A randomized phase II trial of capecitabine and two different schedules of irinotecan in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy, quality-of-life and toxicity

Biweekly cetuximab in combination with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) or irinotecan (XELIRI) in the first-line and second-line treatment of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Oral capecitabine in combination with intravenous oxaliplatin (XELOX) or irinotecan (XELIRI) are acceptable substitutions to fully intravenous regimens. Biweekly (as opposed to weekly) cetuximab is more convenient when combined with biweekly chemotherapy. Here, we report the tolerability and efficacy of biweekly cetuximab in combination with biweekly XELOX or XELIRI in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (RAS-WT mCRC).

Methods

Clinical data of consecutive patients with mCRC who received biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m²) in combination with XELOX or XELIRI between January 2009 and May 2019 in the first- or second-line settings was extracted. Dosage of XEL (Capecitabine/XELODA) was 1,000 mg/m² twice daily for 9 days, plus on day 1 oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² or irinotecan 180 mg/m². Treatment dose reduction and delay for ≥7 days was analysed as surrogates for toxicity. Extended RAS testing was performed in the context of this study for patients who received treatment based on limited KRAS-WT genotype.

Results

Sixty one patients with RAS-WT mCRC fulfilled the eligibility criteria. XELOX was administered to 26 (42.6%) and XELIRI to 35 (57.4%) of patients. For all patients in the first-line setting, the objective response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 54%, 8 months and 25 months, respectively. The corresponding outcomes for the subgroup of patients who received first-line XELOX were 68%, 10 months and not reached, respectively. For all patients in the second-line setting, the ORR, PFS and OS were 50%, 7 months and 20 months, respectively. Chemotherapy components dose reduction and delays were observed in 18 (29.5%) and 25 (41%) patients, respectively. The corresponding frequencies for cetuximab were 3 (5%) and 31 (50.8%).

Conclusion

Biweekly cetuximab in combination with XELOX or XELIRI is tolerable and effective. The addition of cetuximab to capecitabine and oxaliplatin is associated with favourable outcome.

A Systematic Review of Conversion to Resectability in Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Chemotherapy Trials

OBJECTIVES

Metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) confers a significant survival benefit. We hypothesized that conversion to resectability (C2R) correlates with superior overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable mCRC.

METHODS

A prospectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42015024104) of randomized clinical trials published after 2003 was conducted. Exposure of interest was C2R with a primary outcome of OS. Clinical trials were classified based on difference in C2R between study arms (<2%, 2% to 2.9%, ≥3%). Generalized estimating equations were used to measure associations while adjusting for multiple observations from the same trial.

RESULTS

Of 2902 studies reviewed, 30 satisfied selection criteria (n=13,618 patients). Median C2R was 7.3% (interquartile range [IQR]: 5% to 12.9%), with maximum C2R in the FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab arm (28.6%). The median difference in C2R between 2 arms of the same study was 2.3% (IQR: 1.3% to 3.4%) with a maximum difference of 15.4% seen in FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI. Median OS for the entire patient cohort was 20.7 months (IQR: 18.9 to 22.7 mo), with a between group difference of 1.3 months (IQR: -1.2 to 3.6 mo). The median survival difference between the 2 study arms with <2% C2R difference was 0.8 months versus 1.6 months with ≥3% C2R rates . Increasing C2R had an incremental dose-effect response on OS ( P =0.021), and higher response rates correlated with C2R rates ( P =0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

C2R occurs infrequently and variably in clinical trials enrolling patients with unresectable mCRC. Prioritization of chemotherapeutic agents that enhance C2R might improve OS of patients.

Oncological Treatment-Related Fatigue in Oncogeriatrics: A Scoping Review

Simple Summary

Fatigue in older patients has multiple etiologies, as this symptom may be cancer-related, treatment-related, age-related, or part of frailty syndrome. Physicians need to identify this symptom and understand its risk factors but also evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of cancer treatments considering the risk of impairing the patient’s quality of life. This scoping review was aimed to present the level of information currently available on any-grade fatigue and grade 3 or more fatigue for each cancer treatment regimen, either in general or in older populations, for the most prevalent tumors.

Abstract

Fatigue is a highly prevalent symptom in both cancer patients and the older population, and it contributes to quality-of-life impairment. Cancer treatment-related fatigue should thus be included in the risk/benefit assessment when introducing any treatment, but tools are lacking to a priori estimate such risk. This scoping review was designed to report the current evidence regarding the frequency of fatigue for the different treatment regimens proposed for the main cancer indications, with a specific focus on age-specific data, for the following tumors: breast, ovary, prostate, urothelium, colon, lung and lymphoma. Fatigue was most frequently reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) versions 3 to 5. A total of 324 regimens were analyzed; data on fatigue were available for 217 (67%) of them, and data specific to older patients were available for 35 (11%) of them; recent pivotal trials have generally reported more fatigue grades than older studies, illustrating increasing concern over time. This scoping review presents an easy-to-understand summary that is expected to provide helpful information for shared decisions with patients regarding the anticipation and prevention of fatigue during each cancer treatment.

Irinotecan and Oxaliplatin Combination, As Second-Line Treatment, In Fluoropyrimidine-Pretreated Advanced Colorectal Cancer. A Phase Ii Study by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (Hecog)

Background

The management of patients with fluoropyrimidine-resistant advanced colorectal cancer remains investigational. Irinotecan and oxaliplatin have proved effective in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil.

Study design

From February 1998 to September 2002, 34 patients with 5-fluorouracil-pretreated advanced colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. Median age was 67 years (range, 32–76) and median performance status was 1. Twenty-one patients had multiple liver metastases. Other sites of disease included lungs, abdomen, pelvis, lymph nodes, bones and skin. They received six 28-day cycles of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 in a 2-h infusion on days 1 and 15) and irinotecan (80 mg/m2 in a 30-minute infusion on days 1,8 and 15 immediately following oxaliplatin).

Results

Thirteen patients (39%) completed treatment. The most common grade III-IV toxicities were diarrhea (27%), anemia (6%), neutropenia (18%), alopecia (6%) and peripheral neuropathy (6%). Thirteen patients (39%) received G-CSF support, and there were 2 episodes of febrile neutropenia. There were no treatment-related deaths. Six patients (18%) had a partial remission and another 11 (33%), disease stabilization. There were no complete remissions. Median time to progression was 6.6 months (range, 0.8–20.1) and median survival 10.6 months (range, 0.8–52.9).

