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     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: integrated efficacy data and novel analyses from two large, randomised, phase III trials

This study evaluates the efficacy of capecitabine using data from a large, well-characterised population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in two identically designed phase III studies. A total of 1207 patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomised to either oral capecitabine (1250 mg m(-2) twice daily, days 1-14 every 21 days; n=603) or intravenous (i.v.) bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV; Mayo Clinic regimen; n=604). Capecitabine demonstrated a statistically significant superior response rate compared with 5-FU/LV (26 vs 17%; P<0.0002). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that capecitabine consistently resulted in superior response rates (P<0.05), even in patient subgroups with poor prognostic indicators. The median time to response and duration of response were similar and time to progression (TTP) was equivalent in the two arms (hazard ratio (HR) 0.997, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.123, P=0.95; median 4.6 vs 4.7 months with capecitabine and 5-FU/LV, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified younger age, liver metastases, multiple metastases and poor Karnofsky Performance Status as independent prognostic indicators for poor TTP. Overall survival was equivalent in the two arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.06, P=0.48; median 12.9 vs 12.8 months, respectively). Capecitabine results in superior response rate, equivalent TTP and overall survival, an improved safety profile and improved convenience compared with i.v. 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment for MCRC. For patients in whom fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is indicated, capecitabine should be strongly considered. Following encouraging results from phase I and II trials, randomised trials are evaluating capecitabine in combination with irinotecan, oxaliplatin and radiotherapy. Capecitabine is a suitable replacement for i.v. 5-FU as the backbone of colorectal cancer therapy.     

Capecitabine

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

Randomized comparative study of tegafur/uracil and oral leucovorin versus parenteral fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

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

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.     

Capecitabine chemoradiation for rectal cancer after curative surgery

This study reports the tolerability and feasibility of capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine, chemoradiation as postoperative treatment. Stage II-III rectal cancer patients received 2 cycles of bolus 5-FU (425 mg/m2) and leucovorin (LV) (20 mg/m2) on days 1-5 q3w followed by oral capecitabine (800 mg/m2 bid) continuously during pelvic radiotherapy (total 50.4 Gy). Two additional cycles of 5-FU/LV were finally administered. Forty-one radically resected patients (median age: 61 years) were enrolled. All patients were evaluable for safety. Grade 3 adverse events included: proctitis (n = 3, 7%), diarrhea (n = 5, 12%), and leukopenia (n = 1, 2%). The overall rate of grade 3 diarrhea and leukopenia was 15% (95% confidence interval, 5-29%). Capecitabine chemoradiation in the adjuvant setting is well tolerated and is convenient to administer. These results support the use and further study of capecitabine chemoradiation in radically resected rectal cancer patients.     

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

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

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the treatment of colorectal cancer

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

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

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

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Multicenter phase II study of bimonthly high-dose leucovorin, fluorouracil infusion, and oxaliplatin for metastatic colorectal cancer resistant to the same leucovorin and fluorouracil regimen.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the objective tumor response rates and toxicities of leucovorin (LV) plus fluorouracil (5-FU) cancer regimen combined with oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) every 2 weeks on metastatic colorectal cancer patients with documented proof of progression while on bimonthly LV and 5-FU alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients were enrolled onto this study and 97 received the study drugs between October 1995 and December 1996. Eighty-nine patients were eligible for per-protocol efficacy analysis with documented proof of progression on one of the following two treatments: LV 500 mg/m(2) and continuous 5-FU infusion 1.5 to 2 g/m(2)/22 hours, days 1 through 2 every 2 weeks (FOLFUHD); or LV 200 mg/m(2), bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m(2), and continuous 5-FU infusion 600 mg/m(2)/22 hours, days 1 through 2 every 2 weeks (LV5FU2). In our study, 40 patients received FOLFUHD + 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin day 1 (FOLFOX3) and 57 patients received LV5FU2 + 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin day 1 (FOLFOX4). RESULTS: Of the 97 patients treated, 20 partial responses were observed (FOLFOX3/4: response rate, 20.6%; 95% confidence interval, 13% to 31.1%; FOLFOX3: response rate,18.4%; FOLFOX4: response rate, 23.5%). For patients treated with FOLFOX3/4, the median response duration for was 7.5 months, and the major toxicities were peripheral neuropathy and neutropenia. The incidence of grade 3 (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria) peripheral neuropathy was 20.6%; whereas the overall incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was 27.8%, 15%, and 36.9% for FOLFOX3/4, FOLFOX3, and FOLFOX4, respectively (P =.02). From the start of treatment, median progression-free survival was 4. 7, 4.6, and 5.1 months for FOLFOX3/4, FOLFOX3, FOLFOX4, respectively, and median overall survival was 10.8, 10.6, and 11.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: This phase II study of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m(2) in combination with bimonthly LV plus 5-FU in patients with colorectal cancer resistant to LV plus 5-FU alone confirms the enhanced antitumor activity of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU.