Effect of coadministration of uracil on the toxicity of tegafur

Alternative Treatment Options in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Who Encounter Fluoropyrimidine-Induced Cardiotoxicity

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) remains to be the backbone of chemotherapy regimens approved for treatment of colorectal cancer and other gastrointestinal cancers and breast cancer. The incidence of cardiotoxicity associated with 5-FU ranges from 1.5-18%. Previous studies also concluded that rechallenging a patient with previous 5-FU cardiotoxicity with either lower dose or another mode of administration could result in repeat of cardiac complication in up to 45% of patients. Nearly 13% of patients died upon re-exposure to 5-FU. Clinical manifestations of cardiac complications of fluoropyrimidines including angina, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, hypotension, Tako-Tsubo syndrome, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, pericarditis, and even sudden death have been reported. Cardiotoxicity is unpredictable and no alternative chemotherapeutics have been defined so far. The author describes here treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have encountered fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiotoxicity, including switching to a different fluoropyrimidine, switching to a different schedule of intravenous 5-FU, or switching to a non-fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy regimen if one exists. Switching to a non-fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy regimen is usually the most feasible choice for patients with metastatic disease as data on adjuvant setting is usually a fluoropyrimidine or its combination with oxaliplatin at present.

Incidence and risk markers of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine cardiotoxicity in patients with colorectal cancer

Background: Fluoropyrimidines are mainstay chemotherapeutics in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers and are also used to treat breast cancer and head and neck cancers. However, 5-flourouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine may induce cardiotoxicity that mostly presents as acute coronary syndromes. We compared the incidence of cardiotoxicity induced by 5-FU and capecitabine in patients with colorectal cancer and sought to identify risk markers for cardiotoxicity.Methods: We reviewed all consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who received 5-FU or capecitabine at one institution in the neoadjuvant (2007-2016), adjuvant (2000-2016) or metastatic setting (2007-2016).Results: Totally, 995 patients received 5-FU and 1241 received capecitabine. The incidence of cardiotoxicity induced by 5-FU was 5.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-6.6%] and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.0-5.2%) induced by capecitabine (p = .21). The most common events were angina without ischemia (5-FU: 1.6%, capecitabine: 1.3%, p = .53), angina with ischemia on ECG (5-FU: 0.9%, capecitabine: 0.8%, p = .53), unspecified chest pain (5-FU: 0.9%, capecitabine: 0.6%, p = .34), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (5-FU: 0.5%; capecitabine: 0.4%, p = .76) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (5-FU: 0.7%, capecitabine: 0.5%, p = .50). Cardiac arrest or sudden death occurred in 0.5 and 0.4%, respectively (p = 1). No risk markers for cardiotoxicity induced by 5-FU were identified. In the capecitabine group, ischemic heart disease was a risk marker (odds ratio: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-7.0, p = .016).Conclusions: Five percent of patients treated with 5-FU developed cardiotoxicity and 4% treated with capecitabine. Ischemic heart disease was a risk marker for cardiotoxicity induced by capecitabine.

Oral fluoropyrimidine versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) is one of the most commonly prescribed antineoplastic agents against gastric and colorectal cancers. Continuous infusion would be the optimal way of its administration, however, may usually cause thrombosis, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. Oral fluoropyrimidines would be an attractive alternative, but their efficiency and toxicities for the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer are still obscure as compared with infusion 5-Fu.

METHODS

Literature retrieval, trials selection and assessment, data collection, and statistic analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The outcome measures were tumor response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, comprising totally 15 154 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed similar overall outcome in terms of response rate (1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.12), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95%CI, 0.94-1.06), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92-1.01) between oral fluoropyrimidine-based and intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens in gastric and colorectal cancer patients. The risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stomatitis was more prominent in intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens; while more frequent grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and anorexia were detected in oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-fluoropyrimidines showed equivalent response and similar survival outcomes, but different toxicity profiles, as compared with intravenous 5-Fu. Thus, it would be a more convenient and adjustable alternative in treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer.

