Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study

Surrogate endpoints in second-line treatment for mCRC: a systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) as potential surrogate endpoints (SEP) for overall survival (OS) in second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomised trials of second-line chemotherapy for mCRC reported from January 2000 to July 2013 was performed. Correlation coefficients weighted by number of patients in the treatment arms between median PFS, ORR and DCR with median OS were estimated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials reflecting 10 800 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median PFS and OS across all trials were 4.5 months and 11.5 months and median ORR and DCR were 11.4% and 65%, respectively. PFS showed moderate correlation with OS [RPFS = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.82]. In contrast, ORR only weakly correlated with OS (RORR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.72, n = 22). Despite a small number of studies (n = 10) reporting on DCR, moderate correlation with OS was observed (RDCR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Based on the available trial-level data, PFS may serve as an appropriate SEP in second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. A small number of studies revealed moderate correlation of DCR with OS that justifies further investigation.

Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil: a meta-analysis of published trials

AIM

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine that can effectively replace infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for treatment of colorectal, gastric and breast cancer. This study aims to analyze the incidence and the relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were reviewed for RCTs that compared capecitabine with 5-FU for treatment of solid malignancies. The incidence and relative risk (RR) of grade 3/4 diarrhoea were estimated for each arm in the overall population and in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies and 15,761 patients were included. Among these 8303 and 7458 patients received capecitabine or 5-FU based therapies, respectively. In the overall populations severe diarrhoea was reported in 16.6% (95% CI 15.8, 17.4) and in 12.7% (95% CI 11.9, 13.4) of patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU-based therapies, respectively. The RR was 1.39 (95% CI 1.14, 1.69, P = 0.0010). In 14,899 CRC patients, the incidence of severe diarrhoea was 17.0% (95% CI 16.2, 17.9) and 12.9% (95% CI 12.1, 13.7), respectively, with a RR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.18, 1.81, P < 0.0001). In CRC patients treated with combined chemotherapy, the RR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.07, 1.82; P = 0.01) for patients receiving oxaliplatin and 2.35 (95% CI 1.76, 3.13; P < 0.0001) for patients receiving irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with capecitabine is characterized by an increased risk of severe diarrhoea, mainly in patients affected by CRC and treated with polichemotherapy. Combination treatment with irinotecan doubles the risk over 5-FU.

S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated results from a phase 3 trial

Background

We report updated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data from a trial that compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) versus S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

This trial was a randomized, two-armed, non-inferiority phase 3 comparison of CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) versus SOX (S-1 40 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of PFS. Thus, a follow-up exploratory analysis of PFS and OS was performed.

Results

The intention to treat (ITT) population was comprised of 340 patients (SOX arm: 168 and CapeOX arm: 172). The updated median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.4-8.0) in the SOX group and 6.3 months (95% CI 4.9-6.7) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [0.66-1.04], p = .10). The median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI 15.3-23.0) in the SOX group and 18.4 months (95% CI 14.1-20.7) in the CapeOX group (HR, 0.86 [0.68-1.08], p = .19). Subgroup analyses according to principal demographic factors such as sex, age, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status, primary tumor location, measurability, previous adjuvant therapy, number of metastatic organs, and liver metastases showed no interaction between any of these characteristics and the treatment.

Conclusions

Updated survival analysis shows that SOX is similar to CapeOX, confirming the initial PFS analysis. Therefore, the SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

NCT00677443 and May 12 2008

Can grade 2 neutropenia predict the risk of grade 3 neutropenia in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy?

PURPOSE

Neutropenia is a major factor affecting continuation of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. In many clinical trials, a neutrophil count of >1500 is targeted for continuation; for a count of <1500, medication is commonly discontinued. However, there is no definitive evidence supporting the need for a neutrophil count of 1500 for continuation of chemotherapy. In the clinical trials that we conducted, we discontinued chemotherapy when the neutrophil count was <1000 (grade 3); for a count of 1000-1500 (grade 2), chemotherapy was continued. Therefore, even practical treatment uses the same setting. Our aim was to examine neutrophil counts during continuation of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients with counts of 1000-1500 and to assess the need for discontinuation of medication for neutrophil counts in this range. Moreover, we examined neutrophil counts during the previous course of chemotherapy when they fell below 1000.

METHODS

The study included 144 patients who received XELOX + bevacizumab therapy and XELOX therapy for advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty (20.8 %) patients had neutrophil counts of 1000-1500. One (3.3 %) of 30 patients had a neutrophil count of <1000 during the following course of chemotherapy. Moreover, among the patients with neutrophil counts of <1000, 27.3 % had counts of 1000-1500 during the previous course of chemotherapy and 72.7 % had counts of >1500.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, grade 2 neutropenia cannot predict the risk of grade 3 neutropenia. Continuation of chemotherapy in patients with neutrophil counts of 1000-1500 may be appropriate, and discontinuation of therapy is not always required.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups.

FINDINGS

Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26).

INTERPRETATION

Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference.

FUNDING

Genentech Inc.

Dose-intense capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab as first line treatment for metastatic, unresectable colorectal cancer: a multi-centre phase II study

BACKGROUND

Dose intense chemotherapy may improve efficacy with acceptable toxicity. A phase II study was conducted to determine the feasibility of a dose-intense two weekly schedule of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

49 patients with previously untreated mCRC were recruited. Nineteen received capecitabine (1750 mg/m(2) oral BD days 1-7)oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)i.v. day 1) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg i.v. day 1) using a 14-day cycle (C1750). Following toxicity concerns capecitabine was reduced to 1500 mg/m2oral BD (C1500) and 30 further patients recruited.

