Critical factors for optimizing the 5-fluorouracil-folinic acid association in cancer chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The 5-fluorouracil (FU)-folinic acid (FA) association has demonstrated clinical efficacy in colorectal cancer, both in adjuvant and metastatic situations. However, there is no clear consensus about the optimal FU-FA schedule and dose. In addition, it would be of interest to identify FU-FA-responsive tumors. DESIGN: Our purpose was to review preclinical and clinical data dealing with prediction of FU-FA sensitivity and optimization of FU-FA schedules. RESULTS: Preclinical studies have highlighted the importance of thymidylate synthase (TS), the cellular target of the FU-FA mechanism of action, for predicting FU sensitivity. It appears that the more sensitive cell lines express the lowest TS activity. Interestingly, the cell lines sensitive to FA supplementation are those more sensitive to FU. The role of TS in FU-FA responsiveness has been clearly demonstrated in patients with colorectal and gastric cancers. Preliminary in vitro and clinical data have shown that the folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS), the enzyme responsible for folate polyglutamylation, is another promising tool for identifying FU-FA-responsive tumors. So far, results of clinical trials do not form a clear consensus regarding the need to administer high FA doses for improving FU-FA treatment. Experimental studies on human cancer cell lines have demonstrated the wide variability among cell lines, ranging from 0.05 to 200 microns, of 1 FA concentrations required for maximal FU potentiation. In addition, pharmacokinetic studies have reported a significant variability of active folates in plasma after administration of standard-dose FA. Altogether, these observations favour high-dose FA administration to achieve high folate concentrations in plasma and thus to counteract the variability of the 1 FA concentrations required. With respect to the choice of FU-FA schedule, it appears from experimental data that increasing the duration of exposure to FA enhances FU-FA cytotoxicity, probably through an increased formation of reduced folate polyglutamate forms. Considering the S-phase specificity of FU cytotoxicity as well as its rapid elimination from plasma, a schedule of prolonged exposure to both FU and FA should be considered preferable. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the new FU-FA administration schedules such as the one consisting of a 2-hour FA administration followed by a combination of FU bolus and FU infusion, or the chronomodulated FU-FA infusion, open up promising approaches for improving the therapeutic index of FU-FA chemotherapy. Finally, future clinical studies should investigate tumoral parameters pharmacologically linked to FU-FA sensitivity such as pre-treatment TS and FPGS activities. Such tumoral investigations along with FU and FA pharmacokinetic investigations should provide a better understanding of inter-patient variability in response to FU-FA therapy and an optimal management of this chemotherapy regimen.