Conclusions

Irinotecan and oxaliplatin combination has modest activity as second line treatment of 5-fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer. Further research is warranted for the development of more effective and less toxic regimens in this setting.

Multicenter phase II study of biweekly CAPIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (JSWOG-C3 study)

Background

Triweekly capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) was not a replacement for fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) because of the potential for greater toxicity. Recently, it has reported that mCAPIRI is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI. In this study, we conducted a multicenter phase II trial to assess the efficacy and safety of biweekly CAPIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for mCRC with reduced toxicity and preserved efficacy.

Methods

Patients with mCRC who had received prior chemotherapy, including oxaliplatin-based regimens, were eligible for this study. The treatment protocol administered capecitabine at 1000 mg/m² twice daily from the evening of day 1 to the morning of day 8, intravenous irinotecan at 150 mg/m² on day 1, and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg on day 1 every 2 weeks. Primary endpoints for this study were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, response rate (RR), and disease control rate (DCR).

Results

Fifty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.23–7.40 months], and median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI 11.57–20.23 months). The RR was 14.6% (95% CI 6.5–28.4%), and the DCR was 66.7% (95% CI 51.5–79.2%). Hypertension was the most common Grade 3 adverse event (27.5%), followed by neutropenia (17.6%). Only two patients suffered from grade 3 hand–foot syndrome.

Conclusions

In mCRC patients, biweekly CAPIRI + bevacizumab appears effective and feasible as a second-line chemotherapy with relatively low toxicities, and has potential as a useful substitute for FOLFIRI + bevacizumab.

Chemotherapy induced diarrhea

Purpose: To provide a current review of the literature related to chemotherapy induced diarrhea (CID), including clinical assessment, recommended management guidelines and investigational pharmacological approaches for the prevention and treatment of CID.

Data sources: A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Web of Science (1996—2006) databases was conducted using terms such as: chemotherapy, diarrhea, diarrhoea, and irinotecan. Appropriate references from selected articles were also used. The search engine, Google, provided further access to information.

Data extraction: The retrieved literature was reviewed to include all articles pertaining to the pathophysiology, assessment and management of CID.

Data synthesis: Diarrhea is a debilitating and potentially life-threatening side effect associated with many chemotherapeutic agents. Despite the high incidence and severity of CID, it is often under recognized and poorly managed. A multidisciplinary panel recently updated recommended practice guidelines for the assessment and management of CID. Prompt and aggressive intervention is important in order to minimize the negative consequences of CID, such as dehydration, which may cause interruptions in optimal clinical outcomes or may lead to life-threatening sequelae. Further investigation into the pathophysiology of CID may allow for more directed approaches in the prophylaxis and treatment of CID. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2007) 13: 181—198.

Different schedules of irinotecan administration: A meta-analysis

The concept of the UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 genotype-directed schedule of irinotecan administration is still far from being introduced into clinical practice, and the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan are in part schedule-dependent. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of 3-weekly vs. weekly irinotecan for the treatment of solid tumors. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and the search engines Google Scholar and Medical Martix were searched for randomized controlled trials to compare the two regimens of irinotecan administration. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the 3-weekly regimen yielded a longer time to progression, while other measures of efficacy, such as the objective response rate and overall survival of patients with solid tumors were similar between the two regimens of irinotecan administration. Furthermore, the group receiving the 3-weekly regimen had a lower incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea and a higher rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia compared with the group receiving the weekly regimen. However, these results require confirmation by large-sample, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials.

Phase 1 Study of ABT-751 in Combination With CAPIRI (Capecitabine and Irinotecan) and Bevacizumab in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer

ABT-751 is an orally bioavailable sulfonamide with antimitotic properties. A nonrandomized phase 1 dose-escalation study of ABT-751 in combination with CAPIRI (capecitabine and irinotecan) and bevacizumab was conducted to define the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacokinetics in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Patients were treated with ABT-751 daily for 7 days (alone) and then began 21-day cycles of treatment with ABT-751 daily and capecitabine twice daily for 14 days plus irinotecan on day 1 intravenously. Bevacizumab was added as standard of care at 7.5 mg/kg on day 1 after the first 2 dose levels. Because of intolerance to the regimen, a reduced dose of ABT-751 was also explored with reduced-dose and full-dose CAPIRI with bevacizumab. ABT-751 and irinotecan pharmacokinetics, ABT-751 glucuronidation, and protein binding were explored. Twenty-four patients were treated over 5 dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was ABT-751 125 mg combined with full-dose CAPIRI and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1. DLTs were hypokalemia, elevated liver tests, and febrile neutropenia. ABT-751 is metabolized by UGT1A8 and to a lesser extent UGT1A4 and UGT1A1. Irinotecan and APC exposure were increased, SN-38 exposure was similar, and SN-38 glucuronide exposure was decreased. Clinically relevant alterations in ABT-751 and irinotecan pharmacokinetics were not observed. Despite modest efficacy, the combination of ABT-751, CAPIRI, and bevacizumab will not be studied further in colorectal cancer.

Cantharidin combined with chemotherapy for Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This systematic analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cantharidin combined with chemotherapy in treating Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cantharidin combined with chemotherapy on response and safety for Chinese patients with colorectal cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rate (RR) of treatment were calculated.

RESULTS

When cantharidin combined with chemotherapy, 4 clinical studies which included 155 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic analysis suggested that, in all patients, pooled RR was 46.5% (72/155) in cantharidin combined regimens. Major adverse effects were neutropenia, leukopenia, fatigue, and anemia with cantharidin combined treatment; no treatment related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

This systematic analysis suggests that cantharidin combined regimens are associated with high response rate and accepted toxicity in treating Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer suggesting that randomized clinical trials are now warranted.

Capecitabine and irinotecan with bevacizumab 2-weekly for metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II AVAXIRI study

Background

The optimal sequence of chemotherapeutic agents is not firmly established for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II multi-centre study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a standard capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) regimen with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with mCRC.

