Trimetrexate as biochemical modulator of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer: final results of a randomised European study.

BACKGROUND: Trimetrexate (TMTX) is a biochemical modulator of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV). Phase II trials have shown promising activity of 5-FU/LV/TMTX in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). This trial evaluated the effect of TMTX in combination with 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment in ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ACC were randomised to receive either intravenous LV 200 mg/m2/5-FU 600 mg/m2 or TMTX 110 mg/m2 followed 24 h later by LV 200 mg/m2/5-FU 500 mg/m2 plus oral LV rescue. Both schedules were given weekly for 6 weeks every 8 weeks. Patients were evaluated for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumour response, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were randomised. A statistically significant prolongation of median PFS was seen in patients treated with TMTX/5-FU/LV compared with 5-FU/LV (5.4 months versus 4.1 months, respectively; P = 0.03), and a trend towards a significant benefit for OS (13.4 months versus 10.5 months, respectively; P = 0.08). Tumour response, QoL and toxicity were comparable between the two arms. Diarrhoea was the most frequently occurring grade 3 or 4 toxicity (22% and 30%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of TMTX to a weekly regimen of 5-FU/LV results in a small but significant improvement in PFS without adding toxicity or worsening QoL in patients with ACC.     

A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, plus or minus trimetrexate, in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trimetrexate (TMTX) biochemically modulates 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LCV). Two phase II trials demonstrated promising activity for TMTX/5-FU/LCV in patients with untreated advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). This trial was designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TMTX/5-FU/LCV as first-line treatment in ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with ACC were randomized in double-blind fashion to receive placebo or TMTX (110 mg/m2) intravenously (i.v.) followed 24 h later by i.v. LCV 200 mg/m2, and 5-FU 500 mg/m2 plus oral LCV rescue. Both schedules were given weekly for 6 weeks every 8 weeks. Patients were evaluated for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 382 eligible patients were randomized. Significant toxicities were noted more frequently with TMTX/5-FU/LCV. Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 or 4 side-effect (41% and 28% on the TMTX and placebo arms, respectively). QoL scores and response rates did not differ between treatment arms. PFS was 5.3 months and 4.4 months in the TMTX and placebo arms, respectively (P = 0.77; Wilcoxon). OS was 15.8 months and 16.8 months, respectively (P = 0.73; Wilcoxon). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of TMTX to a weekly regimen of 5-FU/LCV worsened grade 3 or 4 diarrhea. The inclusion of TMTX did not yield any significant improvements in response rate, PFS or OS.     

Fluorouracil modulation in colorectal cancer: lack of improvement with N -phosphonoacetyl- l -aspartic acid or oral leucovorin or interferon, but enhanced therapeutic index with weekly 24-hour infusion schedule--an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate mechanism-directed regimens in maximizing the efficacy of fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced colorected cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on promising phase II data, a randomized comparison of various methods for the biochemical modulation of 5-FU was undertaken in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The control group received single-agent 5-FU as a 24-hour infusion weekly. Patients (N = 1,120) with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomized to one of the following arms: arm A, 5-FU 2,600 mg/m2 by 24-hour infusion, weekly; arm B, N-phosphonoacetyl-l-aspartic acid 250 mg/m2 day l, 5-FU 2,600 mg/m2 by 24-hour infusion day 2, weekly; arm C, 5-FU 600 mg/m2 with oral leucovorin (LV) 125 mg/m2 hourly for the preceding 4 hours, weekly; arm D, 5-FU 600 mg/m2 with intravenous (IV) LV 600 mg/m2, weekly; arm E, 5-FU 750 mg/m2/d IV by continuous infusion for 5 days, then 750 mg/m2 weekly, and recombinant interferon alfa-2a 9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly. Median follow-up was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Of the 1,098 assessable patients, 57% had measurable disease. The toxicity of all the regimens was tolerable. Grade 4 or worse toxicity occurred in 11%, 11%, 30%, 24%, and 22% on each arm, respectively; diarrhea was the most common adverse effect. These toxicity patterns favored significantly (P <.001) the 24-hour infusion arms. Median survival (months) by arm was A, 14.8; B, 11.9; C, 13.5; D, 13.6; and E, 15.2. These survival durations did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a weekly infusion regimen of 5-FU is significantly less toxic than and as effective as 5-FU bolus regimens modulated by either LV or interferon in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.     