RESULTS

Over 80% of patients received at least 75% of planned chemotherapy doses over the first two cycles. At C1750 Grade 3 or higher toxicity occurred in 74% (95% CI 49% to 91%) and on C1500 in 70% (95% CI 51% to 85%). The median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI 4.7 to 8.7) for C1750 dose and 8.9 months (95% CI 4.1 to 12.4) for C1500. 3 treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose intense capecitabine and oxaliplatin with bevacizumab does not show additional efficacy and has potentially significant toxicity. Its use outside of clinical trials is not recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN41540878.

Isolated hepatic perfusion for patients with liver metastases

Up to 80% of colorectal, melanoma, and neuroendocrine liver metastases are unresectable due to excessive tumor burden. Isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) administers intensive therapy to the liver while limiting systemic toxicity and thus may have an important role in the management of unresectable liver metastases. This review s describes the development of IHP, initial clinical results, open and percutaneous IHP techniques, and contemporary long-term treatment outcomes. IHP with melphalan or tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) has been shown to achieve hepatic response rates of greater than 50% with progression-free survival of greater than 12 months among patients with refractory ocular melanoma liver metastases. The only series describing outcomes of IHP for neuroendocrine liver metastases notes an overall response rate of 50% and a median actuarial overall survival of 48 months after IHP treatment with melphalan or TNFα. The majority of studies that have evaluated IHP have been performed in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM). In aggregate, survival results from retrospective studies and phase I/II clinical trials suggest that IHP demonstrated no significant survival benefit compared with systemic chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy. In contrast, IHP does improve outcomes relative to that provided by second-line chemotherapy for CRCLM, with overall response rates of 60% and median duration of liver response of 12 months. Continued evaluation of IHP for unresectable liver metastases is necessary to establish its role in multidisciplinary treatment approaches.

Role of capecitabine in treating metastatic colorectal cancer in Chinese patients

The China Food and Drug Administration approved the use of capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in 2004. This paper reviews the available information of capecitabine in Chinese patients with mCRC, focusing on its effectiveness and safety against mCRC. Identification of all eligible studies was made by searching the PubMed and Wanfang database from 2000 to 2013. Published data examining various aspects of clinical response and tolerability with capecitabine alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic or biological agents for first- and second-line mCRC were examined. Capecitabine and its combination displayed high efficacy in Chinese patients with mCRC. Toxicities are generally manageable, and elderly patients can tolerate capecitabine well.

Seeing the forest through the trees: a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of combination chemotherapies used in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Combinations of fluoropyrimidines with oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a biologic agent are standard treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recent approvals of first-line cetuximab, second-line ziv-aflibercept, and regorafenib as salvage therapy have increased the complexity of the treatment armamentarium. To define optimal regimens, we systematically reviewed combination chemotherapy trials (N=83). Descriptive analyses focusing on fluoropyrimidine formulation, oxaliplatin vs irinotecan combinations, and compatibility with biologics indicated the following: infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) yielded better efficacy and safety than bolus 5-FU. Capecitabine had similar outcomes and better safety than 5-FU with oxaliplatin but not irinotecan. First-line oxaliplatin and irinotecan appeared equivalent. Antiangiogenics, such as bevacizumab and ziv-aflibercept, and epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab further improved efficacy. The treatment landscape for mCRC has become complex, and we are approaching individualized therapy based on predictive factors, including KRAS mutational status. Appropriate administration of chemotherapy/biologic combinations is critical.

New developments in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: potential place in therapy

In this review article we discuss the evolution of second-line treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The benefits of second-line chemotherapy have been established for some time, but in the last decade a number of trials have evaluated combinations of irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy with molecular-targeted agents; e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeting agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept), epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies (cetuximab, panitumumab), and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (vatalanib). Recent developments include the availability of the new VEGF-targeted agent aflibercept and the new concept of continuing bevacizumab after failure of first-line bevacizumab, which is likely to become a new treatment option in the second-line setting. Choosing the most appropriate second-line treatment regimen for mCRC patients remains a complex issue. All of the currently available molecular-targeted agents seem to be active even after patients have received a bevacizumab-based first-line regimen. Overall, the selection of second-line treatment for mCRC depends on several variables and should be determined taking into account the patient's performance and disease status.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a critical analysis

With a 3-fold increase in the number of cancer survivors noted since the 1970s, there are now over 28 million cancer survivors worldwide. Accordingly, there is a heightened awareness of long-term toxicities and the impact on quality of life following treatment in cancer survivors. This review will address the increasing importance and challenge of chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity, with a focus on neuropathy associated with the treatment of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, testicular cancer, and hematological cancers. An overview of the diagnosis, symptomatology, and pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy will be provided, with a critical analysis of assessment strategies, neuroprotective approaches, and potential treatments. The review will concentrate on neuropathy associated with taxanes, platinum compounds, vinca alkaloids, thalidomide, and bortezomib, providing clinical information specific to these chemotherapies.

Management of advanced colorectal cancer, Part 1

PURPOSE

Important developments in chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer over the past 15 years are reviewed, with an emphasis on the most recently published data from clinical trials of newer multidrug regimens, administration techniques, and dosing schedules.