Advances in oral delivery of anti-cancer prodrugs

INTRODUCTION

Most anticancer drugs have poor aqueous solubility and low permeability across the gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, extensive efflux by P-glycoproteins (P-gp) in the small intestine also limits the efficient delivery of anticancer drugs via oral route. Area covered: This review explores the prodrug strategy for oral delivery of anticancer drugs. Different categories of oral anticancer prodrugs along with recent clinical studies have been comprehensively reviewed here. Furthermore, novel anticancer prodrugs such as polymer-prodrugs and lipid-prodrugs have been discussed in detail. Finally, various nanocarrier-based approaches employed for oral delivery of anticancer prodrugs have also been discussed. Expert opinion: Premature degradation of anticancer prodrugs in the gastrointestinal tract could lead to variable pharmacokinetics and undesired toxicity. Despite their increased aqueous solubility, the oral bioavailability of several anticancer prodrugs are limited by their poor permeability across the gastrointestinal tract. These limitations can be overcome by the use of functional excipients (polymers, lipids, amino acids/dipeptides), which are specifically absorbed via transporters and receptor-mediated endocytosis. Oral delivery of anticancer prodrugs using nanocarrier-based drug delivery system is a recent development; however it should be justified based on the comparative advantages of encapsulating prodrug in a nanocarrier versus the use of anticancer prodrug molecule itself.

Alternative treatment options in colorectal cancer patients with 5-fluorouracil- or capecitabine-induced cardiotoxicity

Most chemotherapy regimens in colorectal cancer treatment are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin or capecitabine-based. Cardiotoxicity is a less common but potentially lethal complication of 5-FU or capecitabine treatment, and some physicians might be unfamiliar with treatment alternatives. Rechallenging should be avoided because it carries a high risk of recurrence of the cardiac symptoms and prophylactic treatment is not always protective. Possible alternative treatment options to be considered are to replace the oral capecitabine or intravenous 5-FU by a 5-FU bolus regimen, by uracil-tegafur or tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil, both oral fluoropyrimidines combining a 5-FU prodrug with a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) inhibitor, or by raltitrexed, a thymidilate synthase inhibitor whose metabolism is independent of DPD. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer and fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiotoxicity can be treated with other non-fluoropyrimidine related chemotherapy, either as a single agent, combined, or in combination with biological agents. In this report we discuss the different alternative treatment options.

A pilot study evaluating the safety and toxicity of epirubicin, cisplatin, and UFT (ECU regimen) in advanced gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Best response rates have been achieved with three-drug regimens containing 5-FU in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) and oral fluoropyrimidines are the best alternatives as substitutes for infusional 5-FU. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and toxicity of epirubicin, cisplatin, and UFT (ECU regimen) regimens in AGC outpatients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one patients with AGC received epirubicin, cisplatin, and oral UFT plus leucovorin. Epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 60mg/m(2) were administered on Day 1. Three hundreds (300) mg/m(2)/day UFT was administered with leucovorin at a fixed oral dose of 90 mg/day for 21 days, followed by a 7-day rest period. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks. Performance status was either as 0 and 1.

RESULTS

Among the 41 patients enrolled, complete and partial response was achieved in 7.3% and 36.6% of patients, respectively, with an overall response rate of 43.9%. Stable disease was observed in 34.1% of patients and 22% showed disease progression. Median time to progression was 5.2 months and median survival was 12.3 months. A median of 4 cycles (range: 1-6) of chemotherapy were administered. The main grade III-IV toxicities were nausea/vomiting (19.4%) and neutropenia (12.1%). Grade IV toxicities were gastric perforation and renal failure.

CONCLUSION

ECU appears to be an effective regimen in the treatment of AGC, with acceptable tolerability and manageable toxicity. In three-drug regimens, substitution of infusional 5-FU by UFT offers the possibility of increased AGC outpatient compliance.