Double modulation of 5-fluorouracil by trimetrexate and leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity (Tx) of a double modulation of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by trimetrexate (TMTX) and leucovorin (LV) in patients with advanced recurrent (inoperable) or metastatic colorectal cancer (ACC). Between December 1997 and August 2000, 36 patients were entered in this phase II study. Median age was 61 years, and 18 patients (50%) were female. Median performance status was 0 (range: 0-1), whereas primary tumor location was colon in 21 patients (58%) and rectum in 15 patients (42%). The number of metastatic sites was 1:29 patients (81%); 2:6 patients (17%) and 3:1 patient (3%). Hepatic involvement was observed in 33 patients (92%). Treatment consisted of TMTX 110 mg/m2 IV over 1 hour at hour (H) 0; LV 50 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours IV infusion starting at H 18; and 5-FU 900 mg/m2 IV bolus at H 20. LV (rescue) 15 mg/m2 orally was administered every 6 hours (total 6 doses) beginning at H 24. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks until progressive disease (PD) or severe Tx. Thirty-four patients are assessable for response (R) (two patients refused further treatment after the first course of therapy), whereas all patients were assessable for Tx. Complete response: 1 patient (3%); partial response: 4 patients (12%), with an overall objective response rate of 15% (95% CI, 1%-25%); no change: 12 patients (35%); and progressive disease: 17 patients (50%). The median time to treatment failure was 4 months and median survival was 11 months. Tx was within acceptable limits. The dose-limiting side effect was mucositis. Eight episodes of grade II or III stomatitis were observed and were responsible for dosage modifications of TMTX and 5-FU. Leukopenia was observed in 16 patients (44%); neutropenia was registered in 19 patients (53%); anemia was seen in 18 patients (50%); emesis in 22 patients (61%); and dermatitis in 3 patients (8%). There were no therapy-related deaths. The double modulation of 5-FU by TMTX and LV showed modest antitumoral activity with mild to moderate Tx.     

Randomised study of tegafur and oral leucovorin versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

This randomised, open-label trial compared oral tegafur (FT)/leucovorin (LV) with the intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV as first-line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients were randomised to receive oral FT 750 mg/m2/day for 21 days and LV 15 mg/m2 every 8 h in cycles repeated every 28 days (n=114), or intravenous LV 20 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 425 mg/m2 daily for 5 days every 4 weeks for 2 cycles, and later every 5 weeks (n=123). Response rate was significantly higher in the FT/LV arm (27%, 95% CI 19-35) than in the 5-FU/LV arm (13%, 95% CI 7-19) (p<0.004). The median time to progression was 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.3-6.5; FT/LV arm) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-6.9; 5-FU/LV arm). Median overall survival was 12.4 months (95% CI, 10.3-14.5 months; FT/LV arm) and 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-15.7 months; 5-FU/LV arm) (p=n.s.; hazard ratio FT/LV:5-FU/LV=1.02). 5-FU/LV showed a higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (4.1 vs. 0%). Non-hematological toxicities showed similar incidences in the two treatment arms. Oral FT/LV was more active than IV 5-FU/LV in terms of objective response rate with similar overall survival, and with a favorable toxicity profile. This makes FT/LV a valid alternative to the IV 5-FU schedule in CRC patients.     

Randomised Phase III study of biweekly 24-h infusion of high-dose 5FU with folinic acid and oxaliplatin versus monthly plus 5-FU/folinic acid in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase III study was started to compare oxaliplatin/5FU/LV in the first-line with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 302 patients were randomised and received bolus 5-FU 425 mg/m(2) day 1-5, FA 20 mg/m(2) day 1-5, q 4 wk or oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), 2 h-infusion, FA 200 mg/m(2), 1-h infusion. 5-FU 2600 mg/m(2), 24-h infusion day 1, q 2 wk. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). RESULTS: The median follow-up is 31.8 months, 90.4% of the patients have died. Confirmed RR, progression free survival (PFS; months) and median overall survival (OS; months) in 5FU/LV versus 5FU/LV/oxaliplatin were respectively 18.5% versus (vs) 33.8% (P = 0.004), 5.6 vs 6.7 (P = 0.016) and 13.3 vs 13.8 (P = 0.619). In the 5FU/LV/oxaliplatin arm less grade (3/4) toxicity was measured for diarrhoea, stomatitis, an increase in idiosyncratic side effects and neurosensory events compared with 5FU/LV. The quality of life (QOL) was equal in both arms. Second line treatment was given in 62% of the patients, crossover of 5FU/LV to 5FU/LV/oxaliplatin occurred in 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin in the first-line resulted in an increased RR and PFS with less grade 3/4 mucositis/diarrhoea compared with 5FU/LV alone. Idiosyncratic side effects deserve attention with oxaliplatin. Despite a low treatment cross over rate, OS in both groups was comparable.     