SUMMARY

Eight agents are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Fluorouracil and leucovorin still constitute the foundation of most chemotherapy regimens for this population; combination fluorouracil-leucovorin therapy plus either irinotecan (the FOLFIRI regimen) or oxaliplatin (the FOLFOX regimen) are two firmly established first-line treatments shown to produce similar outcomes. In Phase III trials conducted over the past six to seven years, regimens of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOx) were demonstrated to have clinical effectiveness comparable to that of FOLFOX therapy. Response rates of 35-55% and median overall survival of ≥20 months have been documented with some of the newer regimens. Research to define the optimal role of the three monoclonal antibody agents approved by FDA for use in managing advanced colorectal cancer is ongoing; bevacizumab has been shown to confer significant survival benefits when added to certain chemotherapy regimens, and other monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab and panitumumab) also appear to offer significant benefits in select patients as first- or second-line therapies.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 15 years, a shift toward multiagent treatment strategies including a variety of chemotherapy agents and monoclonal antibodies has yielded improved rates of response and prolonged survival among patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The CapeOx, FOLFOX, and FOLFIRI regimens are currently among the most widely used first-line treatments.

Retrospective analysis of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

XELOX plus bevacizumab is an effective treatment strategy and has a manageable tolerability profile when administered to Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this study, we retrospectively reviewed cases in which XELOX plus bevacizumab were administered in order to evaluate its efficacy and safety in clinical practice. In total, 40 patients with mCRC who presented at Fuchu Hospital received XELOX plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment between September, 2009 and April, 2012. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed mCRC. XELOX consisted of a 2-h intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily for 2 weeks of a 3-week cycle. Overall survival (OS) and survival benefit were analyzed when patients continued with XELOX plus bevacizumab beyond disease progression. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 290 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 222-409 days] and the median OS was 816 days (95% CI: 490 days-not calculated). The response rate (RR; complete plus partial response) was 67.5%, and the disease control rate (RR plus stable disease) was 90%. The most common adverse events observed following administration of XELOX plus bevacizumab were neurosensory toxicity (82.5%), anorexia (50%), hypertension (45%) and a decrease in the platelet count (40%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neurosensory toxicity (15%) and fatigue (15%). In conclusion, XELOX plus bevacizumab may be considered a routine first-line treatment option for patients with mCRC. Notably, the combination of capecitabine and bevacizumab was safe with an acceptable toxicity profile and induced a significant rate of disease control.

Methods of overcoming treatment resistance in colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer remains a lethal disease with a poor prognosis in the majority of patients. Multiple drug combinations have been developed in recent years that have significantly improved response rates and overall survival however resistance to these drugs is inevitable. Novel agents are currently being developed and participation in clinical trials should be encouraged. In the absence of other treatment options in a patient with good performance status, there is compelling evidence for re-challenging with previously administered agents in different combinations. The aim of this review is to discuss mechanisms of resistance and methods to overcome treatment resistance in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are refractory to 5-FU, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, cetuximab and bevacizumab therapy.

Clinical dilemmas and a review of strategies to manage drug shortages

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this article are to review the clinical implications of drug shortages highlighting patient safety, sedation, and oncology and introduce an expanded phase approach for the management of drug shortages.

DATA SOURCES

Literature retrieval was accessed through a PubMed search of English-language sources from January 1990 through April 2012 using the medical subject heading pharmaceutical preparations/supply and distribution and the general search term drug shortages.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All original prospective and retrospective studies, peer-reviewed guidelines, consensus statements, and review articles were evaluated for inclusion. Relevance was determined considering the therapeutic class, focus on drug shortages, and manuscript type.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The increased number of drug shortages has created significant challenges for health care providers. Two particularly vulnerable populations are critically ill and oncology patients. A lack of therapeutic alternatives in critically ill patients may impact patient safety as well as treatment outcomes. Similarly, a chemotherapy agent in short supply may contribute to adverse outcomes in oncology patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The mounting number of drug shortages has created a health care crisis, requiring changes in management strategies as well as clinical practice. The expanded phased approach outlined here provides a consistent, systematic approach for the management of drug shortages.

A phase II study evaluating the feasibility of a 5-week cycle of S-1 plus irinotecan (IRIS) in patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

A number of clinical trials, including the FIRIS study, have shown that S-1 plus irinotecan (IRIS) is safe and effective in patients with colorectal cancer. Several different treatment protocols for IRIS are commonly used in Japan, besides the one used in the FIRIS study. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a 5-week cycle of IRIS.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2008, a total of 55 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled at nine centers in Japan. All patients received irinotecan intravenously (80 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 15 and S-1 orally (40-60 mg twice daily, according to body surface area) on days 1-21 of a 5-week repeated cycle.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 29.1 %. The response rate was 43.8 % in patients who received IRIS as first-line therapy and 23.1 % in those who received IRIS as second-line or subsequent therapy. The median survival time was 678 days (22.6 months). Adverse events of Grade 3 or higher that occurred at an incidence of ≥10 % were neutropenia (12.7 %) and diarrhea (10.9 %).

CONCLUSION

Our efficacy and safety data suggest that a 5-week cycle of IRIS is an effective alternative to used currently regimens.

Promoter CpG island hypermethylation of the DNA repair enzyme MGMT predicts clinical response to dacarbazine in a phase II study for metastatic colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) is a DNA repair protein removing mutagenic and cytotoxic adducts from O(6)-guanine in DNA. Approximately 40% of colorectal cancers (CRC) display MGMT deficiency due to the promoter hypermethylation leading to silencing of the gene. Alkylating agents, such as dacarbazine, exert their antitumor activity by DNA methylation at the O(6)-guanine site, inducing base pair mismatch; therefore, activity of dacarbazine could be enhanced in CRCs lacking MGMT. We conducted a phase II study with dacarbazine in CRCs who had failed standard therapies (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidines, and cetuximab or panitumumab if KRAS wild-type).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

All patients had tumor tissue assessed for MGMT as promoter hypermethylation in double-blind for treatment outcome. Patients received dacarbazine 250 mg/m(2) intravenously every day for four consecutive days, every 21 days, until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. We used a Simon two-stage design to determine whether the overall response rate would be 10% or more. Secondary endpoints included association of response, progression-free survival, and disease control rate with MGMT status.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were enrolled from May 2011 to March 2012. Patients received a median of three cycles of dacarbazine (range 1-12). Grades 3 and 4 toxicities included: fatigue (41%), nausea/vomiting (29%), constipation (25%), platelet count decrease (19%), and anemia (18%). Overall, two patients (3%) achieved partial response and eight patients (12%) had stable disease. Disease control rate (partial response + stable disease) was significantly associated with MGMT promoter hypermethylation in the corresponding tumors.