Methods

Patients received intravenous irinotecan 175 mg/m² on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m² (800 mg/m² for patients >65 years of age) twice daily on days 2–8, followed by a 1-week rest, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion on day 1 every 2 weeks.

Results

Seventy-seven patients were included in the intention-to-treat and safety populations. Progression-free survival at 9 months was 61%. The overall response and disease control rates were 51% and 84%, respectively. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 11.9 and 24.8 months, respectively. 48 patients (62%) had at least one grade 3/4 adverse event, the most common being asthenia, diarrhoea and neutropenia. Quality of life varied little over the study period with mean visual analogue scale general health scores ranging from 71 to 76 over cycles 1–11.

Conclusion

Our study found irinotecan and capecitabine administered fortnightly with bevacizumab in patients with mCRC to be an effective and tolerable regimen.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00875771. Trial registration date: 04/02/2009.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1293-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A phase I/II study of biweekly capecitabine and irinotecan plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Triweekly capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) is not completely regarded as a valid substitute for fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) because of the potential for greater toxicity. We conducted a phase I/II study to assess the efficacy and safety of biweekly XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BV) as second-line chemotherapy for mCRC.

Methods

Patients with mCRC who had received prior chemotherapy including oxaliplatin and BV and had a UGT1A1 genotype of wild-type or heterozygous for UGT1A1*6 or *28 were eligible for this study. Treatment comprised capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily from the evening of day 1 to the morning of day 8, intravenous irinotecan on day 1, and BV 5 mg/kg on day 1 every 2 weeks. The phase I study consisted of two steps (irinotecan 150 and 180 mg/m²), and dose-limiting toxicity was assessed during the first treatment cycle. The primary endpoint of the phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

The recommended dose of irinotecan was determined to be 180 mg/m² in the phase I study. Between November 2010 and August 2013, 44 patients were enrolled in phase II. The patients’ characteristics were as follows (N=44): median age, 60 years (range 32–80); male/female, 21/23; and UGT1A1 wild-type/heterozygous, 29/15. The median PFS was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 5.3–8.2 months), and the primary endpoint was met. Median overall survival was 18.3 months. The response rate was 22.7%. There was no significant difference in PFS or overall survival according to UGT1A1 status. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were mainly neutropenia in six patients and diarrhea in five patients. There were no other severe adverse events or treatment-related deaths.

Conclusion

In mCRC patients with wild-type or heterozygous UGT1A1*6 or *28 genotype, biweekly XELIRI + BV is effective and feasible as second-line chemotherapy. Biweekly XELIRI + BV is considered a valid substitute for FOLFIRI + BV in mCRC.

Phase II study of weekly irinotecan and capecitabine treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Background

The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weekly irinotecan and capecitabine (wXELIRI) treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, specifically the rate of severe diarrhea.

Methods

Patients with unresectable histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer with measurable disease received weekly irinotecan 90 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1200 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–5. Patients naïve to systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease or who had failed FOLFOX (infusional 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment were eligible. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 3/4 diarrhea. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results

A total of 52 patients were enrolled, 30 of whom received wXELIRI as first-line treatment and 22 as second-line treatment. Grade 4 diarrhea was observed in one patient and the rate of grade 3/4 diarrhea was 7.7%. The other common grade 3/4 toxicities included leukopenia (9.6%), neutropenia (17.3%), nausea (3.8%), vomiting (3.8%), fatigue (1.9%), and hand-foot syndrome (1.9%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival for the 30 patients treated in the first-line setting was 8.5 and 16.3 months, while those for the 22 patients treated in the second-line setting was 5.0 and 10.7 months, respectively.

Conclusions

The wXELIRI regimen resulted in a low rate of severe diarrhea with an acceptable toxicity profile. This study provides a basis for a subsequent randomized controlled study of wXELIRI versus FOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-FU, and folinic acid) to further explore the efficacy and safety of this regimen.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01322152.

Quality of life under capecitabine (Xeloda®) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: data from a german non-interventional surveillance study

AIM

This non-interventional surveillance study (NIS) collected data on the quality of life (QoL) of patients treated with capecitabine as mono- or combination chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Capecitabine was administered orally for 14 days of each 21-day cycle. The main parameters of interest were QoL, compliance, patient and physician satisfaction, handling of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and efficacy. The statistics were descriptive; some differences were compared using confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

735 patients from 161 centers received at least 1 dose of capecitabine. The median duration of observation was 5.5 months overall. The QoL global score was 53% (mean from the entire study population at all times), without any correlation to HFS. The overall response rate (ORR) was 35.1%, and the disease control rate (DCR) 64.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was overall 6.81 months (95% CI 6.32-7.63 months) and it was significantly higher in patients with HFS (8.4 months, 95% CI 7.5-9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; p < 0.0001). The safety and tolerability of capecitabine were considered acceptable. The HFS incidence (all grades) was 27.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine had a favorable risk-benefit relation in outpatient therapy. The QoL remained stable over the course of the investigation, indicating good compliance. HFS was a strong predictor of longer PFS and had no negative impact on the global QoL.

XELIRI compared with FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and survival rate of a treatment regimen comprising capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) to those of a standard regimen comprising leucovorin, fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), to determine the correlation among the inherited genetic variations in UGT1A1, UGT1A7 and UGT1A9. A total of 84 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were included in the study. All patients were treated with FOLFIRI or XELIRI. The median progression-free survival time was 4.4 months for FOLFIRI and 5.7 months for XELIRI (hazard ratio=1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.21; P=0.22). When compared with FOLFIRI (6.34%), XELIRI was associated with lower rates of severe toxicity (3.29) (P=0.026) and similar disease control rates (69.57% for FOLFIRI and 61.11% for XELIRI; P=0.49). In total, 17 single nucleotide polymorphisms were identified, five of which revealed an association with grade 3/4 neutropenia, including UGT1A7*4; however, UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6, which have been previously reported, were not significant. Additionally, H2 haplotypes, which include UGT1A9*22, and H5 and H7 haplotypes, which include UGT1A7*2, UGT1A7*3 and UGT1A7*4, were associated with a higher risk of severe neutropenia. In conclusion, XELIRI is an effective treatment regimen with acceptable response rates and tolerability for mCRC patients as a second-line treatment. Furthermore, inherited genetic variations in UGT1A1, UGT1A7 and UGT1A9 are associated with grade 3/4 neutropenia.

