Tolerability of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 after hand-foot syndrome-related discontinuation of capecitabine in western cancer patients

Fluoropyrimidine-induced hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity: recommendations for the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are an essential part of the majority of systemic regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of the oral FP S-1 has been approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with or without bevacizumab, for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC in whom it is not possible to continue treatment with another FP due to hand-foot syndrome (HFS) or cardiovascular toxicity (CVT). Subsequently, this indication has been included in the 2022 ESMO guidelines for metastatic CRC. Recommendations for use in daily practice are not available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Based on peer-reviewed published data on the use of S-1 in Western patients with metastatic CRC who switched from infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine to S-1 for reasons of HFS or CVT, recommendations for its use were formulated by an international group of medical oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic CRC and a cardio-oncologist.

RESULTS

In patients who experience pain and/or functional impairment due to HFS during treatment with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU, a switch to S-1 is recommended without prior dose reduction of capecitabine/5-FU. S-1 should preferably be initiated at full dose when HFS has decreased to grade ≤1. In patients with cardiac complaints, in whom an association with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU treatment cannot be excluded, capecitabine/5-FU should be discontinued and a switch to S-1 is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should guide clinicians in daily practice in the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with FP-containing regimens.

Systematic review and non-inferiority meta-analysis of randomised phase II/III trials on S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine that is increasingly used in Western countries for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a non-inferiority meta-analysis on the efficacy of S-1-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)- or capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of patients with mCRC.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Opengrey were searched for randomised clinical trials until May 2021. Data were extracted for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Pooled effect estimates, stratified by treatment line, with corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. For PFS, a pre-defined non-inferiority margin (ΔNI) of 1.25 was selected.

RESULTS

Ten studies (n = 2117) were included, of which six studies reported PFS and OS data and 10 studies reported ORR data. S-1-based therapy was shown to be non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of PFS (HRtotal 0.95, 99% CI 0.83-1.08) with its CI upper limit well below ΔNI, and at least as efficacious in terms of OS (HRtotal 0.93, 99% CI 0.81-1.07), and ORR (RRtotal 1.06, 99% CI 0.90-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

S-1-based therapy is non-inferior to 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in the treatment of mCRC regarding PFS and at least as efficacious as 5-FU/capecitabine-based therapy in terms of ORR and OS. These data support the use of S-1 in mCRC patients who are intolerant to 5-FU/capecitabine-based treatment.

Biweekly Raltitrexed Combined With Irinotecan as Second-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase II Trial

Objective

Irinotecan-based doublet chemotherapy strategy was standard second-line backbone for patients with oxaliplatin-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan biweekly administered as the second-line therapy for mCRC patients.

Methods

The study was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized, open-label phase II clinical trial. Patients with mCRC after failure with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine or its derivatives were enrolled. Irinotecan (180 mg/m²) and raltitrexed (2.5 mg/m²) were given intravenously on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Between December 2012 and October 2016, 33 and 35 patients enrolled were assessed for response and safety, respectively. The ORR was 8.6%, and the DCR was 71.4%. The median PFS was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.8-5.2). The median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.5-15.5). Four patients received conversion therapy to no evidence of disease (NED), and 2 patients were still alive with beyond 24 months survival. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were anorexia (14.3%), vomiting (14.3%), nausea (11.4%), fatigue (8.6%), and leukopenia (8.6%). No one died from treatment-related events. The incidence and severity of toxicity were irrelevant to UGT1A1 status.

Conclusions

The combination of irinotecan with raltitrexed is an efficient, convenient, and acceptable toxic regimen for second-line treatment for mCRC patients.

Management of cytotoxic chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome

Improvements in systemic cancer treatments have resulted in more patients surviving for prolonged periods of time on treatment. This has made treatment-related toxicity and quality of life concerns increasingly relevant. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common skin reaction to systemic therapy that should be anticipated with chemotherapeutic treatments such as pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, docetaxel, and fluoropyrimidines. In this review we discuss current knowledge of the diagnosis, incidence, pathogenesis, and management of hand-foot syndrome (HFS). Although HFS is not life threatening, it can cause significant discomfort and impairment of function, especially in elderly patients, and may seriously impact quality of life. The incidence of HFS is dependent on the chemotherapeutic drug used, the treatment schedule, and the median duration of treatment. Effective measures for prevention and treatment of HFS include systemic and topical treatments, dose reductions, and switching to other drugs in the same class that are associated with lower rates of HFS. These approaches allow patients to continue cancer treatment while reducing negative impacts on quality of life. Awareness and early recognition are important to ensure timely treatment and avoidance of dose reductions or treatment discontinuation. We provide useful recommendations to guide the management of HFS in clinical practice.