CONCLUSION

Objective clinical responses to dacarbazine in patients with metastatic CRC are confined to those tumors harboring epigenetic inactivation of the DNA repair enzyme MGMT.

Biweekly XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The combination of oxaliplatin and oral capecitabine (XELOX) has shown to be an active regimen in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). However, the experience with XELOX in elderly patients is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XELOX as first-line treatment in elderly patients with MCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥70years with previously untreated MCRC received oxaliplatin 85mg/m(2) on day 1, every 2weeks plus capecitabine 1000mg/m(2) (or capecitabine 750mg/m(2) if creatinine clearance was 30-50mL/min) twice daily on days 1-7, every 2weeks. Treatment was continued until progression, intolerable toxicity, or for a maximum of 12cycles.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were enrolled. Median age was 78years (range, 70-83). Patients received a median of 11cycles of treatment. The objective response rate (ORR) was 49% and the tumor control rate was 86%. Median time to progression and overall survival were 8.6 (95% CI: 5.5-11.7) and 15.5 (95% CI: 9.6-21.3) months, respectively. Toxicities were generally mild to moderate. Major grade 1-2 toxicities were asthenia (40%), nausea (43%), and diarrhea (40%). No grade 4 toxicity was detected and grade 3 toxicities were reported in 17% of patients. There was no treatment-related death.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that the biweekly XELOX regimen represents an effective and tolerable first-line treatment option for elderly patients with MCRC.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-based combination regimens in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: final results from a randomised phase II study of bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus irinotecan versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine plus irinotecan (FNCLCC ACCORD 13/0503 study)

BACKGROUND

The combination of bevacizumab and bolus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan is highly effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This randomised, multicenter, non-comparative phase II trial assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus oral capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) or infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy for patients with mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg on day 1 plus XELIRI (irinotecan 200mg/m(2) on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) bid on days 1-14) every 3 weeks or bevacizumab 5mg/kg on day 1 plus FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil 400mg/m(2) on day 1 plus 2,400 mg/m(2) as a 46-h infusion, leucovorin 400mg/m(2) on day 1, and irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1) every 2 weeks. Patients aged ≥ 65 years received a lower dose of capecitabine (800 mg/m(2) twice daily). The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were enrolled (bevacizumab-XELIRI, n=72; bevacizumab-FOLFIRI, n=73). The 6-month PFS rate was 82% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 71-90%) in the bevacizumab-XELIRI arm and 85% (95% CI 75-92%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFIRI arm. In both the bevacizumab-XELIRI and bevacizumab-FOLFIRI arms, median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 9 and 23 months, respectively. The most frequent toxicities were grade 3/4 neutropenia (bevacizumab-XELIRI 18%; bevacizumab-FOLFIRI 26%) and grade 3 diarrhoea (12% and 5%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomised non-comparative study demonstrates that bevacizumab-XELIRI and bevacizumab-FOLFIRI are effective regimens for the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC with manageable toxicity profiles.

Evaluation of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for survival in chemotherapy and targeted agent metastatic colorectal cancer trials

Pooled analyses of chemotherapy trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have suggested that progression-free survival (PFS) is a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS). However, this has not been evaluated under current standard-of-care regimens of chemotherapy in combination with targeted therapies. We conducted an analysis of published mCRC trials of chemotherapy and targeted therapies from 2000 to evaluate the surrogacy of PFS and response rate (RR) for OS. Study-level data was pooled from 24 randomized mCRC trials that evaluated fluoropyrimidine-based regimens and included trials conducted with targeted agents (panitumumab, cetuximab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept). A total of 69 treatment arms with a sample size of 20,438 patients was included. Linear regression analysis was carried out to estimate the correlation of PFS and RR with OS. The correlation coefficient between PFS HRs and OS HRs was 0.86 for all trials, 0.89 for 12 phase III trials of targeted agents in combination with chemotherapy, 0.95 for 8 first-line phase III trials of targeted agents, and 0.83 for 9 trials of anti-EGFR-targeted agents. In all cases, correlation coefficients between RR and OS HRs were lower than those between PFS HRs and OS HRs (range, 0.42-0.81). In this study-level analysis of randomized mCRC trials of chemotherapy and targeted agents, improvements in PFS are strongly correlated with improvements in OS. This suggests that PFS remains a valid surrogate endpoint for OS with current treatment regimens in the mCRC setting.

Decreased FANCJ caused by 5FU contributes to the increased sensitivity to oxaliplatin in gastric cancer cells

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin is effective against many types of cancer, and the combination of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and oxaliplatin is synergistically effective against gastric cancer, as well as colon cancer. The FANCJ protein is one of the Fanconi anemia (FA) gene products, and its interaction with the tumor suppressor BRCA1 is required for DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair. FANCJ also functions in interstrand crosslinks (ICLs) repair by linking to mismatch repair protein complex MLH1-PMS2 (MutLα). While oxaliplatin causes ICLs, 5FU is considered to cause DSBs. Therefore, we investigated the importance of FANCJ in the synergistic effects of oxaliplatin and 5FU in MKN45 gastric cancer cells and the derived 5FU-resistant cell line, MKN45/F2R.

