Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy

'If it almost kills you that means it's working!' Cultural models of chemotherapy expressed in a cancer support group

It has long been recognised that cancer is an extraordinarily culturally charged disease. However, while studies have provided valuable insights into the embodied experience of cancer, far less research exists on cancer patients' and survivors' perceptions of the treatments they receive and the meanings they assign to these treatments. This paper focuses specifically on chemotherapy--a highly feared form of treatment that is often popularly depicted to be worse than the experience of cancer itself. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork over an 8-month period at a cancer support group in western Canada, this article explores patient perceptions of adjuvant chemotherapy. I argue that a widespread cultural model of chemotherapy exists that emphasises the value of suffering as a means of tracking treatment effectiveness and the possibility of cure. However, this framework diverges from biomedical understandings of treatment in important respects, with implications for patient anxiety levels during treatment and their subjective assessments of the future risk of recurrence. Overall, research findings highlight the need to pay closer attention to the meanings patients assign to cancer treatments and call for further research in this area.

Randomised trial comparing biweekly oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine versus oxaliplatin plus i.v. bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology study 0401

PURPOSE

Oxaliplatin combined with either fluorouracil/leucovorin (OXAFAFU) or capecitabine (OXXEL) has a demonstrated activity in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We aimed at comparing these two regimens in terms of response rate (RR), safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life (QoL) of patients.

METHODS

A total of 322 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized to receive biweekly: oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily from day 1 to day 11 (OXXEL); or oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1; 6S-leucovorin 250 mg/m(2) i.v. and fluorouracil 850 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 2 (OXAFAFU).

RESULTS

Eleven complete and 42 partial responses were registered with OXXEL (RR = 34%); six complete and 48 partial responses were obtained with OXAFAFU (RR = 33%) (P = 0.999). Severe adverse events were less frequent (32 vs. 43%) with OXXEL, which also reduced the occurrence of severe neutropenia (10 vs. 27%) and febrile neutropenia (6 vs. 13%), but produced more gastric side effects (8 vs. 3%) and diarrhea (13 vs. 8%). QoL did not differ across the two arms. Median PFS was 6.6 months in the OXXEL, and 6.5 months in the OXAFAFU arm (HR = 1.12, P = 0.354). Median overall survival was 16.0 and 17.1 months (HR = 1.01, P = 0.883).

CONCLUSIONS

OXXEL and OXAFAFU regimens were equally active in metastatic colorectal cancer. The choice should be based on patient preference and on pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

Severe sequence-specific toxicity when capecitabine is given after Fluorouracil and leucovorin

PURPOSE

Options for single-agent fluoropyrimidine adjuvant therapy after bowel cancer resection include intravenous fluorouracil with leucovorin (FU/LV) or oral capecitabine. These treatments have similar efficacy but differ in convenience and toxicity. We therefore wished to compare their overall acceptability to patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled for adjuvant single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly FU/LV (425 mg/m(2) FU, 45 mg LV) for 6 weeks, followed by two 3-week cycles of capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1 through 14), or the same treatments but in reverse order. After 12 weeks, the patients were asked which treatment they preferred, and received the preferred treatment for an additional 12 weeks. The primary end point was patient preference.

RESULTS

After 40 of the planned 74 patients had been randomly assigned, real-time adverse event monitoring led to early trial closure because of excess sequence-specific toxicity. Eleven of 14 patients (79%) receiving capecitabine as their second treatment experienced grade >/= 3 toxicity. This compared with five of 18 patients (28%) receiving capecitabine as the first treatment, and no patients receiving FU/LV as the first treatment (zero of 16) or the second treatment (zero of 12). Similar imbalances were seen in the proportion of patients requiring interruption of treatment.

CONCLUSION

In chemotherapy-naïve patients, capecitabine produced more toxicity than FU/LV, but at levels in line with previously reported data. However, treatment with capecitabine after FU/LV caused markedly increased toxicity, indicating a sequence-specific interaction. The mechanism has not been determined, but interaction with intracellularly retained folate after FU/LV therapy is a possibility. Oncologists need to be aware of this risk if considering crossing patients over from FU/LV to capecitabine-based regimens.