S-1 in Patients with Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Results from the Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) Study

Background and Objectives

S-1-based regimens have been shown to be as effective as other fluoropyrimidine-based regimens with a better safety profile in patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. However, real-world data on S-1 in European patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma are lacking. The Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) study evaluated safety and relative dose intensities for patients treated with S-1-based regimens for advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma as part of daily practice.

Methods

Overall, data for 125 patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were collected at 21 centers in five countries in Europe. Demographics, treatment, and adverse-event data were recorded over a planned treatment of six cycles.

Results

Most patients (87%) received combination treatment of S-1 plus a platinum compound. Adverse events related to S-1 treatment were mostly grade 1 or 2 while reported grade 3–4 serious adverse events related to S-1 occurred in 12 patients and were most often grade 3 neutropenia (n = 4, 3.2%) or diarrhea (n = 5, 4%). The most common adverse events of any grade that were attributable to S-1 treatment included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. No patients experienced mucositis, dehydration, or febrile neutropenia, whereas 2% (3/125) of patients experienced hand-foot syndrome.

Conclusion

The overall relative dose intensity was 70%. In a real-world setting, patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma tolerated S-1 treatment well with high compliance rates. The SCOOP study provides valuable information on S-1 relative dose intensity that can be used for treatment decision making.

Oral chemotherapy for second-line treatment in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

There is no standard therapy for second-line treatment of gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients with poor performance status. A combination of chemotherapy drugs 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan can be considered as second-line treatment for such patients; however, due to toxicity, none of the regimens are recommended for patients with poor performance. Capecitabine or S-1 has relatively low toxicity and can be considered a treatment option for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of oral chemotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had progressive disease after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed between January 2011 and December 2018. They were treated with capecitabine or S-1 as the second-line treatment. Capecitabine was administered as a 2500 mg/m² divided dose on days 1-14, followed by a 1-wk rest. S-1 was taken orally based on the patient’s body surface area for 28 d, followed by 2-wk of rest. Progression-free survival and overall survival were used to compare efficacy of capecitabine and S-1.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients, 41 were treated with capecitabine and 40 with S-1. The median time to treatment failure in both groups was 1.5 mo (P = 0.425). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 9.8% with capecitabine and 2.5% with S-1 (P = 0.359). Median progression-free survival was longer in the S-1 group than in the capecitabine group (S-1 2.7 mo, capecitabine 2.0 mo, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the median overall survival between the capecitabine and S-1 groups (4.3 mo vs 5.0 mo, P = 0.092). Grade 3 or 4 hand-foot syndrome was significantly more common in the capecitabine group than in the S-1 group (14.6% vs 0%, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine or S-1 can be used as a second-line treatment for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with poor performance status after progression to a gemcitabine-based regimen.

Randomized study comparing full dose monotherapy (S-1 followed by irinotecan) and reduced dose combination therapy (S-1/oxaliplatin followed by S-1/irinotecan) as initial therapy for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: NORDIC 9

Background

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a disease of older age, but there is a relative lack of knowledge about effects of chemotherapy in older patients as they are under-represented in clinical trials. Little data can guide whether the strategy in older mCRC patients should be a sequential full-dose monotherapy chemotherapy approach or a dose-reduced combination chemotherapy approach. The oral 5FU prodrug S-1 seems to have less side effects than capecitabine and should be an optimal drug for older patients, but few data are available. Improved geriatric assessments are needed to select which older patients should receive therapy.

Methods

The NORDIC 9 trial is a Nordic multicenter randomized phase II study comparing full dose monotherapy (S-1 30 mg/m² twice daily days 1–14 every 3 weeks, followed by second line irinotecan 250–350 mg/m² iv day 1 every 3 weeks or 180–250 mg/m² iv day 1 every 2 weeks) with reduced dose combination therapy (S-1 20 mg/m² days 1–14 + oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² iv day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by second line S-1 20 mg/m² days 1–14 + irinotecan 180 mg/m² day 1 every 3 week) for older patients (≥70 years) with mCRC who are not candidates for full-dose standard combination therapy. Additional bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) is optional in first-line. Blood samples and tumor tissue will be collected to investigate predictive markers. Geriatric screening tools (G-8, VES-13, Timed-Up-and-Go and Handgrip strength), Charlson Comorbidty Index and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) will be evaluated as predictors of efficacy and toxicity. The target sample size is 150 patients.

The primary endpoint is progression-free survival and secondary endpoints are time-to-failure of strategy, overall survival, response rate, toxicity, and correlations between biomarkers, pre-treatment characteristics and geriatric assessments.

Discussion

The study will add knowledge on how to treat older mCRC patients who are not candidates for standard combination therapy. Furthermore it may provide understanding of efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in older cancer patients and thus offer a better chance for tailored treatment strategies in these patients.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT no. 2014–000394-39. Registered 05 May 2014.