A prospective randomised phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with stage II colon cancer

The purpose of this trial was to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in stage II colon cancer. Patients with stage II colon cancer were randomised to either adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-FU/LV (100 mg m(-2) LV+450 mg m(-2) 5-FU weekly, weeks 1-6, in 8 weeks cycles x 7) or surveillance only. Five hundred patients were evaluable for analyses. After a median follow-up of 95.6 months, 55 of 252 patients (21.8%) have died in the 5-FU/LV arm and 58 of 248 patients (23.4%) in the surveillance arm. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the two treatment arms (hazard ratios, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61-1.27, P=0.49). The relative risk for tumour relapse was higher for patients on the surveillance arm than for those on the 5-FU/LV arm; however, this difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45-1.06, P=0.09). Consequently, disease-free survival (DFS) was not significantly different between the two trial arms. In conclusion, results of this trial demonstrate a trend to a lower risk for relapse in patients treated with adjuvant 5-FU/LV for stage II colon cancer. However, in this study with limited power to detect small differences between the study arms, adjuvant chemotherapy failed to significantly improve DFS and OS.     

Randomized, open-label, phase III study of a 28-day oral regimen of eniluracil plus fluorouracil versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic/advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of eniluracil (EU)/fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of 5-FU/leucovorin (LV) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic/advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study (FUMA3008) conducted in the United States and Canada compared the safety and efficacy of EU/5-FU (11.5 mg/m(2)/1.15 mg/m(2) twice daily for 28 days every 35 days) with that of intravenous 5-FU/LV (425 mg/m(2)/20 mg/m(2) once daily for 5 days every 28 days) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point. RESULTS: A total of 981 patients were randomized and 964 patients received treatment (485 EU/5FU, 479 5FU/LV). Survival for EU/5-FU was not statistically equivalent (but not statistically inferior) to that for 5-FU/LV (hazard ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03). Median duration of survival was 13.3 months in the EU/5-FU group and 14.5 months in the 5-FU/LV group. Median duration of progression-free survival for EU/5-FU was statistically inferior to that of the control group (20.0 weeks [95% CI, 19.1 to 20.9 weeks] v 22.7 weeks [95% CI, 18.3 to 24.6 weeks]; P =.01). Both treatments were well tolerated. Diarrhea was the most common nonhematologic toxicity in both groups; treatment-related grade 3 or 4 diarrhea occurred in 19% of patients treated with EU/5-FU and 16% of patients receiving 5-FU/LV (P =.354). Grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia occurred in 5% of EU/5-FU patients and 47% of 5-FU/LV patients. CONCLUSION: Safety profiles of both treatments were acceptable. Although antitumor activity was observed, EU/5-FU did not meet the protocol-specified statistical criteria for equivalence to 5-FU/LV in terms of OS.     

Etoposide,leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in 5-FU+LV pre-treated patients with advanced colorectal cancer

In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the weekly combination of etoposide, leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) when administered as second-line chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), previously treated with weekly LV+5-FU. Etoposide was administered at 3 different dose levels (DLs), in 3 groups of 20 patients each (total: 60); DL-I: etoposide 80 mg/m2, DL-II: etoposide 120 mg/m2, and DL-III: etoposide 180 mg/m2, in 45 min i.v. infusion, and followed in all levels by LV 100 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour and 5-FU 500 mg/m2 i.v. bolus. Treatment was administered weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. No patients at DL-I responded, while 2 patients at DL-II and 3 at DL-III had a partial response (PR). Stable disease (SD) rates were as follows; at DL-I: 2, DL-II: 8 and DL-III: 9. More patients in DL-I progressed (n = 19) compared to DL-II (n=10) and DL-II (n = 8) (p < 0.0007). Time to progression was for DL-I, -II, -III: 17, 15, and 14 weeks, respectively. Median survival was DL-I, -II, -III: 30, 30, and 32.5 weeks, respectively. Toxicity consisted mainly of neutropenia, diarrhea and mucositis at all DLs, and was significantly more severe in DL-III. No difference was noted in responses between DL-II and DL-III. The authors conclude that the combination of etoposide with LV+5-FU has limited activity when administered after failure of weekly LV+5-FU in patients with ACC and should not be recommended for further evaluation.     