METHODS

MKN1, TMK1, MKN45, and MKN45/F2R (5FU-resistant) gastric cancer cells were treated with 5FU and/or oxaliplatin. The signaling pathway was evaluated by a western blotting analysis and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Drug resistance was evaluated by the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-tetrazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay.

RESULTS

In MKN45 cells, the combination of 5FU and oxaliplatin had synergistic effects. DSBs appeared when the cells were treated with 5FU. FANCJ was down-regulated, and BRCA1 was induced in a dose- and time-dependent manner. MKN45 cells showed increased sensitivity to oxaliplatin when FANCJ was knocked down by short interfering (si) RNA. However, these findings were not observed in MKN45/F2R 5FU-resistant cells.

CONCLUSION

These results strongly suggest that the decrease in FANCJ caused by 5FU treatment leads to an increase in sensitivity to oxaliplatin, thus indicating that the FANCJ protein plays an important role in the synergism of the combination of 5FU and oxaliplatin.

Peripheral neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or capecitabine (XELOX): a prospective evaluation of 150 colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To report our prospective experience on the incidence and pattern of oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced peripheral neuropathy (OXA-IPN) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with either FOLFOX-4 or XELoda + OXaliplatin (XELOX).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty patients scheduled to be treated with either FOLFOX or XELOX for CRC were prospectively monitored at baseline and followed-up during chemotherapy. The incidence and severity of symptoms secondary to OXA-IPN were recorded using three different types of assessment, i.e. the motor and neurosensory National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria, version 3.0 (NCI-CTCv3), the clinical version of the total neuropathy score (TNSc) and electrophysiological scores.

RESULTS

Patients treated with either FOLFOX-4 or XELOX manifested similar incidence rates and severities of acute OXA-IPN. However, FOLFOX-4 was associated with increased incidence of chronic neurotoxicity, compared with XELOX-treated patients (n = 64/77 versus 44/73; P = 0.002), at a very similar OXA median cumulative dose during both regimens. Both the NCI-CTCv3 and TNSc demonstrated that the severity of cumulative OXA-IPN in FOLFOX-4-treated patients is higher than in those treated with XELOX.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of acute neurotoxicity during FOLFOX-4 therapy is similar to XELOX. However, it seems that FOLFOX-4 is more neurotoxic than XELOX in terms of cumulative OXA-IPN, despite comparable OXA cumulative dose.

S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) is one of the reference doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CapeOX with that of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX), a promising alternative treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) from 11 institutions in South Korea to receive either CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) or SOX (S-1 40 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1). Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks and continued for as many as nine cycles of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, except in instances of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a patient's refusal. Maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 or capecitabine was allowed after discontinuation of oxaliplatin. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence (stratified by primary sites, previous adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment, and the presence of measurable lesions). The primary endpoint was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00677443.

FINDINGS

Between May 14, 2008, and Sept 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 168 patients to receive SOX and 172 to receive CapeOX. Median PFS was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·6-9·3) in the SOX group and 6·7 months (6·2-7·1) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio, 0·79 [95% CI 0·60-1·04]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001, p(log-rank)=0·09). The upper limit of the CI was below the predefined margin of 1·43, showing the non-inferiority of SOX to CapeOX. We recorded a higher incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (49 [29%] vs 24 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (37 [22%] vs 11 [7%]), and diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs seven [4%]) in the SOX group than in the CapeOX group. The frequency of any grade of hand-foot syndrome was greater in the CapeOX group than it was in the SOX group (51 [31%] vs 23 [14%]).

INTERPRETATION

The SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Further investigation is needed to explore its potential when used together with other targeted agents or as adjuvant chemotherapy.

FUNDING

Korea Healthcare Technology Research and Development Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea.

Capecitabine-associated hand-foot-skin reaction is an independent clinical predictor of improved survival in patients with colorectal cancer

Background:

Hand–foot–skin reaction (HFSR) is an adverse event frequently observed during treatment with capecitabine (cape). In the present analysis, we sought to evaluate the potential association of HFSR and survival in German patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and locally advanced rectal cancer treated with cape in clinical trials.

Methods:

Patients of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Internistische Onkologie (AIO) KRK-0104 and the Mannheim rectal cancer trial were evaluated. HFSR was graded according to NCI-CTC criteria in both trials. Time to first occurrence of HFSR was described per cycle and HFSR developing during cycles 1 and 2 was defined as ‘early HFSR’. Baseline characteristics between the patient groups with or without HFSR were compared using Mann–Whitney-U, Fisher’s exact or χ²-test, as appropriate. Haematological and non-haematological toxicities observed in both groups were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) as well as overall survival (OS) data from both trials were pooled and the HFSR group was compared with the non-HFSR using Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results:

A total of 374 patients were included, of whom 29.3% developed any HFSR. Of these, 51% had early HFSR. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both HFSR groups concerning age, gender, ECOG performance status and UICC stage. On multivariate analysis none of these factors had influence on the occurrence of HFSR. The percentage of all-grade (and grade 3–4) haematological toxicities did not differ between both the groups. By contrast, patients exhibiting HFSR had a significantly higher rate of all-grade (but not grade 3–4) diarrhoea, stomatitis/mucositis and fatigue (P<0.01, respectively). Patients with HFSR had improved PFS/DFS (29.0 vs 11.4 months; P=0.015, HR 0.69) and OS (75.8 vs 41.0 months; P=0.001, HR=0.56). Within the HFSR group, PFS/DFS and OS were comparable between patients with early vs late HFSR.

