Capecitabine-associated enterocolitis: Narrative literature review of a rare adverse event and a case presentation

Colon cancer biology and treatment in the era of precision oncology: A primer for Radiologists

In the era of precision oncology, systemic therapies for colon cancer are becoming increasingly biomarker-led, with implications for patients in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings. As the landscape for colon cancer treatment evolves and becomes more complex, it is important that all members of the multidisciplinary team keep abreast of developments to ensure the most effective care is delivered to patients. As core members of the colorectal multidisciplinary team, Radiologists play a central role throughout the patient journey. This review serves as an educational summary of current and emerging treatment pathways in colon cancer, standards for biomarker testing, mechanisms of action for key drugs, important treatment-related complications, relevant tumour biology that underpins patterns of disease and treatment response, and the specific implications systemic therapies have for cancer imaging and Radiologists. We also highlight the increasing role for radiology in patient stratification and the importance of imaging biomarkers. It is crucial that Radiologists understand the current landscape of colon cancer treatment and emerging strategies on the horizon in clinical trials. Only through engagement across the wider multidisciplinary team will we deliver true personalised medicine for patients with colon cancer.

British Society of Gastroenterology practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms and complications as a result of treatment for cancer

BACKGROUND

Survival rates after a diagnosis of cancer are improving. Poorly managed gastrointestinal (GI) side effects can interfere with delivery of curative cancer treatment. Long-term physical side effects of cancer therapy impinge on quality of life in up to 25% of those treated for cancer, and GI side effects are the most common and troublesome.

AIM

To provide comprehensive, practical guidance on the management of acute and chronic luminal gastrointestinal symptoms arising during and after treatment for cancer METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert group including patients treated for cancer, divided into working parties to identify, and synthesise recommendations for the optimal assessment, diagnosis and appropriate interventions for luminal GI side effects of systemic and local cancer therapies. Recommendations were developed using the principles of the BMJ AGREE II reporting.

RESULTS

103 recommendations were agreed. The importance of the patient perspective and what can be done to support patients are emphasised. Key physiological principles underlying the development of GI toxicity arising from cancer therapy are outlined. Individual symptoms or symptom clusters are poor at distinguishing the underlying cause(s), and investigations are required if empirical therapy does not lead rapidly to significant benefits. Patients frequently have multiple GI causes for symptoms; all need to be diagnosed and optimally treated to achieve resolution. Investigations and management approaches now known to be ineffective or of questionable benefit are highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical, emotional and financial costs to individuals, their families and society from cancer therapy can be considerable. Identifying and signposting affected patients who require specialist services is the role of all clinicians. Progress in the treatment of cancer increasingly means that patients require expert, multidisciplinary supportive care providing effective and safe treatment at every stage of the cancer journey. Development of such expertise should be prioritised as should the education of health professionals and the public in what, when and how acute and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms and complications should be managed.

Capecitabine-associated gastrointestinal ulceration, haemorrhage, and obstruction: a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FAERS

Background

Capecitabine has been reported to be associated with severe gastrointestinal (GI) adverse drug reactions (gastrointestinal ulceration, haemorrhage, and obstruction). However, statistical correlations have not been demonstrated, and specific GI adverse drug reactions, such as GI obstruction, are not listed on its label.

Aim

We aimed to determine the associations between capecitabine and GI ulceration, haemorrhage, or obstruction among patients with breast cancer by examining data from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Methods

We performed disproportionality analysis of GI ulceration, haemorrhage, and obstruction by evaluating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the information component (IC) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

We identified 279 patients with capecitabine-associated GI ulceration, haemorrhage, or obstruction reported between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2020. One-fourth of the cases of GI ulceration, haemorrhage, or obstruction resulted in death. Capecitabine as a drug class had disproportionately high reporting rates for GI ulceration [ROR 1.94 (1.71-2.21); IC 0.80 (0.60-0.99)], haemorrhage [ROR 2.27 (1.86-2.76); IC 0.99 (0.69-1.28)], and obstruction [ROR 2.19 (1.63-2.95); IC 0.96 (0.51-1.40)].

Conclusion

Pharmacovigilance research on the FAERS has revealed a slight increase in reports of GI ulceration, haemorrhage, and obstruction in capecitabine users, which may cause serious or deadly consequences. In addition to the adverse reactions described in the package insert, close attention should be paid to GI obstruction to avoid discontinuation or life-threatening outcomes.

Capecitabine-induced severe adverse events-therapeutic drug monitoring and DPYD-gene analysis are recommended

In this report, two cases of patients with severe adverse events after an adjuvant treatment with capecitabine are described in detail. The first patient suffered from a severe ileocolitis, where ultimately intensive care treatment, total colectomy and ileum resection was necessary. The second patient experienced a toxic enteritis, which could be managed conservatively. Post-therapeutic DPYD genotyping was negative in the former and positive in the latter case. Patients can be categorised in normal, moderate and poor DPYD metabolisers to predict the risk of adverse events of capecitabine treatment. Guidelines in various European countries recommend pretherapeutic DPYD genotyping, whereas it is not recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in the USA. Irrespective of DPYD genotyping, strict therapeutic drug monitoring is highly recommended to reduce the incidence and severity of adverse events.

Capecitabine-induced Gastrointestinal Injury Shows a Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD)-like Pattern

Capecitabine is a commonly used oral chemotherapeutic agent. Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are clinically well-known, however, the histopathologic changes have not been comprehensively studied. This study describes the largest case series (8 patients) characterizing the histopathology of capecitabine-induced GI injury. All patients were adults (median age: 64.5 y, range: 61 to 76 y) and there was gender parity. Patients were receiving treatment for malignancies of the colorectum (n=5), breast (n=1), pancreas (n=1), and appendix (n=1). All had GI symptoms, including 7 with diarrhea and abdominal pain and 1 with melena. Five of 8 (63%) showed graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-like histologic changes in small intestinal and/or colonic biopsies characterized by crypt disarray and dropout, crypt atrophy, dilated crypts lined by attenuated epithelium, and increased crypt apoptosis. Neuroendocrine cell aggregates were present in 4 of 5 cases. Four of 5 showed patchy prominence in lamina propria eosinophils. One patient receiving concomitant radiation therapy had a small intestinal biopsy showing regenerative changes. Two patients had histologically unremarkable biopsies. On follow-up, capecitabine was discontinued or dose-reduced in all patients. Three of 5 patients with a GVHD-like pattern had clinical improvement, whereas 2 died shortly after biopsy. One with regenerative changes also had radiation dose reduction and improved clinically. Two with unremarkable biopsies improved symptomatically. In summary, capecitabine-related GI injury shows a GVHD-like pattern. Knowledge of this is important to confirm the diagnosis as patients typically improve with dose reduction or discontinuation of the drug.

Capecitabine-Induced Enterocolitis

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate chemotherapy agent approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal and breast cancer. The common side effects associated with it include gastrointestinal (GI) upset, abdominal pain, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, alopecia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and hyperbilirubinemia. Although GI symptoms are relatively common, enterocolitis is one of the rare side effects of this drug. We present a case of 53-year-old female who developed severe enterocolitis leading to ileus secondary to capecitabine chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. She was treated successfully via conservative management.