Panitumumab-based maintenance after oxaliplatin discontinuation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis of two randomised trials

Panitumumab is approved for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer and was evaluated in Phase III (PRIME, NCT00364013) and Phase II (PEAK, NCT00819780) first-line randomised studies. This retrospective analysis of these trials investigated efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab-based maintenance after oxaliplatin discontinuation in RAS wild-type patients. First-line regimens were FOLFOX4 ± panitumumab in PRIME and mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in PEAK. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), from randomisation and oxaliplatin discontinuation, and toxicity. Overall, median duration of panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) maintenance was 21 (interquartile range: 11–41) weeks; that of 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance was 16 (6–31) weeks. Median OS from randomisation was 40.2 (95% confidence interval: 30.3–50.4) and 39.1 (34.2–63.0) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 24.1 (17.7–33.0) and 28.9 (21.0–32.0) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. Median PFS from randomisation was 16.6 (11.3–23.6) and 15.4 (11.6–18.4) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 12.6 (9.4–16.2) and 13.1 (9.5–16.6) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. From oxaliplatin discontinuation, median OS was 33.9 (24.7–42.8) and 33.5 (24.5–54.9) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 16.4 (12.4–24.1) and 23.3 (15.7–26.3) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively; PFS was 11.7 (7.8–19.2) and 9.7 (5.8–14.8) months and 7.1 (5.6–10.2) and 7.0 (3.9–10.6) months, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were rash, fatigue and diarrhoea. Maintenance of panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV after oxaliplatin discontinuation was well tolerated and may be an acceptable treatment paradigm for patients demonstrating a good response to first-line treatment. Prospective studies are warranted.     

Oxaliplatin added to simplified bimonthly low-dose leucovorin and 5-FU for pretreated advanced colorectal cancer is effective and not affected by different previous 5-FU regimens

This phase II study examined bimonthly oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) added to a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (3000 mg/m2 for 46 h following a 400 mg/m2 bolus), with leucovorin (LV) (150 mg/m2) administrated in a simplified way to patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (CRC) refractory or resistant to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Sixty patients were registered. Of the 52 evaluable patients, 3 (5.8%) achieved a complete response (CR) and 18 (34.6%) achieved a partial response (PR). The overall response rate (CR + PR) was 40.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.6%-54.2%) for evaluable patients and 35% (95% CI: 22.6%-47.4%) by intention to treat. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.2 months, and the median survival was 14.2 months. No significant differences were seen in response rates and PFS of patient groups pretreated either with high-dose 5-FU/LV by continuous infusion or with intravenous 5-FU/LV by a weekly bolus. From the 421 cycles analyzed, dose-limiting toxicities included cumulative sensory neuropathy and leukopenia, accounting for 11.6% and 10.0%, National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4 toxicities per patient, respectively. Two (3.3%) patients experienced hepatic encephalopathy related to high-dose 5-FU. With necessary caution, this regimen was effective for 5-FU-pretreated CRC, regardless of ethnic differences, and it had the advantage of LV being administrated at a low dose in a simplified way.     

Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Oxaliplatin Plus 5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin (Modified FOLFOX6) with Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients having a Good or Poor Performance Status

Background: Combination chemotherapy of 5 fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) with oxaliplatin,mainly FOLFOX regimens, has shown considerable antitumor activity and a tolerable toxicity profile in gastriccancer. The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy and toxicity of modified FOLFOX-6(mFOLFOX6) regimen in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients with good and poor performance status (PS).Materials and Methods: AGC patients receiving the mFOLFOX6 regimen including oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, bolusof 5-FU 400 mg/m2 and LV 400 mg/m2 on the first day, followed by 2400mg/m2 of 5- FU as a continious infusionover 46 hour for first-line treatment were eligible for the study. Results: A total 58 patients with a median age of59.5 (32-81) were included. The median follow up of the study was 9.2 months. Thirty patients (51.7%) with anECOG PS 0-1 were assigned to the good PS arm, while 28 patients (48.3%) with ECOG PS 2 were in the poor PSarm. Overall response rates were 36.6 and 28.8%, respectively (p=0.91). Median PFS was 6.7 and 6.3 months ingood PS and poor PS arms (p=0.50) and median OS was 9.6 and 10.4 months (p=0.55). As compared with goodPS arm, poor PS arm was associated with more grade 3-4 neutropenia and anemia. Dose reduction and dosedelays were also significantly higher. Conclusions: In this study, mFOLFOX6 was similarly effective in botharms. Although hematologic toxicity was significantly higher in patients with poor PS, it remained manageable.Our results suggest that this regimen may be an effective treatment option for AGC patients with poor PS.     

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.     

Sequential trimetrexate, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid are effective and well tolerated in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. The phase II study group of the AIO

Trimetrexate (TMTX) is a new antifolate which avoids competition for cellular uptake with folinic acid (FA). A regimen of sequential TMTX, FA and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has shown efficacy in patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, we treated 34 previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with a weekly chemotherapy regimen consisting of 110 mg/m(2) of TMTX intravenously, then 24 h later 200 mg/m(2) of FA (i.v.) and 500 mg/m(2) of 5-FU (i. v.). Thereafter, 7 doses of oral FA (15 mg) were given at 6-hourly intervals. A treatment cycle consisted of 6 weeks of treatment, then 2 weeks of rest. All patients were treated as outpatients unless complications arose. Thirty-three patients were assessable for tumor response, and all 34 patients were assessable for toxicity. Twelve patients (36%; 95% confidence interval: 25-49%) achieved a partial response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months, and median survival was 14 months. The most common toxicity was diarrhea of grade 3/4, observed in 22% of treatment cycles; this decreased to 8% with early loperamide treatment. Hematologic toxicity was mild. The sequential administration of TMTX, FA and 5-FU is an active regimen in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and warrants further studies.     

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: final results of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group Trial 0108

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCC), capecitabine has demonstrated a superior response rate (RR), equivalent disease progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and an improved overall tolerability profile compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV). The FOLFOX4 regimen, combining oxaliplatin with LV and bolus plus infusional 5-FU (LV5FU2), has been shown to improve RR and PFS versus LV5FU2, and it was more effective and less toxic than irinotecan plus bolus 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine (an oral fluoropyrimidine) may be an effective, well tolerated, and more convenient alternative to 5-FU/LV in combination with oxaliplatin, especially in older patients. METHODS: Elderly (> or = 70 years) patients with MCC were treated with a 3-weekly regimen of oxaliplatin at an initial dose of 85 mg/m(2) intravenously on Day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily from Days 2 to 15 (XELOX regimen). In the absence of Grade > or = 2 hematologic toxicity, oxaliplatin was increased to 100 mg/m(2) in the second cycle, and in the absence of Grade > or = 2 nonhematologic adverse events during Cycle 2, capecitabine was increased to 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily in the third and subsequent cycles. After the first 35 patients (first series), the treatment protocol was amended so that only an oxaliplatin increase to 110 mg/m(2) and 130 mg/m(2) during Cycles 2 and 3, respectively, was planned in the remaining 41 patients (second series). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients with a median age of 75 years (range, 70-82 years) entered the current study. In the first series, the oxaliplatin dose was increased in 18 (51%) patients, and the capecitabine dose was increased in 4 (11%) patients. In the second series, the oxaliplatin dose was increased to 110 mg/m(2) in 26 (63%) patients, and to 130 mg/m(2) in 19 (46%) patients. In all, 2 complete and 29 partial responses were observed, for an overall RR of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30-53%). The median PFS was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.7-10.3 months), and the median OS was 14.4 months (95% CI, 11.9-16.9 months). In a multivariate analysis, the presence of disease symptoms affected both PFS and OS, whereas OS also was independently affected by male gender and disease spread. Age had no independent effect on PFS or OS. Five percent of patients developed Grade > or = 3 hematologic toxicity during treatment, Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 8% of patients, and severe hand-foot syndrome in 13% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Fit elderly patients with MCC showed a good RR to XELOX with only mild toxicity observed in most patients. XELOX, should, therefore be considered as an important therapeutic option for elderly patients with MCC.     

