Methotrexate/fluorouracil scheduling influences normal tissue toxicity but not antitumor effects in patients with squamous cell head and neck cancer: results from a randomized trial

Therapeutic efficacy of sorafenib and plant-derived phytochemicals in human colorectal cancer cells

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to investigate the sequence-dependent anticancer effects of combined treatment with sorafenib (Sora), a Food and Drug Administration-approved multikinase inhibitor drug, and plant-derived phytochemicals (PPCs) on human colorectal cancer (CRC) cell growth, and proteins associated with the control of cell cycle and apoptosis.

METHODS

The cytotoxic effects of 14 PPCs on CRL1554 fibroblast cells were determined using an MTT assay. Moreover, the cytotoxicity of Sora, PPCs, and a combination of both on CRC cells were also investigated. Cell cycle analysis was performed using flow cytometry, and cell apoptosis was investigated using DNA fragmentation, Annexin V/propidium iodide double staining, and mitochondrial membrane potential analyses. The cell cycle- and apoptosis-associated protein expression levels were analysed using western blotting.

RESULTS

Based on their low levels of cytotoxicity in CRL1554 cells at ≤ 20%, curcumin, quercetin, kaempferol, and resveratrol were selected for use in subsequent experiments. The combined treatment of sora and PPCs caused levels of CRC cytotoxicity in a dose-, cell type-, and schedule-dependent manner. Moreover, the combined treatment of CRC cells arrested cell growth at the S and G2/M phases, induced apoptotic cell death, caused extensive mitochondrial membrane damage, and altered the expression of the cell cycle and apoptotic proteins.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present study highlighted a difference in the level of sora efficacy in CRC cells when combined with PPCs. Further in vivo and clinical studies using the combined treatment of sora and PPCs are required to determine their potential as a novel therapeutic strategy for CRCs.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 1st December 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-nine trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted by two or more review authors. The primary outcome was total mortality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information or for clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

There is evidence of a small increase in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone (25 trials), hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00, P = 0.06). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (10 trials), HR of mortality 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, P = 0.03), and there is some evidence that this improvement may be greater with concomitant adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (4 trials), HR of mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03). In patients with unresectable tumours, there is evidence that concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy is associated with improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone (26 trials), HR of mortality 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.83, P < 0.00001). These findings are confirmed by sensitivity analyses based on studies assessed at low risk of bias. There is insufficient evidence to identify which agent(s) and/or regimen(s) are the most effective. The additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy may prolong survival by 8 to 20% and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by up to 16%. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant or alternating chemoradiotherapy may prolong survival by 10 to 22%. There is insufficient evidence as to which agent or regimen is most effective and the additional toxicity associated with chemotherapy given in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery cannot be quantified.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.

A phase I study of methotrexate administration following 5-fluorouracil

A priming dose of 5-fluorouracil can decrease the toxicity and retain the efficacy of high-dose methotrexate in laboratory models. This Phase I study determined the maximum tolerated dose of methotrexate that can be administered after a dose of 5-fluorouracil without leucovorin rescue. Forty-two patients received 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2) by bolus injection followed in 2 h by methotrexate infused over 1 h; treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Patients received five doses of leucovorin (10 mg/m2 every 6 h); this was reduced to two doses and then to zero doses (no rescue) if less than grade 2 toxicity occurred in prior treatments. If safe, at least two patients received no leucovorin rescue with their first treatment. The dose of methotrexate was escalated in cohorts of patients, starting with a methotrexate dose of 200 mg/m2. Previously untreated patients maximally tolerated 1600 mg/m2 of methotrexate with 5-fluorouracil pretreatment. Leukopenia combined with stomatitis prevented deescalation of leucovorin doses. Fourteen percent of total courses and 15% of courses without leucovorin rescue resulted in dose limiting toxicity. MTX levels exceeded levels that require leucovorin rescue. Four of the 33 (12%) advanced head and neck cancer patients had objective responses to therapy; median survival was 10 months. Previously treated patients were less tolerant; oral and hematological toxicities were troublesome; 400 mg/m2 of methotrexate was the approximate maximum tolerated dose. Forty-seven percent of total courses and 60% of courses without leucovorin rescue resulted in dose limiting toxicity. There were no responses. Although the antineoplastic activity is poor, prior 5-fluorouracil exposure does protect tissues susceptible to methotrexate toxicity.