Interpretation:

The present analysis provides evidence for the association of HFSR and survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Baseline characteristics, with the exception of UICC stage, older age and ECOG performance status, and the time of occurrence of HFSR had no impact on survival. Patients with HFSR had a higher probability of developing any-grade gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue while no correlation with haematological toxicity was found.

ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

Colon carcinoma in a child treated with oxaliplatin and antiangiogenic treatment regimens

Colorectal carcinoma is an extremely rare tumor in childhood. Therefore, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy has not been adequately evaluated in children leading to limited data on safety profile and treatment response after application of novel drugs and novel targeted agents. In this report, we describe a case of colon adenocarcinoma in a 13-year-old girl treated with standard adult treatment as well as novel targeted therapy. This case report illustrates initial good disease control with FOLFOX therapy. On the other hand, targeted therapy revealed no improvement in disease control and good safety profile without significant adverse effects.

The efficacy and safety of bevacizumab beyond first progression in patients treated with first-line mFOLFOX6 followed by second-line FOLFIRI in advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial (CCOG-0801)

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the planned continuation of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints of the study were overall survival (OS), survival beyond first progression (SBP), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.

Results

In the first-line setting, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7 %, DCR of 89.4 %, and median PFS of 13.1 months (95 % CI, 8.7–17.5 months). Thirty-one patients went on to receive a second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6 %, DCR of 62.1 %, and median PFS of 7.3 months (95 % CI, 5.0–9.6 months). Median 2nd PFS was 18.0 months (95 % CI, 13.7–22.3 months). The median OS and SBP were 30.8 months (95 % CI, 27.6–34.0 months) and 19.6 months (95 % CI, 13.5–25.7 months), respectively. No critical events associated with bevacizumab were observed during the second-line therapy.

Conclusion

The planned continuation of bevacizumab during a second-line treatment, BBP strategy, is feasible for the Japanese mCRC patients.

Differences in tissue degeneration between preoperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is administered to improve local control, but can also induce severe anal dysfunction after surgery, while preoperative chemotherapy that significantly reduces the primary lesion in rectal cancer has recently been developed. The aim of the study was to examine differences in the effects of preoperative CRT and chemotherapy on tissue degeneration of patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The subjects were 91 patients, including 68 with rectal cancer who underwent internal sphincteric resection with (n = 47, CRT group) or without (n = 21, control group) preoperative CRT, and 23 with colorectal cancer who received preoperative FOLFOX treatment. Peripheral nerve degeneration was evaluated histopathologically using H&E-stained sections, based on karyopyknosis, disparity of the nucleus, denucleation, vacuolar or acidophilic degeneration of the cytoplasm, and adventitial neuronal changes.

RESULTS

The incidence of neural degeneration was significantly higher in the CRT group than in the control group and FOLFOX group. There were no differences in any items of neural degeneration between the FOLFOX and control groups.

CONCLUSION

CRT induced marked neural degeneration around the rectal tumor. FOLFOX treatment produced mild neural degeneration similar to that in the control group.

Multicenter phase II study of second-line bevacizumab plus doublet combination chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressed after upfront bevacizumab plus doublet combination chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab beyond first progression combined with doublet chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This multicenter phase II study included 76 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressed after first-line bevacizumab plus doublet chemotherapy. Study treatment consisted of second-line continuation of bevacizumab plus crossover standard doublet chemotherapy, consisting of FOLFOX, CapeOX, or FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was administered in doses of 5 mg/kg/2-week or 7.5 mg/kg/3-week according to the schedules of the combined regimen.

RESULTS

Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 6.5 months (95 % CI, 5.2-7.8) and 12.8 months (95 % CI, 8.8-16.9), respectively, with no significant differences according to combined doublet chemotherapy. The response rate (RR) was 17.1 % (95 % CI, 8.6-5.6) with no statistical significance between regimens (p = 0.053). The first-line RR and PFS did not affect the second-line efficacy outcomes; RR (14.0 % vs 21.2 %, p = 0.405), median PFS (5.6 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.335), and OS (15.4 vs 11.0 months, p = 0.383) were not different between previous responders and non-responders, and the median PFS (p = 0.186) and OS (p = 0.495) were not different either according to the length of first-line PFS; however, OS from the first-line chemotherapy was longer in patients with longer first-line PFS (26.4 vs 14.8 months, p = 0.010). Bevacizumab-related significant adverse events included proteinuria (1.3 %) and thromboembolism (1.3 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab beyond first progression could be considered a treatment strategy even in patients progressed after first-line bevacizumab plus doublet chemotherapy. Second-line efficacy outcomes did not differ according to the first-line responses.

Phase I pharmacokinetic study of chronomodulated dose-intensified combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) in metastatic colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetic profile of a chronomodulated, dose-intensified regimen of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (XELOX) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Patients (N = 18) with 0 or 1 line of prior chemotherapy received oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 from 1400 to 1800 hours with escalating dose levels of capecitabine (2,500, 3,000, 3,500, 4,000, 4,500, and 5,000 mg) once daily taken at 2400 hours on days 1-5. Each cycle lasted 14 days.

RESULTS

The MTD of capecitabine was 4,500 mg. Transaminitis and anemia were the commonest non-hematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively. Toxicities were generally mild, with only five occurrences of grade 3 toxicity and none of grade 4. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, defined as specific grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurring in the first two cycles of treatment. The objective response rate was 33.3 %, and median overall survival was 16.3 months (95 % CI: 11.2-18.2 months). The maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC([0-∞])) of the capecitabine metabolites in our fixed-dosing chronomodulated regimen were comparable to values seen with comparably dose-intense regimens but associated with significantly reduced toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronomodulated dose-intensified XELOX facilitates delivery of dose-intense treatment in mCRC with a favorable therapeutic index that is promising.

