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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Oral capecitabine as an alternative to i.v. 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: safety results of a randomized, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral capecitabine achieves a superior response rate with an improved safety profile compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We report here the results of a large phase III trial investigating adjuvant oral capecitabine compared with 5-FU/LV (Mayo Clinic regimen) in Dukes' C colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18-75 years with resected Dukes' C colon carcinoma were randomized to receive 24 weeks of treatment with either oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14 every 21 days (n = 993), or i.v. bolus 5-FU 425 mg/m(2) with i.v. leucovorin 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5, repeated every 28 days (n = 974). RESULTS: Patients receiving capecitabine experienced significantly (P <0.001) less diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea/vomiting, alopecia and neutropenia, but more hand-foot syndrome than those receiving 5-FU/LV. Fewer patients receiving capecitabine experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia/sepsis and stomatitis (P <0.001), although more experienced grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than those treated with 5-FU/LV (P <0.001). Capecitabine demonstrates a similar, favorable safety profile in patients aged <65 years or > or = 65 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Based on its improved safety profile, capecitabine has the potential to replace 5-FU/LV as standard adjuvant treatment for patients with colon cancer. Efficacy results are expected to be available in Keywords: Adjuvant treatment, capecitabine, chemotherapy, colorectal cancer     

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.     

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.     

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.     

New systemic frontline treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Options for first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma have broadened considerably with the introduction of irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Furthermore, the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine has demonstrated efficacy in Phase III trials and recently was approved for first-line treatment in Europe and the United States. Capecitabine yielded similar median times to disease progression and median survival rates compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) (Mayo Clinic/North Central Cancer Treatment Group regimen), with superior and similar response rates, respectively. However, its role as a first-line, single-agent substitute for intermittent infusional 5-FU/LV remains to be defined. The addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV resulted in improved response rates and progression-free survival in large, randomized trials; moreover, irinotecan-containing regimens resulted in improved overall survival. Prevalent regimens of irinotecan/5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin/5-FU/LV have been compared in two randomized Phase III trials. One study demonstrated the statistical superiority of oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU/LV over irinotecan/bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of response, time to disease progression, and median survival; however, those advantages may have been attributable to infusional administration or to major differences in second-line therapy. A randomized Phase III study comparing irinotecan and oxaliplatin in combination with the same infusional 5-FU/LV regimens and crossover in case of disease progression showed equivalent efficacy for both schedules in the first-line setting, but the irinotecan combination proved beneficial in terms of safety. New molecular targeted agents, such as angiogenesis-modulating compounds (e.g., bevacizumab) and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (e.g., cetuximab), are under clinical investigation. This review updates current systemic frontline treatments and future perspectives for patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.     

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.     

The influence of drug interval on the effect of methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

The importance of the interval between methotrexate (MTX) and fluorouracil (5-FU) was studied in 168 patients with previously untreated, measurable, advanced colorectal cancer. They were randomized to receive MTX 200 mg/m2, followed by 5-FU 600 mg/m2 either 24 hours (arm A) or 1 hour (arm B) after MTX. All patients received leucovorin (LV) 24 hours after MTX, 10 mg/m2 orally every 6 hours for six doses. The regimen was repeated every 2 weeks, with 5-FU escalation as tolerated. Arm A was significantly better than arm B with respect to overall response rate (29% v 14.5%, P = .026), time to progression (TTP; median, 9.9 months v 5.9 months, P = .009), and survival (median, 15.3 months v 11.4 months, P = .003). Significant differences between arms were not found in response rate, median TTP, or median survival for the subgroup of patients with rectal primaries who comprised 20% of the patients in each arm. Significant factors prognostic for survival were performance status and number of metastases, as well as treatment. Age did not influence survival. Toxicity was similar in both arms and was primarily gastrointestinal. More mucositis was seen in arm A. There were four toxic deaths secondary to neutropenia and infection (one from arm A and three from arm B) and three other deaths (two from arm A and one from arm B) that were possibly drug-related. The combination of MTX with LV rescue and 5-FU is an active regimen in advanced colorectal cancer; its efficacy is increased in colon, but not rectal cancer, when the interval between MTX and 5-FU is long (24 hours) rather than short (1 hour).     

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.     