Antifolates: current developments

In summary, the problem of MTX resistance has been approached in a mechanistic fashion, based on the wealth of information generated over the years. To date, these strategies have produced several new classes of anticancer drugs, with a variety of anticipated and unanticipated mechanisms of action. Several of these have shown promising preclinical activity, and these are moving into more stringent testing in the clinic.

Addition of leucovorin in modulation of 5-fluorouracil with methotrexate: potentiating or reversing effect?

Potentiation of the anti-tumor activity of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) by methotrexate (MTX) and leucovorin (LV) requires careful scheduling to achieve the most favorable interactions between these 3 drugs. In vitro the triple combination of MTX/5FU/LV was tested at 4 time intervals and with 3 MTX concentrations in 3 cell lines. MTX/5FU/LV was never superior to both 5FU/LV and MTX/5FU, moreover LV reduced growth inhibition by MTX/5FU in 2 cell lines. MTX/5FU was associated with only moderately increased levels of the 5FU metabolite FdUMP, while LV/5FU reduced the free FdUMP levels. MTX/LV/5FU had a dual effect and FdUMP levels gave no clear indication regarding the anti-proliferative effect that could be expected. In vivo the time-dependent potentiation of MTX on the 5FU anti-tumor activity was confirmed for the treatment of HNX-14C-bearing mice. Addition of LV to the MTX/5FU combination failed to cause a gain in anti-tumor efficacy. For the treatment of Colon-26-bearing mice, MTX/5FU was comparable to LV/5FU, but the triple combination of MTX/LV/5FU seemed to have a better anti-tumor effect. However, the toxicity of the latter treatment was greater than that of LV/5FU. The data from both in vitro and in vivo experiments failed to support the addition of LV to MTX/5FU therapy, possibly due to a reversing effect of LV.

Comparison of the addition of T and N integer scores with TNM stage groups in head and neck cancer

The 1987 TNM classification system modified T and N definitions for squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. It did not change stage groupings (I through IV). The primary purpose of clinical staging is to divide patients into prognostically meaningful groups. The 1987 changes to the TNM T and N descriptions may not have removed the previously established heterogeneity within stage groups III and IV which existed before 1987. The development of a stage grouping system called TANIS (the T And N Integer Score), which is formed by adding the integer values of the T and N classifications, is reported herein. We compared the prognostic performance of T, N, TNM stage group, and TANIS stage for radiotherapy response and survival using data from 86 patients with newly diagnosed, measurable TNM II (oral cavity), and localized TNM III-IV squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, excluding nasopharynx, who were randomized to test 5-fluorouracil-methotrexate sequencing. The sequencing of chemotherapy was shown to make no difference to prognosis. All patients received 60 Gy of radiotherapy in 6 weeks. As compared to T, N, and the TNM stage group system, TANIS was the single best predictor for a complete response to radiotherapy (p = 0.0005). TANIS was also the single best predictor for survival from randomization (p = 5 x 10(-6)). With the 86 patients divided into three groups (TANIS 2 to 3, 4, and 5 to 7), TANIS provided a better prognostic discrimination than did the TNM stage grouping method (TNM II, III, and IV).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Current chemotherapy of head and neck cancer

This article reviews the results of over 50 published trials testing the use of chemotherapy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Among the trials using chemotherapy before standard surgery and/or radiotherapy in stage III and IV disease, none has shown an improvement in survival compared with surgery and/or radiotherapy alone. In these studies, the survival at 3 to 5 years has been generally 40% to 50%. Several trials using chemotherapy after standard therapy, however, have reported survival benefits of 10% to 20%, suggested that further evaluation of classic adjuvant chemotherapy in this disease is warranted. Among studies in recurrent head and neck cancer, the most effective chemotherapy regimens appear to be variations of the program consisting of cisplatin followed by a 5-day infusion of 5-fluorouracil. Nevertheless, median survivals in recurrent disease remain short, generally 5 to 10 months.