Predictive factors for efficacy of capecitabine in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate what clinical factors affect the efficacy, time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) of oral capecitabine monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

A total of 102 consecutive patients with MBC who had been administered capecitabine monotherapy between June 2003 and August 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Capecitabine (828 mg/m(2)) was given twice daily for 3 weeks followed by a 1-week rest period; this was repeated every 4 weeks. We evaluated the potential clinical factors for TTF and OS, using univariate analysis (log-rank test) and the multivariate Cox regression model. Median follow-up was 16.9 months.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (98%) had been pretreated with either anthracyclines or taxanes, and 81 patients (79%) with both anthracyclines and taxanes. Response rate was 17% and clinical benefit rate was 41%. Median TTF and OS were 4.9 and 24.3 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that no liver metastasis (P = 0.015), good performance status (P = 0.033), longer disease-free interval (P = 0.036), and hormone receptor-positive tumor (P = 0.038) were significant for TTF. No liver metastasis (P = 0.00012), objective response to capecitabine (P = 0.00084), and good performance status (P = 0.0011) were significant for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine monotherapy is effective over the long term for heavily pretreated patients with MBC who have no liver metastasis, good performance status, longer disease-free interval, or hormone receptor-positive tumor. Patients who have no liver metastasis, who respond to capecitabine, or who have good performance status are expected to survive even longer.

Pulmonary gemcitabine delivery for treating lung cancer: pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury aspects in animals

Gemcitabine, a nucleoside analogue for treating lung cancer, is clinically administered as an intravenous infusion. To achieve better patient compliance and more direct effect on the lung, we explored a new gemcitabine pulmonary delivery route and evaluated the pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury aspects in animals. Pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine were measured in Sprague-Dawley rats after intravenous (i.v.), intratracheal instillation by tracheotomy (i.t.t.), intratracheal instillation via orotrachea (i.t.o.), and intragastric (i.g.) administration of gemcitabine. Acute lung injury effects of the pulmonary delivery of gemcitabine were performed in Sprague-Dawley rats after i.t.o. and i.v. administration of gemcitabine and i.t.o. administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) as a positive control and physiological saline as a blank control. Indicators for acute lung injury that were evaluated included lung morphology, lung histopathology, lung coefficient, lung wet/dry weight ratio, total cell and classification counts in bronchoalveolar lavage cells (BALC), and total protein and TNF-alpha levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF). After i.t.t. or i.t.o. administration, gemcitabine was quickly absorbed, but i.g. administration led to an undetectable plasma gemcitabine concentration. Absolute bioavailability of gemcitabine after i.t.t. and i.t.o. administration was 91% and 65%, respectively. Gemcitabine given as i.t.o. administration did not cause any overt acute lung injury. All indicators for acute lung injury in the i.t.o. group were similar to those in the i.v. group or in the blank control, but significantly different from those in the positive control. In conclusion, the pharmacokinetics and acute lung injury studies suggest that pulmonary gemcitabine delivery would be a new and promising administration route.

Redefining adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer: X-ACT trial

The current standard adjuvant chemotherapy for suitable patients with stage III colon cancer is the combination of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (5-FU/LV). However, until recently and for many years prior to this, the accepted standard adjuvant chemotherapy was 6-8 months of bolus 5-FU/LV. However, bolus treatment was associated with significant toxicity, namely stomatitis, diarrhea and neutropenia, in addition to multiple hospital visits for drug administration for patients. The X-ACT trial (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Therapy) compared traditional bolus 5-FU/LV (as per the Mayo Clinic regimen) with capecitabine, in the adjuvant treatment of 1987 stage III colon cancer patients. The main safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomic results have all been published, and the updated 5-year efficacy results have also recently been presented. This trial demonstrated that capecitabine was at least as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of disease-free and overall survival, with trends towards superiority for both. Moreover, there was much less toxicity associated with capecitabine, apart from hand-foot syndrome which was significantly more prevalent. On the basis of the X-ACT trial, capecitabine was approved by the US FDA, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium as monotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer.

Switching to letrozole or exemestane improves hot flushes, mood and quality of life in tamoxifen intolerant women

We report an open-label, prospective, crossover study involving 184 post-menopausal women experiencing hot flushes on adjuvant tamoxifen (T). Six weeks after switching to an AI, the primary end point, hot flush score, improved by 47.3% (P<0.001) compared to those reported on T. The mean mood rating scale (MRS) score improved by 9.7% (P=0.01). The total mean combined FACT (b+es) score improved from 134.2 (95% CI +/-2.96) to 143.5 (95% CI +/-2.96 <0.001), and the endocrine subscale improved by 9.8% from 51.73 (95% CI +/-1.38) to 57.34 (CI +/-1.38, P<0.001). At 6 weeks, significantly more women chose to remain on an AI: 133 (72%), vs 40 (22%) (P<0.001) preferring T. At 3 months, 107 (58%) preferred to remain on an AI, 55(30%) on T, and 22 (12%) withdrew. The overall arthralgia rate at 3 months was 47% on AI and 30% on T (P=0.001). In all 182 (99%) women reported appreciating the opportunity to experience both drugs. These data suggest that if patients suffering significant adverse effects on T are given the opportunity to try an AI, this empowers them to prioritize relative side-effects, improving wellbeing in a significant proportion. These data also highlight the need for hospital follow-up in this intolerant cohort.

