Oxaliplatin combinations as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer

Diversity of dose-individualization and therapeutic drug monitoring practices of platinum compounds: a review

Introduction: Platinum-derived drugs are commonly used for the treatment of solid tumors. The differences in chemical structures of these molecules lead to different pharmacological properties, in terms of indication, efficacy, and toxicity. Their pharmacokinetics (PK) differ according to their respective renal elimination and have led to many studies investigating their dose optimization. Area covered: This review attempts to summarize and compare PK and pharmacodynamics of cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin, with an emphasis on differences of dose calculations and opportunities for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in various patient populations. Expert opinion: Although cisplatin and carboplatin can be considered as analogs since they share the same DNA interacting properties, the slower hydrolysis of the latter results in a better safety profile. Carboplatin is the only drug in oncology to be administrated according to a target area under the curve of concentration versus time, considering that its PK variability is almost fully explained by renal function, not by body size. This enables individual dosing based on predicted carboplatin clearance (along with patients renal characteristics) or on actual clearance with TDM, especially in a high-dose protocol.

Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

For patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer, palliative, systemic treatment can be started immediately, or can be delayed until disease-related symptoms occur. How the potential survival benefit of starting palliative, systemic treatment immediately after diagnosis weighs up against the potential side effects is currently under debate, and was investigated in this review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immediate versus delayed chemotherapy, with or without targeted therapy, on overall survival, toxicity, quality of life, progression-free survival, and compliance with chemotherapy for individuals with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 8, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to 23 August 2018. We did not apply limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that may not have been identified from the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in persons with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied standard methodological procedures, according to the recommendations of Cochrane and Cochrane Colorectal Cancer. Two review authors independently reviewed the studies identified by literature searches, selected relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias, Review Manager 5 software for meta-analysis, GRADE methods to evaluate the quality of the evidence, and GRADEpro GDT software to develop a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomised controlled trials (351 participants) investigating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in people diagnosed with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer. Giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.46; 3 studies, 351 persons; low-quality evidence). For toxicity, giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to the risk of grade 3 or 4 nausea and vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.25; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), stomatitis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.55; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), or diarrhoea (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40; 2 studies, 140 persons, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether delayed chemotherapy made a difference to quality of life (very low-quality evidence), progression-free survival (low-quality evidence), or compliance with chemotherapy (low-quality evidence), as we had insufficient data to pool for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a limited number of trials, very sparse data, and uncertainty of the evidence, this review was unable to establish whether there was a difference in overall survival or other clinically relevant outcomes, between immediate or delayed chemotherapy in persons with metastatic, incurable, colorectal cancer. The results should be interpreted with caution.