Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

Zytoprotektion mit Amifostin (Ethyol®) in der Chemotherapie: Meta-Analyse zum pharmakokinetischen Interaktionspotential mit Zytostatika.

The cytoprotective agent amifostine (AMI) is capable to protect healthy cells (contrary to tumor cells) due to higher activity of alkaline phosphatase at the membrane site of normal cells. In seven clinical trials the influence of AMI on the pharmacokinetics of different cytostatics was investigated. Preadministration of AMI increased Cmax of doxorubicin (+ 44 %, p < 0.06), epirubicin (+ 31 %, P < 0.08), mitomycin C (+ 41 %, p < 0.01) and docetaxel (+ 31 % and + 17 %, not significant). In contrary, the peak concentration of pirarubicin , the tetrahydropyranyl-prodrug of doxorubicin was decreased (- 50 %, P < 0.03), leading to an equal higher concentrationof doxorubicin in the blood . In accordance to the peak concentrations, the AUC'ast was increased by chemoprotection: doxorubicin + 53 % (p < 0.01) and epirubicin + 23 % (not significant), docetaxel + 25 % and + 31 % (not significant). AUC'ast of mitomycin C and paclitaxel seemed to be unaffected by preadministered AMI. A particular inhibition of the protein binding by AMI has been identified as one reason for higher serum concentrations of anthracycline drugs. After cytoprotection, a possible increase of the cytostatic's Serum concentrations should be taken into account for optimal dosage schedules.

Pharmacokinetics of capecitabine (Xeloda) in Japanese and Caucasian patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine (Xeloda) is a novel, oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate rationally designed to generate 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) preferentially in tumor tissue via a three-step enzymatic cascade. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites in Japanese and Caucasian cancer patients. METHODS: The study included 20 Japanese and 24 Caucasian patients with breast cancer. All patients received oral capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days, except for study day 1 when only the morning dose was administered. On study days 1 and 14, blood and urine samples were collected after administration of the first dose and at steady state for the evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites. The primary pharmacokinetic parameter was AUC(0-infinity ) of 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5'-DFUR) on day 14. The pharmacokinetic parameters in Japanese and Caucasian patients were compared using an ANOVA with calculation of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the geometric means. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed equivalence in the AUC of 5'-DFUR on day 14 with a ratio of 1.01 (90% CI 0.85-1.21). Similarly, no relevant influence of race on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine (5'-DFCR), or 5-FU was observed. Systemic exposure to alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL) was higher in Caucasian than in Japanese patients. On study day 14, both the AUC and the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of FBAL were increased by 47% and 33% in Caucasian patients and Japanese patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant differences in the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its key metabolites 5'-DFUR, 5'-DFCR, and 5-FU were found between Japanese and Caucasian patients. Plasma concentrations of FBAL were higher in Caucasian than in Japanese patients but this difference is not clinically relevant as FBAL has no antiproliferative activity and systemic exposure to FBAL does not correlate with the tolerability of capecitabine.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION: GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.