UFT (tegafur-uracil) in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Major achievements in the treatment of localised rectal cancer include the development of total mesorectal excision and the perioperative administration of radiotherapy in combination with continuous infusion (CI) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). This multimodal approach has resulted in extended survival and lower local relapse rates, with the potential for sphincter-preserving procedures. However, CI 5-FU is inconvenient for patients and is costly. Oral fluoropyrimidines like UFT (tegafur-uracil) offer a number of advantages over 5-FU.

METHODS

We undertook a review of published articles and abstracts relating to clinical studies of UFT in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Pre- and postoperative studies carried out in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were included.

RESULTS

The combination of UFT and radiotherapy was effective and well tolerated in the preoperative setting, while adjuvant UFT improved survival and reduced distant relapse compared with surgery alone. The efficacy of UFT appears comparable with that of 5-FU and capecitabine and its side-effect profile is favourable.

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience to date suggests that UFT is a valuable treatment option for the perioperative treatment of LARC. Further improvements in patient outcomes may result from the combination of UFT with targeted agents.

Randomized cross-over study of patient preference for oral or intravenous vinorelbine in combination with carboplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC

BACKGROUND

Most chemotherapeutics are administrated intravenously (iv), but some are also available in an oral (po) formulation. This study was designed with the primary objective to estimate the patients' preference for po or iv vinorelbine in combination with carboplatin for the palliative treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Secondary aims were to evaluate toxicity, efficacy, and subjective reasons the preference.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-one patients were randomized in a cross-over trial to two cycles of carboplatin day 1 and vinorelbine day 1 and day 8 iv followed by two cycles of carboplatin and vinorelbine po, or the opposite. Patients, who did not show progressive disease after four cycles, had a free choice of iv or po vinorelbine for the next two cycles.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were evaluable for preference and 32 (74%, 95% CI 61-88%) chose po (p<0.001). The response rate was 23% and median survival 11.4 months. Patients with preference for po treatment stated that side effects were less with capsules and that daily life was less affected by capsules.

CONCLUSION

Three out of four patients preferred oral vinorelbine. Clinical outcomes were comparable to other combination chemotherapy regimens for NSCLC.

Capecitabine vs continuous infusion 5-FU in neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer. A retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is concurrent neo-adjuvant chemo-radiation using infusional 5-fluorouracil (CIV-5-FU). Capecitabine (CAP) offers a convenient oral replacement for CIV-5-FU. There is no randomized trial comparing infusional 5-FU to capecitabine. We retrospectively compared the safety and efficacy of CAP-based regimens with well-established CIV-5-FU-based regimens in LARC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected published data on 542 patients treated on either CIV-5-FU (197) or CAP (345) with concurrent radiation (external radiation treatment, XRT) for LARC. This included Phase I or II studies published or available from Pubmed. Safety was assessed by determining proportion of patients who experienced grade III/IV adverse effects. Efficacy was assessed by determining pathological complete response (pCR). Chi-square tests were used to compare the two regimens. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical tests were further corrected for multiplicity using the method of Benjamini and Yekutieli (Ann Stat, 29(4):1165-1188, 2001).

RESULTS

pCR was significantly higher in patients getting CAP vs CIV-5-FU (25 vs 13%; P = 0.008,.P adj = 0.034). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. There was no grade IV toxicity reported. Grade III hand foot syndrome was more common in the CAP group, and grade III diarrhea was more common in the CIV group.

CONCLUSIONS

CAP when compared to CIV seems to have superior efficacy with reasonable toxicities. It is reasonable to treat LARC with CAP + XRT.

Cost consequences of adjuvant capecitabine, Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens for stage III colon cancer in the French setting

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare the cost consequences of oral capecitabine and two different intravenous regimens of 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (de Gramont and Mayo Clinic regimens) as adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer in France.

METHODS

Clinical efficacy and safety data were taken from published clinical trials. Medical resource use was estimated from published data and expert opinion. Direct costs (drug acquisition, inpatient and home drug administration, laboratory tests, transportation, and management of adverse events) were considered over a time horizon of 46 months (3.8 years). The perspective taken was that of the French Sickness Funds.

RESULTS

In patients treated with capecitabine, relapse-free survival was 1.3 months longer than with the Mayo Clinic regimen, which has been shown to be as effective as the de Gramont regimen. In the base case analysis, capecitabine was less costly (3,654 EUR/patient) than the Mayo Clinic (10,481 EUR/ patient) and de Gramont (7,204 EUR/patient) regimens. In the sensitivity analysis, capecitabine remained dominant except when the intravenous regimens were assumed to be administered at home in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In France, capecitabine is more effective and less costly than both the Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens as adjuvant therapy for colon cancer.