Neurotoxic effects of alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL) and fluoroacetic acid (FA) on dogs

In order to clarify the mechanism of the neurotoxicity of 5-FU and/or its masked compounds, we studied the effects of alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL) and fluoroacetic acid (FA) on the formation of vacuolar changes in the dog cerebrum, using the dosage of 3.0 mg/kg/day of FBAL-HCl (FBAL x HCl) and 0.03 mg/kg/day of FA-Na (FA x Na), respectively. These 2 compounds were selected because they are the metabolites of 5-FU claimed to be responsible for the neurotoxic effects of 5-FU and/or its masked compounds, and we wanted to confirm their effects. Tegafur-uracil mixture (UFT) was used as a positive control drug for the formation of vacuolar changes in the dog cerebrum. All compounds were orally administered daily for 3 months to beagle dogs. Each study group consisted of 3 males. Neurotoxic signs such as hyperesthesia and/or excitement, as well as convulsions, were observed in both FBAL x HCl and FA x Na groups; these toxic signs were also found in the UFT group. Slight loss of body weight gain and of food consumption was observed in the FBAL x HCl and UFT groups. Neuropathologically, vacuolar changes were detected in several areas of the dog cerebrum following administration of FBAL x HCl, FA x Na or UFT. In terms of morphology, the neuropathological effects of these 2 drugs were very similar to those induced by UFT. In conclusion, we clearly showed that FBAL is one of the main substances that cause neurotoxic signs and neuropathological changes in dogs intoxicated by 5-FU or its masked compounds. Moreover, FA might be considered to be a causative factor in addition to FBAL.

Which endpoints should we use in evaluating the use of novel fluoropyrimidine regimens in colorectal cancer?

Although significant advances have been made in the treatment of advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) still forms the basis of chemotherapy. Recently, new 5-FU schedules and novel fluoropyrimidines have been developed, but there are no trials directly comparing these regimens. The current review describes the mechanisms of action, pre-clinical and phase I/II studies of two oral fluoropyrimidine therapies, capecitabine and uracil with tegafur plus leucovorin. It also compares the phase III studies of these agents with those of the two most popular infusional 5-FU-based regimens: de Gramont and German AIO (The Association of Medical Oncology (AIO) of the German Cancer Society). Both oral and infusional regimens demonstrated similar survival to the Mayo Clinic regimen, a standard treatment for colorectal cancer. Therefore, other endpoints must be examined to decide optimum therapy, including response rates, time to disease progression, tolerability and patients' convenience. All four new therapies demonstrated superior safety profiles compared with the Mayo Clinic regimen. However the uracil with tegafur plus leucovorin regimen was associated with severe diarrhoea and capecitabine with hand-foot syndrome. Patients will not sacrifice efficacy for the convenience of oral therapy alone, therefore the fact that capecitabine achieved superior response rates and equivalent time to disease progression compared with the Mayo Clinic regimen, while uracil with tegafur plus leucovorin produced lower response rates and significantly inferior time to disease progression, is highly relevant in choosing treatment.

Simultaneous determination of F-beta-alanine and beta-alanine in plasma and urine with dual-column reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography

F-beta-Alanine and beta-alanine were detected in plasma and urine samples with fluorescence detection of orthophthaldialdehyde derivatives of F-beta-alanine and beta-alanine after separation with dual-column reversed-phase HPLC. The detection limits of F-beta-alanine and beta-alanine in the HPLC system were approximately 0.3 and 0.7 pmol, respectively. The procedure proved to be very reproducible with intra-assay RSDs and inter-assay RSDs being less than 8%. The usefulness of the method was demonstrated by the analysis of the F-beta-alanine and beta-alanine concentrations in plasma and urine samples from tumor patients treated with S-1 (Tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine and potassium oxonate in a molar ratio of 1:0.4:1).