Palliative treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: what is the optimal approach?

Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is responsible for over 600,000 deaths annually and remains a significant public health concern. Because of therapeutic advancements over the past two decades, patients with metastatic CRC are living longer with an improved quality of life. This review will highlight recent trial evidence that improves outcomes for patients with metastatic disease. Topics will include the optimal use of first-line combination chemotherapy, bevacizumab in patients with advanced age or comorbidities, maintenance chemotherapy, first-line use of anti-EGFR therapies, first-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab, anti-angiogenic therapies past progression, and management of treatment-refractory disease. Clinical trial evidence will be presented, along with guidance on how to integrate recent evidence into clinical practice. Finally, this review will examine innovative drug development strategies, and will discuss potentially actionable targets identified by molecular testing.

Randomized Phase III Trial Exploring the Use of Long-Acting Release Octreotide in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: The LARCID Trial

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (CID) is a relatively common adverse event in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The LAR for Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea (LARCID) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of long-acting release octreotide (octreotide LAR) for the prevention of CID in this population.

Patients and Methods

Patients with colorectal cancer starting adjuvant or first-line treatment with a chemotherapy combination containing fluorouracil, capecitabine, and/or irinotecan were randomly assigned to receive octreotide LAR 30 mg intramuscularly every 4 weeks (experimental arm) or the physician's treatment of choice in case of diarrhea (control arm).

Results

A total of 139 patients were randomly assigned, most of whom received fluorouracil- and oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. The rate of diarrhea was 76.1% in the experimental group (n = 68) and 78.9% in the control group (n = 71). Treatment with octreotide LAR did not prevent or reduce the severity of CID. Treatment choices for diarrhea management included loperamide in the majority of patients. No benefit from octreotide LAR was identified in terms of need for diarrhea treatment, opioids, or intravenous hydration or in the rate of hospitalization or quality of life.

Conclusion

This study could not prove the efficacy of octreotide LAR in the prevention of CID.

Clinical benefit response in pancreatic cancer trials revisited

OBJECTIVES

Clinical benefit response (CBR), based on changes in pain, Karnofsky performance status, and weight, is an established palliative endpoint in trials for advanced gastrointestinal cancer. We investigated whether CBR is associated with survival, and whether CBR reflects a wide-enough range of domains to adequately capture patients' perception.

METHODS

CBR was prospectively evaluated in an international phase III chemotherapy trial in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (n = 311) in parallel with patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

The median time to treatment failure was 3.4 months (range: 0-6). The majority of the CBRs (n = 39) were noted in patients who received chemotherapy for at least 5 months. Patients with CBR (n = 62) had longer survival than non-responders (n = 182) (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.94; p = 0.013). CBR was predicted with a sensitivity and specificity of 77-80% by various combinations of 3 mainly physical PROs. A comparison between the duration of CBR (n = 62, median = 8 months, range = 4-31) and clinically meaningful improvements in the PROs (n = 100-116; medians = 9-11 months, range = 4-24) showed similar intervals.

CONCLUSION

CBR is associated with survival and mainly reflects physical domains. Within phase III chemotherapy trials for advanced gastrointestinal cancer, CBR can be replaced by a PRO evaluation, without losing substantial information but gaining complementary information.

Optimal treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

For over 40 years, fluorouracil has been the only drug registered for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. During the past 5 years, combination chemotherapy regimens including either irinotecan or oxaliplatin have proven to be superior to fluorouracil monotherapy in randomized clinical trials, in terms of response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Both doublets demonstrated similar efficacy, therefore either combination can be considered standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Recently, a new orally active fluorouracil analog, capecitabine, and two targeted biological agents, cetuximab and bevacizumab, have been added to the armamentarium of drugs active against metastatic colorectal cancer, thus making the scenario more complex. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials are currently testing new promising molecularly targeted agents. Thus, we are facing a new era in which the rapid clinical development of novel agents is outpacing the ability to perform Phase III clinical trials. At present, there is no single standard treatment suitable for all patients. However, general principles of management can be derived from the available clinical data in order to guide the therapeutic choice and individualize treatment.

Management of advanced colorectal cancer, Part 1

PURPOSE

Important developments in chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer over the past 15 years are reviewed, with an emphasis on the most recently published data from clinical trials of newer multidrug regimens, administration techniques, and dosing schedules.

SUMMARY

Eight agents are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Fluorouracil and leucovorin still constitute the foundation of most chemotherapy regimens for this population; combination fluorouracil-leucovorin therapy plus either irinotecan (the FOLFIRI regimen) or oxaliplatin (the FOLFOX regimen) are two firmly established first-line treatments shown to produce similar outcomes. In Phase III trials conducted over the past six to seven years, regimens of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOx) were demonstrated to have clinical effectiveness comparable to that of FOLFOX therapy. Response rates of 35-55% and median overall survival of ≥20 months have been documented with some of the newer regimens. Research to define the optimal role of the three monoclonal antibody agents approved by FDA for use in managing advanced colorectal cancer is ongoing; bevacizumab has been shown to confer significant survival benefits when added to certain chemotherapy regimens, and other monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab and panitumumab) also appear to offer significant benefits in select patients as first- or second-line therapies.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 15 years, a shift toward multiagent treatment strategies including a variety of chemotherapy agents and monoclonal antibodies has yielded improved rates of response and prolonged survival among patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The CapeOx, FOLFOX, and FOLFIRI regimens are currently among the most widely used first-line treatments.