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

We evaluated capecitabine (an oral fluoropyrimidine) and oxaliplatin (a platinum compound) as alternatives to infused fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, for untreated advanced esophagogastric cancer.

METHODS

In a two-by-two design, we randomly assigned 1002 patients to receive triplet therapy with epirubicin and cisplatin plus either fluorouracil (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or triplet therapy with epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either fluorouracil (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). The primary end point was noninferiority in overall survival for the triplet therapies containing capecitabine as compared with fluorouracil and for those containing oxaliplatin as compared with cisplatin.

RESULTS

For the capecitabine-fluorouracil comparison, the hazard ratio for death in the capecitabine group was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99); for the oxaliplatin-cisplatin comparison, the hazard ratio for the oxaliplatin group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10). The upper limit of the confidence intervals for both hazard ratios excluded the predefined noninferiority margin of 1.23. Median survival times in the ECF, ECX, EOF, and EOX groups were 9.9 months, 9.9 months, 9.3 months, and 11.2 months, respectively; survival rates at 1 year were 37.7%, 40.8%, 40.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. In the secondary analysis, overall survival was longer with EOX than with ECF, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.80 in the EOX group (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.02). Progression-free survival and response rates did not differ significantly among the regimens. Toxic effects of capecitabine and fluorouracil were similar. As compared with cisplatin, oxaliplatin was associated with lower incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, alopecia, renal toxicity, and thromboembolism but with slightly higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51678883 [controlled-trials.com].).

Medical resource use and cost of different first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. The availability of new chemotherapeutic agents have modified the treatment of mCRC over the years creating the need to evaluate the financial impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to establish and quantify the financial resources needed during the first-line treatment of mCRC in Brazil.

METHODS

The authors began by reaching expert consensus using a modified Delphi panel with oncologists working at public and private services in Brazil. Costs were calculated using official databases and the microcosting technique.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on six regimens used in the first-line treatment of mCRC, as well as the resources involved in the administration of these regimens. All the regimens contain either fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin or capecitabine, combined with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. The analysis showed that, when compared with intravenous 5-FU/leucovorin, the cost of capecitabine was offset by administration costs.

CONCLUSION

The panel concluded that regimens containing capecitabine, especially capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) are less expensive than those containing 5-FU/leucovorin. Given the comparable efficacy and good tolerability of the XELOX regimen, it may be an attractive choice for the first-line treatment of Brazilian patients with mCRC.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Randomized Trial Comparing Oral Uracil and Tegafur and Oral Leucovorin Vs. Intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin

PURPOSE

To compare, in a randomized trial, 5-fluorouracil (FU) plus leucovorin (LV) (FU+LV) vs. oral uracil and tegafur (UFT) plus LV (UFT+LV) given concomitantly with preoperative irradiation in patients with cT3-4 or N+ rectal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 155 patients were entered onto the trial. Patients received pelvic radiotherapy (4500-5,040 cGy in 5 to 6 weeks) and chemotherapy consisting of two 5-day courses of 20 mg/m(2)/d LV and 350 mg/m(2)/d FU in the first and fifth weeks of radiotherapy (77 patients) or one course of 25 mg/d oral LV and 300 mg/m(2)/d UFT for 4 weeks beginning in the second week of radiotherapy (78 patients). The primary endpoints were pathologic complete response (pCR) and resectability rate. Secondary endpoints included downstaging rate, toxicity, and survival.

RESULTS

Grade 3-5 acute hematologic toxicity occurred only with FU+LV (leukopenia 9%; p = 0.02). There were no differences in resectability rates (92.1% vs. 93.4%; p = 0.82). The pCR rate was 13.2% in both arms. Tumor downstaging was more frequent with UFT+LV (59.2% vs. 43.3%; p = 0.04). Three-year overall survival was 87% with FU+LV and 74% with UFT+LV (p = 0.37). The 3-year cumulative incidences of local recurrence were 7.5% and 8.9%, respectively (p = 0.619; relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval 0.32-6.55).

CONCLUSION

Although this study lacked statistical power to exclude clinically significant differences between both groups, the outcome of patients treated with UFT+LV did not differ significantly from that of patients treated with FU+LV, and hematologic toxicity was significantly lower in the experimental arm.