Independent radiologic review in metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis addressing evaluation bias in local radiologic assessment (LRA) of lesions when compared with independent radiologic review (IRR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Web sites for major medical meetings were searched for RCTs of chemotherapy for metastatic CRC that reported response evaluation by both LRA and IRR. The risk ratios (RRs) of response in the experimental (RR(exp)) and control (RR(cont)) arms were calculated (response rate in LRA divided by response rate in IRR) for each selected study. The ratio of RR of response was calculated (RR of response of LRA divided by RR of response of IRR). The random-effects model was applied. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of study characteristics on outcomes.

RESULTS

LRA and IRR results were concordant (13 studies; 7742 patients; ratio of RR of response = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.90, 1.04; P = .35). However, LRA overestimated tumor response independently of therapy allocation (interaction test, P = .81) both in control (RR(cont), 1.163; 95% CI: 1.086, 1.246; P < .001) and experimental (RR(exp), 1.156; 95% CI: 1.093, 1.222; P < .001) therapies. Meta-regression did not show any effect of trial characteristics on effects.

CONCLUSION

LRA yields higher response rates in RCTs testing chemotherapy for metastatic CRC, although there was no sign of bias toward experimental therapy. The need for IRR to control evaluation bias must be reappraised.

Combination therapies with oxaliplatin and oral capecitabine or intravenous 5-FU show similar toxicity profiles in gastrointestinal carcinoma patients if hand-food syndrome prophylaxis is performed continuously

The use of anticancer drugs in palliative settings is often limited by their severe toxic effects. In gastrointestinal carcinomas the 5-fluorouracil-based palliative regimen FOLFOX-4 is often preferred to the equally effective, but more convenient oral capecitabine-based regimen XELOX. This preference is mainly based on the fact that the highly effective oral agent capecitabine induces hand-foot syndrome (HFS). In this study, we investigated whether the continuous administration of skin prophylaxis (10% urea, panthenol, bisabolol, vitamin A, C and E) is capable of protecting against capecitabine-induced HFS and allowing a more convenient oral therapeutic option. In this retrospective analysis, the toxicity profiles, according to NCI CTCAE 3.0 criteria, of 54 patients with gastrointestinal cancer who received either XELOX (34 patients) or FOLFOX-4 (20 patients) were compared using Fisher tests. The treatment protocols that were compared, herein, did not differ significantly in the majority of the analyzed items, with the exception of increased nausea (XELOX-70), fatigue (XELOX-130) and tumor pain (XELOX-70 and XELOX-130). No significant differences were observed among the various groups with regard to emesis, diarrhea, mucositis, exanthema, alopecia, loss of weight and the incidence of infections. In particular, no significant differences in toxicity levels occurred in terms of dose, and HFS was limited if skin prophylaxis was performed continuously. XELOX-based palliative regimens provide an equally effective and comparably toxic therapeutic alternative to FOLFOX-4 if HFS prophylaxis is performed continuously. Since the oral administration of capecitabine is a more convenient method of application, it provides patients with a quality of life-preserving therapeutic alternative.

Metastatic colorectal cancer: current treatment and future options for improved survival. Medical approach--present status

BACKGROUND

Metastatic colorectal cancer has a poor prognosis, and the majority of patients are left with palliative measures. The development seen using medical treatments are reviewed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic approach to the literature-based evidence of effects from palliative chemotherapy and targeted drugs was aimed at.

RESULTS

The continuous improvements during the past 20-25 years have been documented in several large conclusive trials. At the end of the 1980s, the evidence that chemotherapy should be used at all was very limited, whereas presently most patients can be offered three lines of chemotherapy with or without a targeted drug based upon good scientific evidence. Median survival in trials has gradually improved from about 6 months to above 24 months in the most recent trials. Survival in the populations has, however, not improved to the same extent. Several important issues remain to be solved, such as the best sequence of treatments, what regimens to use in various situations, when to start and when to stop if a response is seen, whether cure may be possible in a small subset of patients, and socioeconomic issues. Integration of surgery and other local methods have further improved outcome for some individuals, but must be fine-tuned.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress has been rapid in advanced colorectal cancer. This is likely a result of well-designed trials in collaboration between academy and industry, showing a great interest in the disease. A multi-professional approach and future collaborations may hopefully introduce new treatment concepts, further improving outcome.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study was to evaluate the curative effects and safety of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). We searched the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Ovid, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, EMBASE and conference proceedings for eligible trials. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. A total of 3,603 cancer patients from 7 trials were analyzed, and the baseline patient characteristics were comparable in all studies. Curative effect outcomes including complete response (CR) (OR=0.78; 95% CI 0.47-1.31; p=0.35), partial response (PR) (OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.65-1.00; p=0.05) and the overall response rate (ORR) (OR=0.85; 95% CI 0.71-1.02; p=0.08) showed similar curative effects between the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin group and the 5-FU plus oxaliplatin group. Moreover, the median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) had no statistically significant differences. Regarding safety, hand-foot syndrome was more frequently observed in the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin group (OR=2.71; 95% CI 2.04-3.61; p<0.00001), while stomatitis and neutropenia were reversed. Other toxic effects had no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Our results showed that capecitabine plus oxaliplatin had similar curative effects to 5-FU plus oxaliplatin, however, it was safer in patients with MCRC.

S-1 as a core anticancer fluoropyrimidine agent

INTRODUCTION

5-FU is a core anticancer agent for GI and other malignancies, and infusional 5-FU regimens have been widely utilized. Orally administrable fluoropyrimidine prodrugs have been developed to enhance the anticancer efficacy of 5-FU and to reduce its adverse reactions.

