Randomised study of tegafur and oral leucovorin versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

Oral Tegafur-Uracil Combination plus Leucovorin versus Other Fluoropyrimidine Agents in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background  Systemic fluoropyrimidines, both oral and intravenous, are an integral part of colorectal cancer (CRC) management. They can be administered either with curative or palliative intent.

Objectives  This article examines the literature to analyze the efficacy and safety of the oral fixed-dose combination of uracil and tegafur (UFT)/leucovorin (LV) compared with other fluoropyrimidine agents, with an intention to implement the findings into the current treatment algorithms for CRC.

Methods  An exhaustive systematic literature search was performed for prospective studies using PUBMED, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database. Studies which met eligibility criteria were shortlisted and grouped into chemotherapy given for curative or palliative intent.

Results  Eight trials were shortlisted involving 4,486 patients for the analysis. There was no difference between UFT/LV and other fluoropyrimidines in the primary endpoints—disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–.15; p  = 0.81) and progression-free survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.66–.66; p  = 0.35) for curative and palliative intent CRC patients, respectively. In secondary analyses, there was no significant difference observed between UFT and other fluoropyrimidines in overall survival in CRC patients with curative intent (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88–1.23; p  = 0.63) and palliative intent (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.97–1.06; p  = 0.42) . In the safety analysis, we found significantly lesser patients on UFT/LV had stomatitis/mucositis (odds ratio [OR] 0.20; 95% CI 0.05–0.85; p  = 0.03), fever (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.29–0.71; p  < 0.001), infection (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.24–0.74; p  < 0.01), leukopenia (OR 0.04; 95% CI 0.00–0.95; p  = 0.05), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00–0.24; p  = 0.001), and thrombocytopenia (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02–0.79; p  = 0.03) compared with other fluoropyrimidines.

Conclusion  Oral UFT/LV is equally efficacious to other fluoropyrimidines, especially intravenous 5-fluorouracil, in the management of early as well as advanced CRC patients. Importantly, UFT/LV has a superior safety profile compared with other fluoropyrimidines in terms of both hematological and nonhematological adverse events.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

Open-label trial on efficacy and security of treatment with gemcitabine and oral modulation with tegafur and levofolinic acid (GEMTG) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

AIM

Advanced pancreatic cancer has a bad prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) no longer than 4-6 months. Since the end of last century, monotherapy with gemcitabine has remained the elective therapy, but new schedules are needed in order to improve these results. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of tegafur and levofolinic acid (LV) associated with gemcitabine, as well as its toxicity, progression-free survival and OS in advanced pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label, multicentric, prospective, non-controlled trial was carried out on patients with advanced or disseminated pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² was administered on the 1st and 8th days of the cycle, tegafur 750 mg/m²/day for 21 consecutive days and LV 25 mg/day continuously, every 28 days, with a maximum of six cycles. The primary variable was tumour overall response rate (ORR). Secondarily, time to progression (TTP), OS and scheme toxicity were determined.

RESULTS

Forty patients were recruited; the male/female ratio was 30:10, with a mean age of 61 years. Forty percent had a Karnofsky index of 90% or 100%. Only 11 patients (27%) completed the six cycles of treatment, but more than 50% received three or more cycles. Dose intensity was 89.56% for gemcitabine and 87.36% for tegafur. Efficacy ORR was 22.5% (CI 95%, 6-37%). TTP was 3.87 months (CI 95%, 2.1-5.6), time to treatment failure was 2.97 months (CI 95%, 2.43-4.67) and OS 6.3 months (CI 95%, 4-7). The chemotherapeutic combination was well accepted; most haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities were grade 1 or 2. The most prevalent grade 3/4 toxicities were asthenia (30%), liver biochemistry disorders (25%), diarrhoea (15%) and stomatitis (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of gemcitabine, associated with oral tegafur and leucovorin, has activity against advanced pancreatic cancer, with an adequate toxicity profile.

An update on randomized clinical trials in advanced and metastatic colorectal carcinoma

During the past eight years, there have been significant advances in the treatment and outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This is likely the result of improved imaging, staging, chemotherapy, and surgery. After conducting a standardized MEDLINE literature search, this article reviews the prospective randomized controlled trials in advanced colorectal cancer published between May 2001 and October 2008. There are a total of 96 studies, all chemotherapy-related trials, divided into five categories based on trial focus: (1) types of chemotherapy; (2) administration of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable liver metastases; (3) regional chemotherapy with hepatic arterial infusion; (4) molecular markers of chemotherapy efficacy; and (5) duration, dosing, and sequencing of chemotherapy.

Phase II study of uracil-tegafur with leucovorin in elderly (> or = 75 years old) patients with colorectal cancer: ECOG 1299

PURPOSE

To evaluate the tolerability and effectiveness of uracil-tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients > or = 75 years of age with previously untreated colorectal cancer were eligible for this phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicenter cooperative group clinical trial. UFT 100 mg/m2 plus LV 30 mg orally every 8 hours for 28 days every 35 days was administered until progression.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were enrolled between June 2000 and July 2001, and 55 were treated. The median age of treated patients was 81 years (range, 75 to 90 years), 26 patients were (47%) women, and 80% had good performance status (0 to 1). The observed overall response rate was 22% (95% CI, 11.8% to 35.0%). The estimated median overall survival time was 13.0 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 17.4 months), and median progression-free survival time was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 6.7 months). Among the 56 treated patients (including one ineligible patient), 31 (55%) experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicities, most commonly diarrhea (25%) and GI toxicity (36%), with patients older than 85 years of age at highest risk.

CONCLUSION

The results of this trial support the efficacy of oral UFT/LV in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. The regimen is tolerated moderately well overall, particularly as compared with other fluoropyrimidine regimens, although there is increased GI toxicity in the most elderly. These results suggest that studies using newer oral fluoropyrimidine analogs should be investigated in this patient population.