Toxic encephalopathy in elderly patients during treatment with capecitabine: literature review and a case report.

Capecitabine is now-a-days rapidly replacing 5-Fluorouracil in daily clinical practice. Neurologic toxicity during a treatment with fluoropyrimidines, as 5-fluorouracil, represents a well-known side-effect, largely described in literature. Central nervous system (CNS) toxicity, mainly encephalopathy with or without seizures, occurs occasionally even when conventional doses are used. CNS toxicity incidence increases markedly when the blood-brain barrier is either overwhelmed or bypassed (Hildebrand J. Neurological complications of cancer chemotherapy. Curr Opin Oncol 2006; 18: 321-324). Peripheral nervous system (PNS) toxicity is more common because proximal and distal extremities of the peripheral nerves are not protected by a blood-brain like barrier and peripheral neuropathy remains a major limiting factor for the administration of conventional doses of several agents (Saif W, Wood TE, McGee PJ and Diasio RB. Peripheral neuropathy associated with capecitabine, Anticancer Drugs 2004;15: 767-771). Capecitabine is a prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, more easily administered by mouth; its transformation in 5-fluorouracil is performed in the liver. There are only a few reports on the toxic neurological side-effects of capecitabine. We describe in our report a rare case of toxic encephalopathy in a 82-year-old female, with a brief review of literature. In the literature reviewed, we found 12 neurologic episodes due to capecitabine lasting between a few days till some months. All clinical symptoms of the cases described in literature, obtained a complete regression with the discontinuation of capecitabine. A relation was not found with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) mutation, also if pharmacologic and pharmacogenetic assessment should be done for this drug, especially in old patients. Toxic encephalopathy represents a rare event during capecitabine treatment and on the bases of the data found, is fairly managed in the clinical setting. The knowledge of the natural history of the toxic effect allows the use of the drug also in old patients.

Quality of life analysis of TORCH, a randomized trial testing first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The TORCH (Tarceva or Chemotherapy) trial randomized patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer to first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine versus. standard inverse sequence. The trial, designed to test noninferiority in overall survival, was stopped at interim analysis because of inferior survival in the experimental arm. Quality of life (QoL), a secondary outcome, is reported here. METHODS: QoL was assessed at baseline and every 3 weeks during first-line, using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 and QLQ-lung cancer specific module (LC13). Mean changes from baseline within arms were reported. QoL response and time-to-deterioration of QoL using a competing-risk approach were compared between treatment arms. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty patients (83%) completed baseline questionnaires. Compliance was affected by differential treatment efficacy, but was similar between arms for patients without progression or death. Significant differences in QoL responses were observed favoring chemotherapy for pain, sleeping, dyspnea, diarrhea, and favoring erlotinib for vomiting, constipation, sore mouth, and alopecia. In the small subset of patients with EGFR-mutated tumors, all selected items (global QoL, physical functioning, cough, dyspnea and pain) improved, whereas worsening or no change was observed in wild-type patients. Improvement was particularly evident in the first-line erlotinib arm as for global QoL and physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: QoL was impacted by differential toxicity and efficacy between arms. Functional domains and global QoL did not differ, although some symptoms were better controlled with chemotherapy in unselected non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

Carboplatin plus paclitaxel versus carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as first-line treatment for patients with ovarian cancer: the MITO-2 randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IC to IV ovarian cancer (age ≤ 75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2) were randomly assigned to carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus PLD 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks for six cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With 632 events in 820 enrolled patients, the study would have 80% power to detect a 0.80 hazard ratio (HR) of PFS. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned. Disease stages III and IV were prevalent. Occurrence of PFS events substantially slowed before obtaining the planned number. Therefore, in concert with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, final analysis was performed with 556 events, after a median follow-up of 40 months. Median PFS times were 19.0 and 16.8 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = .58). Median overall survival times were 61.6 and 53.2 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .32). Carboplatin/PLD produced a similar response rate but different toxicity (less neurotoxicity and alopecia but more hematologic adverse effects). There was no relevant difference in global quality of life after three and six cycles. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin/PLD was not superior to carboplatin/paclitaxel, which remains the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. However, given the observed CIs and the different toxicity, carboplatin/PLD could be considered an alternative to standard therapy.