AREAS COVERED

S-1 is an FT-based oral 5-FU prodrug in combination with a DPD inhibitor (CDHP) and an OPRT inhibitor (Oxo), which exerts the following effects: i) maintaining normal gut immunity, Oxo can decrease GI toxicities of 5-FU; ii) sustaining high plasma 5-FU concentrations, Cmax of FBAL after S-1 administration is extremely low, which dramatically decreases adverse reactions such as HFS, neurotoxicities and cardiotoxicities; iii) plasma 5-FU concentrations vary less extensively after S-1 administration and iv) S-1 can be safely administered to patients with DPD deficiency. Furthermore, the alternate-day S-1 administration can reduce the GI toxicities and myelotoxicities of 5-FU without reducing its anticancer efficacy, enabling patients to continue the oral administration for 6 - 12 months.

EXPERT OPINION

Replacement of regimens with infusional 5-FU and other fluoropyrimidines by the alternate-day S-1 administration may be recommended because the latter procedure is efficient for patients while sustaining the enhanced anticancer efficacy of 5-FU and without reducing its dose intensity.

Adverse event profiles of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine: data mining of the public version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, AERS, and reproducibility of clinical observations

OBJECTIVE

The safety profiles of oral fluoropyrimidines were compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) using adverse event reports (AERs) submitted to the Adverse Event Reporting System, AERS, of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

After a revision of arbitrary drug names and the deletion of duplicated submissions, AERs involving 5-FU and oral fluoropyrimidines were analyzed. Standardized official pharmacovigilance tools were used for the quantitative detection of signals, i.e., drug-associated adverse events, including the proportional reporting ratio, the reporting odds ratio, the information component given by a Bayesian confidence propagation neural network, and the empirical Bayes geometric mean.

RESULTS

Based on 22,017,956 co-occurrences, i.e., drug-adverse event pairs, found in 1,644,220 AERs from 2004 to 2009, it was suggested that leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were more frequently accompanied by the use of 5-FU than capecitabine, whereas diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and hand-foot syndrome were more frequently associated with capecitabine. The total number of co-occurrences was not large enough to compare tegafur, tegafur-uracil (UFT), tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil potassium (S-1), or doxifluridine to 5-FU.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained herein were consistent with clinical observations, suggesting the usefulness of the FDA's AERS database and data mining methods used, but the number of co-occurrences is an important factor in signal detection.

[Metronomic chemotherapy in 2011: update and perspectives]

Angiogenesis is crucial for the growth and metastasis of many cancers. A series of new inhibitors of angiogenesis are now in intensive development. Recent preclinical studies suggest that frequent administration of certain conventional cytotoxic agents at low doses increases their putative antiangiogenic activity. Moreover, many clinical trials confirm efficacy of this metronomic chemotherapy in terms of clinical benefice and survival prolongation. Combining metronomic chemotherapy with hormonotherapy, angiogenesis inhibitors and radiotherapy increases efficacy. Many biomarkers are used to predict optimal drugs and appropriate use of them. This review describes experimental and clinical studies published and discuss its potential uses and limits.

Capecitabine in gastric cancer

Chemotherapy is an important part of treatment for patients with gastric cancer. Although there is no single globally accepted standard of care for patients with advanced disease, regimens typically include a fluoropyrimidine and a platinum compound with or without a third drug (usually epirubicin or docetaxel). Oral fluoropyrimidines, such as capecitabine, offer clear advantages to patients in terms of convenience, but it is only recently that comprehensive data on their efficacy and safety in patients with gastric cancer have become available. The present article reviews capecitabine in the treatment of advanced and resectable gastric cancer. Ongoing Phase III trials involving capecitabine are also discussed. The data show that capecitabine is now established as an integral part of the multi-agent regimens used in the management of patients with gastric cancers.

Does anti-EGFR therapy improve outcome in advanced colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) have reported conflicting results.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs comparing standard treatments±anti-EGFR MAbs was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were derived for patients with wild-type (WT) and mutant KRAS. Prespecified analyses were conducted for line of treatment, MAb used, chemotherapy regimen, and choice of fluouropyrimidine. Trials using bevacizumab on both arms were included in a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen eligible RCTs were identified, with results by KRAS status available for ten RCTs. For third line treatment, the effect of anti-EGFR MAbs depended on KRAS status (interaction p<0.00001), with a PFS benefit for patients with WT KRAS only (HR=0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.52, p<0.00001). For first and second line treatment, the effect also appeared to depend on KRAS status (interaction p=0.0003), again with the PFS benefit only for patients with WT KRAS (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, p<0.0001). Differences between trial results (heterogeneity p=0.02, I(2)=62%) were best explained by the fluouropyrimidine used, with PFS benefits confined to trials combining MAbs alongside 5FU-based chemotherapy (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.85, p<0.00001). There was no evidence of a PFS benefit when MAbs were given with bevacizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

For aCRC patients with WT KRAS, there are clear benefits of anti-EGFR MAbs in the third line and in the first and second line, when used alongside infusional 5FU-based regimens. However, there is no benefit for patients with KRAS mutations.

Chemotherapy: which drug and when?

The treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has become very complex due to: (i) the relative efficacy of therapy, which has turned a rapidly fatal cancer into a more indolent disease in the last 10 years; (ii) the availability of four active chemotherapeutic agents and three biologics; (iii) the efficacy of several lines of therapy; (iv) the rare, but real, chance of curing stage IV patients through the combined use of chemotherapy and surgery. This article will concentrate on chemotherapy (leaving out the biologics) and will review the determinants of how aggressive the initial approach should be, the key factors of our initial treatment choices, when an intense treatment is better than just waiting or using single-agent chemotherapy; which chemotherapy is best for first, second and subsequent lines of treatment.