Metastatic colorectal cancer: current systemic treatment options

The treatment of colorectal cancer has become increasingly complex over recent years. With the emergence of new chemotherapy drugs and targeted agents, there has been great improvement in the prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This review summarises the evidence supporting the use of combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan with fluorouracil (5-FU) for the treatment of colorectal cancer and outlines the pivotal trials. Phase III trials have demonstrated the superiority of combination chemotherapy over single-agent 5-FU, but the optimal sequencing and combination of treatment is yet to be determined. Oral fluoropyrimidine derivatives have been shown to be equivalent to bolus 5-FU treatment and these offer another option for the treatment of colorectal cancer, but further studies are required to evaluate their use with irinotecan and oxaliplatin. The use of newer targeted therapies, such as bevacizumab and cetuximab, alone and in combination with chemotherapy are discussed, and the most recent data supporting their use is outlined. Bevacizumab-containing regimens have been shown to be superior to those without for the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer, and cetuximab has demonstrated activity in combination with chemotherapy in both the first- and second-line setting. Other targeted agents, such as vatalanib and panitumumab, are discussed and early clinical studies with these agents show promising results.

Recent advances with topotecan in the treatment of lung cancer

Topotecan is a semisynthetic derivative of camptothecin that specifically targets topoisomerase I. It has well-established antineoplastic properties and has been successfully combined with other antineoplastic agents with activity dependent on DNA disruption, such as cisplatin and etoposide. Topotecan is indicated for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) sensitive disease after failure of first-line chemotherapy and metastatic ovarian carcinoma after failure of initial or subsequent chemotherapy. Since the approval of topotecan for the second-line treatment of SCLC, studies have been conducted in the first-line setting. Recent studies demonstrate the utility of i.v. topotecan in combination with cisplatin for untreated SCLC. Further, an oral formulation of topotecan is currently under investigation and may provide added convenience for patients. Oral topotecan has been studied in the first- and second-line settings for both SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Three recent phase III trials have demonstrated the activity of oral topotecan. In the first study of chemotherapy-naïve patients with extensive-disease SCLC, oral topotecan plus cisplatin provided efficacy and safety similar to those of etoposide plus cisplatin. In a second study of patients with relapsed SCLC, treatment with oral topotecan showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful longer overall survival time and improvement in dyspnea and quality of life compared with best supportive care alone in all prognostic groups. Finally, in previously treated patients with NSCLC, single-agent oral topotecan was shown to be noninferior in 1-year survival rate relative to the current standard of i.v. docetaxel. In future studies, oral topotecan will represent a good candidate for combination therapy with other i.v. or oral chemotherapy agents, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Effective oral chemotherapy for breast cancer: pillars of strength

Traditionally, anticancer therapy has been dominated by intravenous drug therapy. However, oral agents provide an attractive approach to chemotherapy and use of oral treatments is increasing. We discuss the benefits and challenges of oral chemotherapy from the perspectives of patients, healthcare providers and healthcare funders. Important issues include patient preference, efficacy, compliance, bioavailability, reimbursement, use in special patient populations, financial and staff time savings and flexibility of dosing. We review data for traditional oral agents (e.g. cyclophosphamide, methotrexate), newer oral chemotherapies (e.g. capecitabine), oral formulations of traditionally intravenous agents (e.g. vinorelbine, idarubicin) and new biologic agents under evaluation in breast cancer (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Lastly, we review studies of all-oral combination regimens. The wealth of data available and the increasing use of oral agents in breast cancer suggest that many of the concerns and perceptions about oral therapy, including efficacy and bioavailability, have been overcome, and that oral therapy will play a major role in breast cancer management in the future in both the metastatic and adjuvant settings.

Emerging oral therapies for multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Current disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) have positively affected the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS); however, the requirement for long-term injections imposes a burden on patients and may lead to reduced adherence in some cases. Furthermore, not all patients respond adequately to current DMDs, suggesting that certain patients require different therapeutic approaches. Therefore, alternative MS treatments with less invasive routes of administration and new modes of action are needed to expand the current treatment repertoire, increase patient satisfaction and adherence, and thereby improve efficacy.

DISCUSSION

This review discusses the current unmet need for an orally administered treatment for RRMS, including potential benefits of this route of administration, and implications for improved treatment outcomes. Oral drugs that are currently in Phase II/III clinical development are discussed.

Diagnosing and Treating Breast Cancer in Elderly Women: A Call for Improved Understanding

Breast cancer is the most common nondermatological malignancy in women, and the incidence increases with age until the eighth decade. Breast cancer pathology and biology appear to be different in elderly patients than in younger ones, and therefore treatment recommendations cannot be generalized from one group to the other. Most elderly women can tolerate breast cancer surgery without significant complications and should be offered a definitive surgical procedure. Improved mechanisms to predict which patients will tolerate and benefit from various therapies are under development. Because most breast cancers in the elderly are hormone responsive, hormonal therapy remains the mainstay of systemic treatment in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Chemotherapy can be used in elderly women, but treatment decisions must be individualized based upon risk-benefit analyses. Elder-specific studies are underway to identify the most-efficacious and best-tolerated therapies for breast cancer in this population. Primary care physicians must be aware of these issues to provide adequate counseling and care to these patients.