XELIRI plus bevacizumab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line setting in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: experiences at two-institutions

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab has been shown in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) compared with chemotherapy alone. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI or XELIRI regimens in combination with bevacizumab for mCRC patients in a first-line setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 132 patients with previously untreated and histologically confirmed mCRC were included. They were treated with either FOLFIRI-Bevacizumab (Bev) or XELIRI-Bev according to physician preference. The efficacy and safety of the two regimens were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2010, 68 patients were treated with the XELIRI-Bev regimen, while the remaining 64 patients received the FOLFIRI-Bev regimen. The median age was 58.5 years (53.6 years in the FOLFIRI-Bev and 59.7 years in the XELIRI-Bev arm, p=0.01). Objective response rate was 51.6% for FOLFIRI-Bev versus 41.2% for XELIRI-Bev (p=0.38). At the median follow-up of 24.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not different between two groups (14.2 months in FOLFIRI-Bev vs. not reached in the XELIRI-Bev, p=0.30). However, median overall survival time for the FOLFIRI-Bev arm was better than that for patients treated with XELIRI- Bev, but these differences was not statistically significant (37.8 months vs. 28.7 months, respectively, p=0.58). Most commonly reported grade 3-4 toxicities (FOLFIRI-Bev vs XELIRI-Bev) were nausea/vomiting (7.8% vs. 14.7%, p=0.27), diarrhea (10.9% vs 22.1%, p=0.10), hand-foot syndrome (0% vs 8.8%, p=0.02) and neutropenia (18.7% vs 27.9%, p=0.22).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that FOLFIRI-Bev and XELIRI-Bev regimens were similarly effective treatments in a first-line setting for patients with untreated mCRC, with manageable adverse event profiles.

A Prospective Randomized Study of Irinotecan (CPT-11), Leucovorin (LV) and 5-Fluorouracil (5FU) versus Leucovorin and 5-Fluorouracil in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma

The purpose of this study was to compare the activity and toxicity of an irinotecan (CPT-11), leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) combination with a standard regimen of 5FU and LV, in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. One hundred and sixty patients were randomized; 80 patients (group A) received LV 20 mg/m(2) bolus i.v. and 5FU 425 mg/m(2) bolus i.v. on days 1-5, every 28 days; 80 patients (group B) received CPT-11 80 mg/m(2) (30-90 min i.v. infusion), followed by LV 20 mg/m(2) bolus i.v. and 5FU 425 mg/m(2) bolus i.v. on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36, every 8 weeks. The overall response rate was 30% and 47.5% in groups A and B respectively. Progression-free survival was significantly higher in the triple-drug combination arm (median 7.5 vs. 4.5 months; p= 0. 0335). However, overall survival did not differ significantly between the two arms (15 months vs. 14 months for the groups B and A respectively; p=0.3531). The main grade 3 adverse events were diarrhea (19%, in group A vs. 35% in group B; p=0.032) and mucositis (2% vs. 14%; p=0.017). The regimen containing irinotecan showed activity in advanced colorectal cancer. The overall safety data confirm this combination as a well-tolerated treatment.

[What is the contribution of tumor response in colorectal cancer?]

Tumor size reduction after cancer treatment is evaluated by tumor response. It is often the primary objective of phase II clinical trials. The WHO and RECIST criteria are now internationally recognized for the quantification of tumor response in clinical trials. This literature review article focuses on the interest of measuring tumor response according to these criteria in terms of clinical benefit for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): metastasis resection, survival and improving quality of life. In patients with mCRC and initially resectable metastases, tumor response following preoperative chemotherapy is an independent prognosis factor for survival and a way of testing tumor sensitivity to the chemotherapy regime; it allows and/or facilitates metastases resection. In patients with mCRC and potentially resectable metastases, obtaining an objective tumor response to allow secondary metastasis resection is one of the primary objectives of chemotherapy. In patients with mCRC and non-resectable metastases, tumor response may provide individual benefit in terms of control of symptoms and quality of life and may favor a survival benefit. Despite the limitations of the RECIST criteria, no other morphological or functional radiological criterion has to date achieved consensus up in terms of availability, reproducibility, sensitivity, specificity, clinical relevance and cost. Finally, although there is no high-level of evidence, tumor response has prognostic value for metastases resection in mCRC and is a therapeutic objective in patients with potentially resectable metastases or symptomatic advanced disease.

Bevacizumab in Combination with Capecitabine plus Irinotecan as First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Phase II Trials

BACKGROUND

Although phase III studies have investigated the effect of adding bevacizumab to the 3-weekly capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) combination in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), no phase III studies investigating the effects of adding bevacizumab to biweekly XELIRI have been published.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective pooled analysis of 2 single-arm phase II studies was performed. Previously untreated patients with mCRC received irinotecan 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 2-8 every 2 weeks with or without bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 1.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients received XELIRI, and 46 patients received XELIRI plus bevacizumab. There was a statistically significant increase in partial response rate with XELIRI plus bevacizumab (63 vs. 26% for XELIRI; p = 0.0002) and overall response rate (67 vs. 32%; p = 0.0005). Median time to disease progression was significantly longer with XELIRI plus bevacizumab (12.3 vs. 9.0 months for XELIRI; p = 0.012); median overall survival did not differ significantly between treatments (23.7 vs. 19.3 months; p = 0.4997). The proportion of patients experiencing at least 1 grade 3/4 adverse event was similar with both treatments (XELIRI, 47%; XELIRI plus bevacizumab, 44%).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective pooled analysis suggests that XELIRI plus bevacizumab has an acceptable tolerability profile and improves efficacy outcomes compared with XELIRI in the first-line treatment of mCRC.

Bevacizumab-based therapies in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Since its approval for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), bevacizumab has become a standard treatment option in combination with chemotherapy for patients with mCRC. Bevacizumab has demonstrated efficacy in combination with a number of different backbone chemotherapy regimens, and its widespread use has introduced several important questions regarding the selection and optimization of bevacizumab-based treatment regimens, its use in various patient populations, and the identification of associated adverse events. This review discusses the results of several phase II and phase III clinical trials, as well as large observational studies, to address the use of bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with mCRC in the first-line setting.

First-line treatment with capecitabine combined with irinotecan in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: a phase II study

GOALS

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of capecitabine with irinotecan as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The addition of irinotecan to infusional 5 fluorouracil and leucovorin significantly improves the response rate and survival compared with 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Capecitabine with irinoteacan was reported to yield comparable results in phase II studies.

