU/FA and irinotecan.