Patient-controlled analgesia: patient and nurse satisfaction with intravenous delivery systems and expected satisfaction with transdermal delivery systems

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient and nurse satisfaction with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) to their prospective satisfaction with patient-controlled transdermal delivery system (PCTS) technology.

METHODS

Nationwide samples of 301 nurses (200 medical-surgical, 101 post-anesthesia care units) and 500 surgery patients (192 abdominal, 119 gynecological, 189 orthopedic) completed self-administered, Internet-based questionnaires. Respondents indicated satisfaction with attributes of IV-PCA and, after reading a description of PCTS, indicated prospective satisfaction with comparable attributes. Within patient and nurse samples, half rated IV-PCA first (and later re-rated overall satisfaction) and half rated PCTS first. Paired comparison t-tests were used to determine significant differences in satisfaction for IV-PCA and PCTS attributes.

RESULTS

Nurses reported significantly higher satisfaction with PCTS for patient and nurse ease of use, safety, and tolerability (p < 0.001 for all); and higher satisfaction with IV-PCA for the ability to vary drugs (p < 0.001) and doses (p < 0.001), deliver basal doses (p < 0.001), and dose tracking accessibility (p = 0.003) and quality (p = 0.002). Patients reported significantly higher satisfaction with PCTS for pain relief (p < 0.001), safety (p = 0.027), self-control (p < 0.001), and patient (p < 0.001) and nurse ease of use (p < 0.001); and higher satisfaction with IV-PCA for correct set-up and programming (p = 0.002). Overall satisfaction did not differ significantly among nurses, but among patients satisfaction with IV-PCA declined after considering PCTS (p < 0.001). Nurses placed greater importance on safety to their overall satisfaction than patients did.

LIMITATIONS

Only respondents with Internet access were included. PCTS satisfaction is hypothetical and may not reflect true product satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

PCTS is a novel delivery system for postoperative pain and has the potential to improve patient and nurse satisfaction over IV-PCA.

Capecitabine and Trastuzumab in Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose

In human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER-2)–positive advanced breast cancer, taxanes or vinorelbine plus trastuzumab are among the most widely applied options in the first-line setting. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine plus trastuzumab after anthracycline and docetaxel or vinorelbine failure and prior trastuzumab exposure.

Patients and Methods

Forty consecutive patients were included. Capecitabine was administered at a dose of 1,250 mg/m2bid for 14 consecutive days in 3-week cycles, with dose modifications if necessary. Trastuzumab was administered every 3 weeks. Time to progression (TTP) was defined as primary end point. Response was evaluated every 3 months using International Union Against Cancer criteria.

Results

TTP was a median of 8 months, and overall survival was 24 months. No significant difference was found for second-line and beyond second-line treatment. A complete response (CR) was observed in 2.5%, partial response (PR) in 17.5%, stable disease lasting at least 6 months (SD) in 50%, resulting in a clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD ≥ 6 months) of 70%. Diarrhea (5%) and hand-foot syndrome (15%) were the only treatment-related adverse events that occurred with grade 3 or 4 intensity. Three patients (7.5%) developed brain metastases while receiving therapy.

Conclusion

Capecitabine plus trastuzumab appears to be an effective and safe option in a heavily pretreated population. Therefore, a direct comparison of this regimen with capecitabine monotherapy in this setting is warranted.

Oral vinorelbine: role in the management of metastatic breast cancer

The treatment of advanced breast cancer is continually evolving, with the aim of improving the quality and duration of remission and, in some instances, survival. In this setting, the importance of quality of life cannot be underestimated, and growing attention is being paid to treatment convenience and compliance. New anticancer agents have improved efficacy, but for many of them, toxicity often remains a problem. Vinorelbine seems to represent both an active and a well tolerated treatment for metastatic breast cancer. In particular, the oral formulation has similar efficacy to that of the injectable formulation and has demonstrated generally favourable tolerability, with a high degree of acceptance by both patients and physicians. The availability of this and other novel, well tolerated and effective treatments provides greater potential to tailor treatment to meet individual patient needs and, therefore, also provide the potential to improve patient outcomes. Preliminary data suggest that oral vinorelbine may permit continued, effective chemotherapy when further parenteral therapy with more intensive and more toxic agents is considered inappropriate. Early findings also suggest that oral vinorelbine, when administered together with another new oral agent, capecitabine, may be a valid choice in metastatic breast cancer treatment. Furthermore, vinorelbine plus the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab, with or without oral capecitabine, appears to be another regimen that may be worthy of additional study in patients with human epidermal growth factor-2 positive advanced breast cancer.