STUDY

Patients older than 75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤0 to 3, with measurable disease, no previous treatment for advanced disease, previous adjuvant chemotherapy >6 months, and adequate hepatic, renal, and hematological function were included. The treatment protocol included capecitabine 1000 mg/m twice daily given for 14 days (days 1 to 14) and irinotecan (100 mg/m) given on days 1 and 8. Treatment was repeated on day 21.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included. All were assessable for response and toxicity. Average age was 64 years, male/female ratio 20/10. Fifteen had liver metastases; 9 had abdominal metastases; 5 had liver and lymph nodes metastases; and 1 had lung metastases. The median number of cycles was 8. Grades III and IV diarrheas were observed in 20%, mild vomiting in 20%, grades III and IV leukopenia in 23%, and hand and foot syndrome grade III in 1 patient (3%). A complete response was achieved in 3 (10%) patients, a partial response in 16 (53%), disease stabilization in 6 (20%), and tumor progression in 5 (17%). Progression-free survival was 8.4 months. Overall survival was 19.3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This regimen was provided on an outpatient basis with significant antitumor activity and without the need for indwelling catheters and seems to be feasible for patients of all ages, with acceptable toxicity.

A phase II study of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous phase III studies raised concern about the safety of the combination of capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a single arm phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with dose-reduced capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with previously untreated mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated mCRC were eligible. Capecitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days and dose was reduced to 750 mg/m2 for patients over 65. Irinotecan was given at 200 mg/m2 and bevacizumab was given at 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1. The treatment cycle was repeated every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, and toxicity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled, the median age was 58, and 54% were ECOG 0. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (14%), neutropenia (12%), and diarrhea (10%). Response rate was 51% and disease control rate (response and stable disease) was 98%. Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.7), and 6 month PFS was 90% (95% CI: 77-98%).

CONCLUSION

With modest dose reductions, the combination of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab was well tolerated and resulted in favorable outcomes for patients with previously untreated mCRC.

Caplri (XelIri) Regimen for Advanced and Metastatic Colorectal or Esophogastric Cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Randomised phase-II trial of CAPIRI (capecitabine, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Background:

To compare the efficacy and safety of CAPIRI+bevacizumab (Bev) in comparison with FOLFIRI+Bev as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

Patients were randomised to receive either FOLFIRI plus Bev 5 mg kg⁻¹ every 2 weeks (Arm-A) or CAPIRI plus Bev 7.5 mg kg⁻¹ every 3 weeks (Arm-B).

Results:

Three hundred thirty-three patients (Arm-A=167; Arm-B=166) were enrolled into the study. No difference was observed in median progression-free survival (PFS) (10.0 and 8.9 months; P=0.64), overall survival (25.7 and 27.5 months; P=0.55) or response rates (45.5 and 39.8.7% P=0.32) for FOLFIRI-Bev and CAPIRI-Bev, respectively. Patients treated with CAPIRI-Bev presented significantly higher incidence of diarrhoea (P=0.005), febrile neutropenia (P=0.003) and hand–foot skin reactions (P=0.02) compared with patients treated with FOLFIRI-Bev. Treatment delays (P=0.05), dose reduction (P<0.001) and treatment discontinuation owing to toxicity (P=0.01) occurred more frequently in the CAPIRI-Bev arm.

Conclusion:

The PFS of FOLFIRI-BEV is not superior to that observed with the CAPIRI-Bev regimen. CAPIRI-Bev has a less favourable toxicity profile, requiring dose reductions, in order to be considered as an option in first-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Feasibility of biweekly combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic solid tumors: results of a two-step phase I trial: XELIRI and XELIRINOX

BACKGROUND

Biweekly schedule of capecitabine combined with irinotecan (XELIRI), consecutively with irinotecan and oxaliplatin (XELIRINOX), was evaluated in patients with metastatic cancer from any solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this two-step phase I trial, seventeen and eleven patients were enrolled in the XELIRI and XELIRINOX stages, respectively.

RESULTS

In XELIRI, a total of 136 chemotherapy cycles were administered with a median number of 8 cycles per patient (2-16). Main dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were grade 3-4 neutropenia, with one toxicity-related death. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for capecitabine combined with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan was 3,500 mg/m(2)/day. In XELIRINOX, capecitabine starting dose was 2,500 mg/m(2)/day. Fifty-eight chemotherapy cycles were administered with a median of 4 cycles per patient (1-16). DLT included 3 grade 4 neutropenia, associated with 1 grade 3 diarrhea, and 1 grade 4 pneumopathy leading to patient death. MTD for capecitabine with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan and 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin was 3,000 mg/m(2)/day. The recommended doses for capecitabine were 3,000 and 2,500 mg/m(2)/day D1-D7 in combination with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan in XELIRI, plus 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin in XELIRINOX (D1 = D14), respectively.

CONCLUSION

XELIRI and XELIRINOX regimens are feasible and warrant further investigation in combination with targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK-0104--a randomized trial of the German AIO CRC study group

PURPOSE

The AIO KRK-0104 randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 185 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1, followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks; or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1; capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily day 1 through 14, every 3 weeks). The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat patient population (n = 177), ORR was 46% (95% CI, 35 to 57) for CAPIRI plus cetuximab versus 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59) for CAPOX plus cetuximab. Analysis of the KRAS gene mutation status was performed in 81.4% of the intention to treat population. Patients with KRAS wild-type in the CAPIRI plus cetuximab arm showed an ORR of 50.0%, a PFS of 6.2 months and an OS of 21.1 months. In the CAPOX plus cetuximab arm, an ORR of 44.9%, a PFS of 7.1 months and an OS of 23.5 months were observed. While ORR and PFS were comparable in KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, a trend toward longer survival was associated with KRAS wild-type. Both regimens had manageable toxicity profiles and were safe.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial demonstrates that the addition of cetuximab to CAPIRI or CAPOX is effective and safe in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the analyzed regimens, ORR and PFS did not differ according to KRAS gene mutation status.

Chemotherapy for the conversion of unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases to resection

Resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is the ultimate aim of treatment strategies in most patients with liver-confined metastatic colorectal cancer. Long-term survival is possible in selected patients with initially resectable or unresectable CLM. As a majority of patients have unresectable liver disease at the outset, there is a clear role for chemotherapy to downstage liver disease making resection possible. Studies of systemic chemotherapy with or without biologic therapy in patients with unresectable CLM have resulted in increased response rates, liver resection rates and survival. A sound physiologic rationale exists for the use of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) therapy. Studies have shown that HAI with floxuridine combined with systemic chemotherapy increases response rates and liver resection rates in those patients with initially unresectable CLM. Toxicity from preoperative chemotherapy, biologic therapy and HAI therapy may adversely affect hepatic resection but can be kept minimal with appropriate monitoring. All conversion strategies should be decided by a multidisciplinary team.