Randomized phase III trial of standard timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin versus circadian timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin in stage III and IV or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if circadian timed (CT) chemotherapy results in improved response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and lower toxicity, when compared with standard timed (ST) chemotherapy. Materials and METHODS: Eligibility criteria were stage III, IV, or recurrent endometrial cancer with poor potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery; measurable disease; and no prior chemotherapy. Therapy was randomized to schedules of ST doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2, or CT doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 am plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 pm. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: The ST arm included 169 patients, and the CT arm included 173 patients. The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial responses) was 46% in the ST group compared with 49% in the CT group (P =.26, one tail). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 11.2 months, respectively, in the ST group; and 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively, in the CT group (PFS: P =.31; OS: P =.21, one tail). Median total doses were 209 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 349 mg/m2 cisplatin in the ST group, versus 246 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 354 mg/m2 cisplatin in the CT group. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in 73% of patients in the ST arm and in 63% of patients in the CT arm. There were eight treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this trial, no significant benefit in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, or toxicity profile was observed with CT doxorubicin plus cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma.     

Two consecutive phase II trials of biweekly oxaliplatin plus weekly 48-hour continuous infusion of nonmodulated high-dose 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced colorectal cancer

The combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (LV) with oxaliplatin has become one of the standard treatments for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Two consecutive phase II trials assessed the efficacy and safety of combined therapy with oxaliplatin and high-dose 5-FU without LV for patients with advanced CRC. A total of 89 patients were enrolled in both trials. Fifty-nine patients in trial A underwent a scheduled regimen of biweekly oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and weekly nonmodulated 5-FU 3.0 g/m(2). Increased incidence of toxicity led to a 25% reduction in the starting dose of 5-FU (2.25 g/m(2)) for trial B. Patients treated in trial B showed a higher cumulative dose and relative dose intensity for oxaliplatin and 5-FU than those treated in trial A. Response to treatment, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and duration of response were evaluated as efficacy variables. Overall response rate was preserved despite the reduction in 5-FU dose (55.9% and 63.0%, respectively). Median durations of responses were 10.6 and 10.4 months, median TTPs were 7.7 and 7.3 months, and OS times were 21.7 and 13.1 months, respectively. Reduction in the starting 5-FU dose from 3.0 to 2.25 g/m(2) resulted in a decrease in the main grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities (neutropenia, 22.0% to 10.0%) and nonhematologic toxicities (diarrhea, 52.5% to 23.3%; nausea/vomiting, 18.6% to 3.3%). Neurosensory toxicity was similar in both trials (16.9% and 16.7%). Biweekly oxaliplatin in combination with nonmodulated high-dose 5-FU is an active, well-tolerated treatment that offers a lower cost than a modulated schedule for patients with advanced, metastatic CRC.     

High-dose leucovorin and 5-FU]

Leucovorin (LV), given intravenously the orally becomes 5, 10-methylene tetrahydrofolate in both cancer and normal cells. FdUMP which is an active metabolite of 5-FU binds tightly to thymidylate synthase in the presence of the cofactor 5, 10-methylene tetrahydrofolate. This interaction leads to potentiate the cytotoxic effect of 5-FU by prolonged inhibition of thymidylate synthase. Clinically, the combination of LV and 5-FU is given parenterally by two schedules; 5 consecutive days schedule and weekly schedule. Five 5 consecutive days-schedule is divided into 2 methods. One is a 200 mg/m2/day of LV by Machover, and the other is 20 mg/m2/day of LV by O'Connell. The weekly schedule is a 2-hour infusion of dl-LV (500 mg/m2) and iv bolus of 5-FU (600 mg/m2), given 1 hour after the beginning of LV infusion by Petrelli. A multicenter cooperative study in Japan was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of LV and 5-FU using the weekly schedule by Petrelli. Response rates were 31.5% and 41.2% against advanced gastric and colorectal cancer respectively. Then, we carried out a randomized early phase II study using 250 mg/m2 of l-LV weekly (similar to the schedule of Petrelli's, armA) and 100 mg/m2 (similar to the schedule of Machover's, arm B) or 10 mg/m2 (similar to the schedule of O'Connell's, arm C) of l-LV for 5 consecutive days against gastric cancer. The response rate was 33.3% in arm A, 24.1% in arm B and no response in arm C. Toxicity was within acceptable limits, Toxic effects included diarrhea, stomatitis, anorexia and myelohypoplasia. Our data suggests that high-dose LV and 5-FU seems to be a very promising combination but, there was no responder using low dose (10 mg/m2) of l-LV schedule against gastric cancer patients.     