A Phase I Safety and Pharmacologic Study of a Twice Weekly Dosing Regimen of the Oral Taxane BMS-275183

PURPOSE

BMS-275183, an orally administered C-4 methyl carbonate paclitaxel analogue, showed promising activity in a phase I trial investigating a weekly treatment regimen, but was associated with a relatively high incidence of neuropathic side effects. The current dose escalation phase I trial was initiated to investigate whether twice weekly administration of BMS-275183 would improve its safety and tolerability. Additionally, the pharmacokinetics and possible antitumor activity were studied.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A cycle consisted of 4 weeks (i.e., eight twice weekly oral doses). The starting dose was 60 mg/m(2) and the dose was increased by 20 mg/m(2) increments. Cohorts consisted of three patients and were expanded to at least six patients when toxicity was encountered. Plasma pharmacokinetics were done on days 1 and 15.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose was 100 mg/m(2) twice weekly. Seventeen patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose; 3 of 17 patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of a combination of neutropenia, neuropathy, and diarrhea. BMS-275183 seemed to have a considerably lower incidence of neuropathic side effects compared with the weekly treatment regimen. Confirmed partial responses were observed in two patients with non-small cell lung cancer, one patient with prostate cancer, and one patient with melanoma. In addition, a long-lasting prostate-specific antigen response was observed in a patient with prostate carcinoma with nonmeasurable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

BMS-275183 is preferably given in a twice weekly regimen and has considerable antitumor activity. A phase II trial in non-small cell lung cancer using the twice weekly schedule has been initiated.

Overview of the changing paradigm in cancer treatment: oral chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Several new oral chemotherapeutic agents have recently been introduced. Many possess novel mechanisms of action and specific targets that result in different adverse effect profiles from those associated with traditional chemotherapies and hormonal therapies. The potential advantages and challenges associated with oral chemotherapy are discussed.

SUMMARY

Use of the oral route is convenient and allows administration to take place at home or in non-traditional settings. However, nausea, difficulty swallowing, patient nonadherence, interactions with drugs and food, other pharmacokinetic factors, and the high cost of treatment can present problems in using these agents by the oral route. Awareness by clinicians of the potential problems with oral chemotherapy can help to avoid or minimize problems that might affect patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While bioavailability studies are often an integral part of developing oral agents, their comparisons with parenteral forms are less well documented. However, studies comparing intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with oral 5-FU prodrugs have demonstrated that efficacy, safety, and quality of life are not compromised by the use of oral therapy. Finally, these studies, as well as others, reveal patients prefer the oral route of administration.

Phase II trial of alternating intravenous and oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several platinum-based doublets have been tested in phase II/III trials with equivalent results in terms of tumour response and survival. Our study was designed to evaluate activity, tolerability and convenience of alternating intravenous (i.v.) and oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin in advanced NSCLC. Forty chemo-naive patients with stage IV or relapsed unresectable disease and good performance status were enrolled to receive i.v. cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 plus i.v. vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 3 weeks. Oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) was given at home on day 5, without checking of blood cell count. A total of 175 treatment cycles were delivered. The overall response rate was 30% (one complete, 11 partial responses). Median time to progression and overall survival were 5 and 10 months, respectively. The main toxicity was haematological, with grade 3-4 neutropenia observed in 75% of patients, without febrile neutropenia. Non-haematological toxicity was mild. This schedule of cisplatin and vinorelbine treatment showed a good toxicity profile and an efficacy similar to other standard regimens. Oral vinorelbine could be administered safely at home on day 5.

Capecitabine in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil. It is being increasingly used in the treatment of colorectal cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings. This review aims to explore the data in relation to the pharmacology and mode of action of capecitabine, followed by an in-depth review of the available clinical evidence for the use of capecitabine as a single agent, or in combination therapy, in the treatment of colorectal cancer. The pharmacoeconomic and medical resource use implications are also investigated. The future role of capecitabine in the treatment of colorectal cancer and the questions that remain to be answered with regard to its optimal use are considered.