Estimating prognosis and palliation based on tumour marker CA 19-9 and quality of life indicators in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy

Background:

To investigate the prognostic value of quality of life (QOL) relative to tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and the role of CA 19-9 in estimating palliation in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Methods:

CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks in a phase III trial (SAKK 44/00–CECOG/PAN.1.3.001). Patients scored QOL indicators at baseline, and before each administration of chemotherapy (weekly or bi-weekly) for 24 weeks or until progression. Prognostic factors were investigated by Cox models, QOL during chemotherapy by mixed-effect models.

Results:

Patient-rated pain (P<0.02) and tiredness (P<0.03) were independent predictors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9 (P<0.001). Baseline CA 19-9 did not predict QOL during chemotherapy, except for a marginal effect on pain (P<0.05). Mean changes in physical domains across the whole observation period were marginally correlated with the maximum CA 19-9 decrease. Patients in a better health status reported the most improvement in QOL within 20 days before maximum CA 19-9 decrease. They indicated substantially less pain and better physical well-being, already, early on during chemotherapy with a maximum CA 19-9 decrease of ⩾50% vs <50%.

Conclusion:

In advanced pancreatic cancer, pain and tiredness are independent prognostic factors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9. Quality of life improves before best CA 19-9 response but the maximum CA 19-9 decrease has no impact on subsequent QOL. To estimate palliation by chemotherapy, patient's perception needs to be taken into account.

Phase I study of oral irinotecan as a single-agent and given sequentially with capecitabine

PURPOSE

To assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of orally administered irinotecan in the semi-solid matrix (SSM) formulation, both as a single agent and in sequential combination with capecitabine, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-three patients were treated with irinotecan given as a single oral daily dose on days 1-5 every three weeks. An additional forty patients were treated with sequential oral irinotecan given daily on days 1-5 followed by capecitabine given orally as a divided dose twice daily on days 6-14 of each three week cycle.

RESULTS

The MTD of single-agent oral irinotecan was estimated to be 60 mg/m(2)/day, and DLT included diarrhea, nausea, and neutropenia. In an initial group of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 to 2, the MTD of sequential oral irinotecan/capecitabine was estimated to be 40/1600 mg/m(2)/day with DLT of delayed diarrhea. In a subsequent group of patients with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, the MTD for the sequential combination was 50/2000 mg/m(2)/day. The most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting and dehydration. Pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluation showed that oral irinotecan was rapidly absorbed and effectively converted to the active metabolite, SN-38, achieving approximately 50% of the SN-38 systemic exposure resulting from an equivalent IV dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral irinotecan can be safely administered as a single agent or in sequential combination with capecitabine. The efficacy of oral irinotecan should be explored further as a potentially convenient alternative to IV chemotherapy.

A phase II study of combination therapy with irinotecan and S-1 (IRIS) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

A combination of irinotecan with continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is the standard treatment for advanced colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of combining irinotecan and S-1 (IRIS) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Irinotecan was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 120 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 15. And S-1 was administered orally on days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle. S-1 was given orally at a dose that did not exceed 40 mg/m(2) based BSA: BSA < 1.25 m(2), 40 mg twice daily; 1.25-1.5 m(2), 50 mg twice daily, and BSA > 1.5 m(2), 60 mg twice daily, for 14 consecutive days.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were enrolled. An intent-to-treat analysis showed a complete response and partial response to occur in 13.2% and 50.0%, respectively. The disease control rate was 84.2%. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.0 months and 29.1 months, respectively. The rates of grade 3/4 toxicity over 4 cycles were the following: neutropenia, 15.8%; leucopenia, 7.9%; anorexia, 15.8%; diarrhea, 10.5%.

CONCLUSION

IRIS is an effective, well tolerated and convenient treatment regimen for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan plus capecitabine as a second-line treatment after failure of 5-fluorouracil and platinum in patients with advanced gastric cancer

OBJECTIVE

This Phase II study was conducted to evaluate the effects of irinotecan plus capecitabine in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who had received a first-line therapy of 5-fluorouracil/platinum regimen.

METHODS

Patients received capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 followed by a 7-day rest period, and irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) was administered through a 90 min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8, based on a 3-week cycle.

RESULTS

Forty-six (95.8%) of the 48 patients were assessable for response. Thirteen cases of partial response were confirmed, response rate of 27.1% (95% CI, 14.5-39.7%). The median follow-up period was 25.2 months. The median time to progression and overall survival for all patients were 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.4-4.8 months) and 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-10.1 months). Grade 3 diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome occurred in eight (17.4%) and two (4.3%) patients, respectively. The most common Grade 3/4 hematological adverse event was neutropenia in four (8.7%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths during this study.

CONCLUSION

Irinotecan plus capecitabine was a relatively active and tolerable regimen as a second-line chemotherapy for AGC. Further investigation of this regimen is warranted, including the addition of new biological agents such as bevacizumab or cetuximab to improve the salvage regimen.

Capecitabine in combination with irinotecan (XELIRI), administered as a 2-weekly schedule, as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study of the Spanish GOTI group

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy is standard treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of capecitabine+irinotecan (2-weekly schedule), as first-line therapy of MCRC.

METHODS

Patients received irinotecan 175 mg m(-2) on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) twice daily on days 2-8 every 2 weeks. For patients aged > or =65 years, the starting doses of irinotecan and capecitabine were reduced to 140 and 750 mg m(-2), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were enrolled: 29 (55%) were > or =65 years old. In an intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was achieved in three patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 32%. The disease control rate (ORR + stable disease) was 66% and the median duration of response was 7.3 months. Median time to progression and overall survival were 9.0 and 19.2 months, respectively. Grade 4 neutropenia was reported in one patient: no other grade 4 toxicities were recorded. Grade 3 diarrhoea occurred in 8 (15%) patients and grade 1-2 hand-foot syndrome in 7 (13%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine and irinotecan, given every 2 weeks, as first-line treatment of MCRC is an active regimen with a manageable toxicity profile, even in older patients.

Pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy of capecitabine: focus on breast and colorectal cancer

Capecitabine (N -pentyloxycarbonyl-5-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine), an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, has provided compelling efficacy data for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and stage III or IV colorectal cancer, both as monotherapy and in combination regimens. The preferential conversion of capecitabine to 5-fluorouracil in neoplastic tissues renders this fluoropyrimidine particularly appealing for clinical use. The enzyme thymidine phosphorylase, which mediates the final step of the capecitabine activation pathway, is expressed in higher concentration in neoplastic than in healthy tissues. This makes capecitabine more tumor specific than other chemotherapeutic agents. Accordingly, capecitabine is generally well tolerated. In particular, the incidence of myelosuppression and alopecia is low, and the most common side effects, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea, are usually manageable. Given its good toxicity profile, capecitabine was assessed in combination with several chemotherapeutic or biologic agents. In addition, the observation that thymidine phosphorylase is upregulated after treatment with other anticancer drugs, namely taxanes, provided a rationale for the prominent antitumor activity recently observed for the combination of capecitabine with these agents. This review provides an evidence-based update of clinical trials investigating the role of capecitabine in the treatment of breast and colorectal cancer, with special emphasis on pharmacological and safety issues that form the basis of currently used schedules.

Capecitabine plus Irinotecan (XELIRI regimen) compared to 5-FU/LV plus Irinotecan (FOLFIRI regimen) as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only metastases of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomised prospective phase II trial

Background

Phase II studies have shown that the combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (the XELIRI regimen) is active in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). There are, however, no data about the use of the XELIRI regimen in the neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods

Patients with unresectable liver-only metastases of MCRC with ≤ 75 years of age were randomised to either the XELIRI (irinotecan 250 mg/m² given on day one and capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily from day 2–15, every 21 days) or the FOLFIRI arm (irinotecan 180 mg/m², 5-FU 400 mg/m², LV 200 mg/m², 5-FU 2400 mg/m² (46-h infusion) – all given on day one, every 14 days). Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and rate of radical (R0) surgical resection. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety.

Results

Altogether 87 patients were enrolled (41 pts in the XELIRI and 46 pts in the FOLFIRI arm). The median age was 63 years (63 years in the XELIRI and 62 years in the FOLFIRI arm) (p = 0.33). ORR was 49% in the XELIRI and 48% in the FOLFIRI arm (p = 0.76). The rate of radical R0 resection was 24% in both arms of patients. At the end of treatment, 37% of patients in the XELIRI and 26% of patients in the FOLFIRI arm were without evidence of the disease (CR+R0 resection) (p = 0.56). There were no statistical differences in grade 3 or 4 adverse events between both arms: diarrhoea 7% vs. 6%, neutropenia 5% vs. 13%, ischemic stroke 0 vs. 2%, acute coronary syndrome 2% vs. 4%, respectively. At the median follow up of 17 (range 1–39) months, the median PFS was 10.3 months in the XELIRI and 9.3 months in the FOLFIRI arm (p = 0.78), the median OS was 30.7 months in the XELIRI arm and 16.6 months in the FOLFIRI arm (p = 0.16).

Conclusion

The XELIRI regimen showed similar ORR as the FOLFIRI regimen in the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with MCRC. In addition, the XELIRI regimen showed similar PFS and OS with acceptable toxicity compared to the FOLFIRI regimen.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19912492

Capecitabine and irinotecan with and without bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer patients

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of cape-citabine plus irinotecan ± bevacizumab in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS: Forty six patients with previously untreated, locally-advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were recruited between 2001-2006 in a prospective open-label phase II trial, in German community-based outpatient clinics. Patients received a standard capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) or CAPIRI plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-BEV) regimen every 3 wk. Dose reductions were mandatory from the first cycle in cases of > grade 2 toxicity. The treatment choice of bevacizumab was at the discretion of the physician. The primary endpoints were response and toxicity and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS: In the CAPIRI group vs the CAPRI-Bev group there were more female than male patients (47% vs 24%), and more patients had colon as the primary tumor site (58.8% vs 48.2%) with fewer patients having sigmoid colon as primary tumor site (5.9% vs 20.7%). Grade 3/4 toxicity was higher with CAPIRI than CAPIRI-Bev: 82% vs 58.6%. Partial response rates were 29.4% and 34.5%, and tumor control rates were 70.6% and 75.9%, respectively. No complete responses were observed. The median progression-free survival was 11.4 mo and 12.8 mo for CAPIRI and CAPIRI-Bev, respectively. The median overall survival for CAPIRI was 15 mo (458 d) and for CAPIRI-Bev 24 mo (733 d). These differences were not statistically different. In the CAPIRI-Bev, group, two patients underwent a full secondary tumor resection after treatment, whereas in the CAPIRI group no cases underwent this procedure.

CONCLUSION: Both regimens were well tolerated and offered effective tumor growth control in this outpatient setting. Severe gastrointestinal toxicities and thromboembolic events were rare and if observed were never fatal.

A phase II trial evaluating capecitabine and irinotecan as second line treatment in patients with oesophago-gastric cancer who have progressed on, or within 3 months of platinum-based chemotherapy

RATIONALE

There is no standard second line therapy for relapsed oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer.

METHODS

We recruited 29 eligible patients with relapsed O-G cancer who had progressed during or within 3 months of prior chemotherapy to assess the efficacy and toxicity of capecitabine [2,000 mg/(m(2) day) on days 1-14] and irinotecan (250 mg/m(2)) given every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Five patients (17%) demonstrated objective response, while a further seven patients (24%) achieved disease stabilisation. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.1 months (95% CI = 2.2-4.1 months) and 6.5 months (95%CI = 6-7.1 months), respectively. Among symptomatic patients, palliation of tumour-related symptoms included resolution of reflux (5/12 pts), dysphagia (3/9 pts) and weight loss (4/9 pts), improvements in anorexia (4/10 pts), nausea (3/4 pts), vomiting (4/6 pts) and pain (4/16 pts). Grade 3-4 toxicities were diarrhoea (15%), nausea and vomiting (7%), lethargy (31%), neutropenia (31%), anemia (14%) and thrombocytopenia (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine and irinotecan has anti-tumour activity as second line treatment for relapsed O-G cancer, and provides an important improvement in disease related symptoms.