A Phase II Study of Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil,Leucovorin, and High-Dose Capecitabine in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PurposeCapecitabine has shown similar efficacy to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); a regimen containing 2 weeks of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx) has demonstrated noninferiority to infusional 5-FU/oxaliplatin/leucovorin (FOLFOX) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II study explores the efficacy and safety of a 2-day course of oxaliplatin/capecitabine (2DOC), with oxaliplatin given on day 1 and capecitabine given orally every 8 hours in high doses over 6 doses, mimicking FOLFOX6.Patients and MethodsThis phase II study was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Eligible patients with mCRC received oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² intravenously (I.V.) over 2 hours followed by leucovorin 20 mg/m² I.V. bolus and 5-FU 400 mg/m² I.V. bolus on day 1 and day 15. Capecitabine was administered at 1500 mg/m² orally every 8 hours over 6 doses starting on day 1 and day 15.ResultsA total of 45 patients were enrolled; 44 were evaluated for response. Seventeen patients (39%) had objective responses. Median time to progression was 6.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 17.5 months. The most common side effects were grade 1/2 neuropathy, fatigue, and nausea. Severe hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was rare.ConclusionThe overall response rate with the 2DOC regimen is similar to published CapOx regimens, and time to progression and OS are similar. The incidence of HFS, diarrhea, and mucositis were lower compared with published results of 2-week schedules of capecitabine. The 2DOC regimen merits further study as a more convenient regimen than infusional 5-FU with less HFS when compared with a 2-week administration of capecitabine.     

Safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab with FOLFOX,XELOX, FOLFIRI and fluoropyrimidines in metastatic colorectal cancer: the BEAT study

BackgroundBevacizumab significantly improves survival when added to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Bevacizumab Expanded Access Trial (BEAT) evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab plus first-line chemotherapy in a general cohort of patients with mCRC.Patients and methodsPatients with unresectable mCRC received chemotherapy (physician's choice) plus bevacizumab [5 mg/kg every 2 weeks (5-fluorouracil regimens) or 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (capecitabine regimens)]. The primary end point was safety, including prospective data collection in patients receiving unanticipated surgery during the study. Secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsThe final analysis comprised 1914 assessable patients (male 58%; median age 59 years). Chemotherapy included 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) + oxaliplatin (29%), irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV (26%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (18%) and monotherapy (16%). Serious/grade 3–5 adverse events of interest for bevacizumab included bleeding (3%), gastrointestinal perforation (2%), arterial thromboembolism (1%), hypertension (5.3%), proteinuria (1%) and wound-healing complications (1%). Sixty-day mortality was 3%. Median PFS was 10.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.4–11.3 months] and median OS reached 22.7 months (95% CI 21.7–23.8 months).ConclusionsThe BEAT study shows that the efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab in routine clinical practice is consistent with results observed in prospective randomised clinical trials and another large observational study in the United States (BRiTE study).     

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 II evaluation of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (ILF) vs 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and etoposide (ELF) in untreated metastatic gastric cancer

An open-label randomised comparison of efficacy and tolerability of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (ILF) with etoposide plus 5-FU/LV (ELF) in patients with untreated metastatic or locally advanced gastric cancer. One cycle of ILF comprised six once-weekly infusions of irinotecan 80 mg m(-2), LV 500 mg m(-2), 24-h 5-FU 2000 mg m(-2), and ELF comprised three once-daily doses of etoposide 120 mg m(-2), LV 300 mg m(-2), 5-FU 500 mg m(-2). In all, 56 patients received ILF and 58 ELF. Median age was 62 years, Karnofsky performance 90%, and disease status was comparable for both arms. The objective clinical response rates after 14 weeks treatment (primary end point) were 30% for ILF and 17% for ELF (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-1.13, P = 0.0766). Overall response rates over the entire treatment period for ILF and ELF were 43 and 24%, respectively (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.97; P = 0.0467). For ILF and ELF, respectively, median progression-free survival was 4.5 vs 2.3 months, time to treatment failure was 3.6 vs 2.2 months (P = 0.4542), and overall survival was 10.8 vs 8.3 months (P = 0.2818). Both regimens were well tolerated, the main grade 3/4 toxicities being diarrhoea (18%, ILF) and neutropenia (57%, ELF). The data from this randomised phase II study indicate that ILF provides a better response rate than ELF, and that ILF should be investigated further for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.     

Biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin with or without interferon-α-2c in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: final results of a randomised phase III study

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced colorectal carcinoma, although response rates are generally less than 20%. Improved therapeutic efficacy has been reported using biochemical modulation of 5-FU by leucovorin (LV) or interferon α (IFN), the combination of 5-FU/LV frequently considered as standard therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. In an attempt to enhance the cytotoxicity of 5-FU, a prospective randomised trial was initiated to compare 5-FU/LV with 5-FU/LV plus IFN. Patients were randomised to receive either LV, 100 mg/m² intravenously (i.v.), followed by 5-FU, 500 mg/m² as a 1-h i.v. infusion, daily for 4 days, followed by weekly infusions until week 8, or the same regimen of 5-FU/LV plus IFN-α-2c, 30 μg subcutaneously (s.c.), three times weekly. Cycles were repeated after a 2-week rest period. Among 269 enrolled patients, 219 were available for response and 243 for toxicity. An objective tumour response was observed in 38 of 107 (36%) and 28 of 112 (25%) patients in the treatment arms with and without IFN, respectively (difference not significant). There was no significant difference between the two groups in response duration (median 8.4 versus 12.1 months), time to treatment failure (median 6.5 versus 4.9 months), or overall survival (median 10.0 versus 12.6 months). However, patients in the IFN arm experienced significantly more haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity and more frequent alopecia. In conclusion, the addition of IFN to 5-FU/LV in the schedules and doses used in the study did not provide any clinical benefit over 5-FU/LV alone and cannot be recommended for routine use in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.     

A four-arm, randomized, multicenter phase II trial of oxaliplatin combined with varying schedules of 5-fluorouracil as first-line therapy in previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), with or without leucovorin (LV), is effective and well tolerated for first-line therapy of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is no consensus as to which oxaliplatin/5-FU-containing regimen is superior in the first-line setting. This randomized, multicenter phase II trial was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 4 different oxaliplatin/5-FU regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC (mCRC; n = 129) were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment regimens: (1) continuous 5-FU infusion plus oxaliplatin (n = 23); (2) weekly 5-FU bolus with LV plus oxaliplatin (n = 40); (3) oxaliplatin with 2-day infusion 5-FU/LV (FOLFOX4, n = 41); and (4) chronomodulated 5-FU plus oxaliplatin (n = 25). RESULTS: Overall response rates, after expert assessment, ranged from 24% to 34%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 6 months to 8 months. Although no significant differences in efficacy were detected in pairwise comparisons of the 4 different regimens, patients randomized to FOLFOX4 had the highest response rate and longest PFS. The FOLFOX4 regimen was also associated with the lowest incidence of severe (grade 3/4) toxicity, with the exception of cumulative peripheral neurotoxicity. CONCLUSION: This randomized phase II trial provides evidence that oxaliplatin/5-FU regimens are effective and well tolerated for first-line therapy of previously untreated mCRC. The FOLFOX regimens are now an established standard for CRC.     

Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel and capecitabine, a tumor-activated oral fluoropyrimidine, show high single-agent efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and synergy in preclinical studies. This international phase III trial compared efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine/docetaxel therapy with single-agent docetaxel in anthracycline-pretreated patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 255) or to docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 256). RESULTS: Capecitabine/docetaxel resulted in significantly superior efficacy in time to disease progression (TTP) (hazard ratio, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.545 to 0.780; P =.0001; median, 6.1 v 4.2 months), overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.634 to 0.947; P =.0126; median, 14.5 v 11.5 months), and objective tumor response rate (42% v 30%, P =.006) compared with docetaxel. Gastrointestinal side effects and hand-foot syndrome were more common with combination therapy, whereas myalgia, arthralgia, and neutropenic fever/sepsis were more common with single-agent docetaxel. More grade 3 adverse events occurred with combination therapy (71% v 49%, respectively), whereas grade 4 events were slightly more common with docetaxel (31% v 25% with combination). CONCLUSION: The significantly superior TTP and survival achieved with the addition of capecitabine to docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), with the manageable toxicity profile, indicate that this combination provides clear benefits over single-agent docetaxel 100 mg/m(2). Docetaxel/capecitabine therapy is an important treatment option for women with anthracycline-pretreated MBC.