Evaluation of oral versus intravenous dose of vinorelbine to achieve equivalent blood exposures in patients with solid tumours

Patient's preference is for oral chemotherapy when both oral and i.v. are available, provided that efficacy is equivalent. Reliable switch from oral to i.v. is possible if correspondence between respective doses has been established. Vinorelbine oral was developed as a line extension of VRL i.v. on the basis that similar AUCs result in similar activities. From a first crossover study on 24 patients receiving VRL 25 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral data extrapolation concluded on AUCs bioequivalence between Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 i.v. and 80 mg/m2 oral. A new trial was performed to support this calculation. In a crossover design study on patients (PS 0-1) with advanced solid tumours (44% breast carcinoma), VRL was administered (30 mg/m2 i.v., 80 mg/m2 oral) with a standard meal and 5-HT3 antagonists, at 2 weeks interval. Pharmacokinetics was performed over 168 h and VRL was measured by LC-MS/MS. Statistics included bioequivalence tests. Forty-eight patients were evaluable for PK: median age 58 years (25-71), PS0/PS1: 20/28, M/F: 11/37. Mean AUCs were 1,230 +/- 290 and 1,216 +/- 521 ng/ml for i.v. and oral, respectively. The confidence interval of the AUC ratio (0.83-1.03) was within the required regulatory range (0.8-1.25) and proved the bioequivalence between the two doses. The absolute bioavailability was 37.8 +/- 16.0%, and close to the value from the first study (40%). Patient tolerability was globally comparable between both forms with no significant difference on either haematological or non-haematological toxicities (grade 3-4). This new study, conducted on a larger population, confirmed the reliable dose correspondence previously established between vinorelbine 80 mg/m2 oral and 30 mg/m2 i.v.

Phase III Study of Oral Compared With Intravenous Topotecan As Second-Line Therapy in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Single-agent intravenous (IV) topotecan is an effective treatment for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy. This open-label, randomized, phase III study compared oral and IV topotecan in patients with SCLC sensitive to initial chemotherapy.

Patients and Methods

Patients with limited- or extensive-disease SCLC, documented complete or partial response to first-line therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2, and measurable recurrent disease (WHO criteria) with a treatment-free interval of ≥ 90 days were assigned to treatment with either oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 or IV topotecan 1.5 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 every 21 days. Primary end point was response rate as confirmed by an external reviewer blinded to treatment.

Results

A total of 309 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, response rates were 18.3% with oral topotecan (n = 153) and 21.9% with IV topotecan (n = 151), with a difference (oral –IV) of −3.6% (95% CI, −12.6% to 5.5%). Median survival time was 33.0 weeks for oral and 35.0 weeks for IV topotecan; 1- and 2-year survival rates were 32.6% and 12.4% for oral topotecan, respectively, and 29.2% and 7.1% for IV topotecan, respectively. Third-line chemotherapy was similar for both groups (33% for oral; 35% for IV). Incidence of grade 4 toxicity in patients who received oral and IV topotecan was as follows: neutropenia in 47% and 64%, thrombocytopenia in 29% and 18%, grade 3 or 4 anemia in 23% and 31%, and sepsis in 3% and 3%, respectively. The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events (all grades) included nausea (43% oral; 42% IV), alopecia (26% oral; 30% IV), fatigue (31% oral; 36% IV), and diarrhea (36% oral; 20% IV).

Conclusion

Oral topotecan demonstrates activity and tolerability similar to IV topotecan in chemotherapy-sensitive SCLC patients and offers patients a convenient alternative to IV therapy.

Combination therapy of S-1 and CDDP for patients with colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of S-1 in combination with cisplatin (CDDP) for patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 52 patients with advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer were included. S-1 was given orally twice daily for 21 days and CDDP 30 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8, followed by a 2-week period of no treatment.

RESULTS

Tumor responses among patients included 18 PR, 12 SD, and 16 PD (n = 46). The overall response rate was 36.4% (18/46). The response rate of the patients with prior chemotherapy was 22.2% (4/18) and 50.0% (12/24) among the patients who had no prior therapy. The median survival periods were 555 days and the median progression free survival periods were 183 days, respectively. S-1 in combination with CDDP shows promising activity with acceptable toxicities against colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of S-1 and CDDP could be a standard therapy for treating colorectal carcinoma.

Facilitating oral chemotherapy treatment and compliance through patient/family-focused education

Oral chemotherapy is assuming an increasingly important role in cancer therapy. Pharmaceutical firms continue to invest heavily in oral drug development with approximately 25% of more than 400 antineoplastic drugs currently in the development pipeline planned as oral agents. New treatments, patient preference, and the economic realities of cancer care delivery present physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and cancer center administrators with a challenge to restructure and reorganize to provide cost-effective and high-quality care to cancer patients. Oncology nurses are uniquely positioned to step into new roles emphasizing patient and family education and support. A discussion of the Health Belief Model provides an increased understanding of patient motivation and helps healthcare providers increase compliance among patients using oral therapies. This article provides an overview of the current status of oral cancer therapy in the United States and takes into consideration a historical perspective; illustrates pharmacology, indications, administration, and side effect profile through an exemplar agent; discusses potential advantages of and challenges to integration of oral therapies; and discusses alternative methods of patient and family education to improve compliance and outcome.