A phase II study of irinotecan alternated with a weekly schedule of oxaliplatin, high-dose leucovorin and 48-hour infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of irinotecan (CPT-11) alternated with a weekly treatment for 4 weeks of oxaliplatin (L-OHP), high-dose leucovorin (LV) and a 48-hour 5-fluorouracil infusion (5-FU 48 h) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). Patients and METHODS: Previously untreated patients with ACC received chemotherapy consisting of a weekly treatment for 4 weeks of L-OHP (65 mg/m2), high-dose LV (150 mg/m2) followed by a 5-FU 48 h infusion (2,300 or 1,800 mg/m2) alternated with CPT-11 (350 mg/m2). A cycle was to be performed every 8 weeks. Treatment was continued up to tolerance, disease progression or patient refusal. Forty consecutive patients with measurable ACC, aged 26-70, performance status < or =2, entered our study. RESULTS: Six complete and 17 partial responses were observed (overall response rate, 57.5%; 95% confidence interval, CI: 38.8-71.1%); an additional 35% of the patients had stable disease. The median duration of response was 10.9 months (range, 6.5-30+ months). The median time to progression and the median overall survival time were 11.4 (95% CI: 10.4-12.3) and 20.3 (95% CI: 16.4-23.7) months, respectively. At the median follow-up period of 24 months, 17 patients (42.5%) are still alive. After a median number of 4 cycles, one toxic death occurred. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity per patient in any cycle was: stomatitis 7.5%, nausea/vomiting 2.5% and diarrhea 45% for the infusional part, neutropenia 37.5%, anemia 2.5%, thrombocytopenia 5%, alopecia 5% and diarrhea 10% for the CPT-11 part of the regimen. Gastrointestinal toxicity was different according to the dose of 5-FU. Serious adverse events occurred most frequently when 5-FU was given at a dose of 2,300 mg/m2 with a high incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhea (72.2%) and stomatitis (16.6%), and led to dose reduction of 5-FU in 13 of 18 patients (72.2%). For 22 patients who started 5-FU at a dose of 1,800 mg/m2, a dose reduction of 5-FU was necessary only 5 times (22.7%). No patient discontinued treatment because of severe neurotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The activity of our alternating regimen of L-OHP/LV/5-FU 48 h and CPT-11 for not previously treated ACC patients is counterbalanced by a high toxicity and a inconvenient schedule.     

FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan) as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): a multicentre randomised phase III trial from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin (L-OHP) in combination with irinotecan (CPT-11), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (FOLFOXIRI) vs irinotecan and 5-FU/LV (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). A total of 283 chemotherapy-na?ve patients with MCC were enrolled (FOLFIRI arm: n=146; FOLFOXIRI arm: n=137). In the FOLFOXIRI arm, CPT-11 (150 mg m(-2)) was given on d1, L-OHP (65 mg m(-2)) on d2, LV (200 mg m(-2)) on days 2 and 3 and 5-FU (400 mg m(-2) as i.v. bolus and 600 mg m(-2) as 22 h i.v. continuous infusion) on days 2 and 3. In the FOLFIRI arm, CPT-11 (180 mg m(-2)) was given on d1 whereas LV and 5-FU were administered in the same way as in the FOLFOXIRI regimen. Both regimens were administered every 2 weeks. There was no difference in terms of overall survival (median OS: 19.5 and 21.5 months, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.337), median time to disease progression (FOLFIRI: 6.9 and FOLFOXIRI: 8.4 months; P=0.17), response rates (33.6 and 43% for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.168). Patients treated with FOLFOXIRI had a significantly higher incidence of alopecia (P=0.0001), diarrhoea (P=0.0001) and neurosensory toxicity (P=0.001) compared with patients treated with FOLFIRI. The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority of the FOLFOXIRI combination compared with the FOLFIRI regimen, although the observed median OS is one of the best ever reported in the literature.