Clinical relevance of biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil

Biochemical modulation is a special type of combination chemotherapy which aims to selectively improve the therapeutic index by increasing the antitumor effect and protecting against toxic side effects. Biochemical modulation seems to be an attractive way to circumvent quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity of tumors. In the past decade a number of biochemical modulation approaches have been tested to improve the activity of 5-fluorouracil (5FU). 5FU itself has only modest anticancer activity but has been shown to be a very attractive target for biochemical modulation. A number of the combinations have been ineffective in the clinic despite extensive testing in a number of schedules. Some other combinations were initially tested in an inappropriate schedule, but were active when applied in another schedule. The latter was made possible by a systematic preclinical development of combinations with a proper translation to the clinic accompanied by pharmacodynamic evaluation. This review describes a number of biochemical modulation combinations, both inactive and active. The main conclusion is that properly applied biochemical modulation schedules may lead to successful use in the clinic.

Schedule-dependent in vitro combination effects of methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in human tumor cell lines

Because of conflicting reports of clinical synergy, we used the tetrazolium-based colorimetric (MTT) assay to test in vitro combination effects of methotrexate (MTX) plus 5-fluorouracil (FUra) in 4 schedules on 2 human non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines (adenocarcinoma, NC1-H23; bronchio-alveolar-cell carcinoma, NC1-H358), and 1 human colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line (SNU-C1). The complete 3 dimensional set of isoboles in the dose range under study was generated by a microcomputer-based method. We found that the combination effects of 8-hr sequential FUra-MTX, simultaneous administration of MTX-FUra, and 8-hr sequential MTX-FUra were clearly antagonistic for all 3 cell lines. In contrast, the combination cytotoxic effects of 24-hr sequential MTX-FUra were much more active. Our in vitro model thus clearly shows that MTX-FUra interactions are highly schedule-dependent. This provides a rational basis for testing sequential MTX-FUra with a longer administration interval than usually employed clinically.

Biochemical modulation of fluoropyrimidines by antifolates and folates in an in vitro model of human leukemia

Although 5-fluorouracil (FUra) is one of the most effective cytotoxic agents in the treatment of various solid tumors (carcinomas of the gastro-intestinal tract, breast, head and neck), remissions occur in only 20 to 30% of cases and usually are of short duration. Recently, preclinical studies have shown that the antitumor activity of FUra can be potentiated by modulating the metabolism of this drug by using other substances, in particular antifolates of folates. Pretreatment with antifolates may, by blocking de novo purine biosynthesis and consequently increasing phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) pools, enhance the conversion of FUra to active fluoronucleotide pools via orotate phosphoribosyltransferase. Methotrexate (MTX) pretreatment may also enhance binding of the fluoropyrimidine inhibitor, 5-fluodeoxyuridylate (FdUMP), to the target enzyme, thymidylate synthase (TS), indirectly by increasing dihydrofolate polyglutamates or directly, as MTX polyglutamates, by enhancing the formation of ternary complexes with FdUMP and TS. Exogenous folates, in particular 5-formyltetrahydrofolate (folinate, leucovorin, LV), can, by raising the intracellular levels of 5, 10-methylenetetrahydrofolate, lead to increased formation and stabilization of the ternary complex formed by TS, the folate coenzyme, and FdUMP. In vitro studies have also shown potentiation of FUra cytotoxicity by antifolates and folates against human lymphoblastic leukemia cell lines. Thus, while FUra may have little or no single agent activity in leukemias and lymphomas, it may be converted to an active drug in these neoplasms by appropriate modulation. Clinical studies of sequential MTX-FUra or combined LV-FUra based upon experimental tumor results reviewed herein, are warranted.