The Role of Fluoropirimidines in Gastrointestinal Tumours: from the Bench to the Bed

PURPOSE

Gastrointestinal tumours are one of the most common types of cancer. Therapeutic options include surgery, radiotherapy, local ablation techniques, targeted agents, and chemotherapy. Fluoroprimidines are one of the most active drug families in digestive tumours and remains the cornerstone of the most commonly used chemotherapy schemes.

METHODS

We review the molecular basis of thymidylate synthase inhibition and the mechanisms of action of 5-fluorouracil, next generation oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine, tegafur and the latest S-1 and TAS-102) and antifolates.

RESULTS

In addition, mechanisms and biomarkers of resistance and toxicity are explored. Finally, new fluoropyrimidines development and clinical trials ongoing in digestive tumours are reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is necessary to avoid resistance mechanisms, improve clinical outcomes and continue reducing toxicities. Until new drugs become available, the optimization of current therapies should be a priority.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Survival benefit from S-1 as compared to Fluorouracil in Asian patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

Whether S-1 could replace 5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) or not in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer (including advanced gastric cancer [AGS] and metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]) in Asian patients has been controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of S-1-based versus 5-Fu-based chemotherapy in those Asian patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by electronic search of Pubmed. Relevant abstracts were manually searched to identify relevant trials. A total of 2182 patients from eight RCTs were included, and our results demonstrated that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.00) and overall response rate (ORR) (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70), but no significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was found between arms (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.06). Subgroup analyses revealed that S-1-based chemotherapy significantly improved OS and ORR in subgroups of patients with non-platinum containing regimens (P = 0.041; P = 0.034) and patients with no prior chemotherapy history (P = 0.025; P = 0.016). Statistically significant improvements of PFS and ORR in the S-1-based chemotherapy were observed in the subgroup of patients with AGC (P < 0.001; P = 0.005). S-1-based chemotherapy was characterized by significantly higher incidences of diarrhea, fatigue and thrombocytopenia, and a lower incidence of nausea. This analysis provided strong evidence for survival benefits of S-1, and S-1-based chemotherapy could be considered to replace 5-Fu-based therapy for the treatment of advanced GI cancer in Asian patients.

Upregulation of ERCC1 and DPD expressions after oxaliplatin-based first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The updated randomised phase 2/3 FIRIS study demonstrated the noninferiority of IRIS (irinotecan and S-1) to FOLFIRI (irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-FU) for metastatic colorectal cancer. Meanwhile, in the subset analysis including patients who previously have undergone oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, the IRIS group showed longer survival than the FOLFIRI group. However, the molecular mechanism underlying this result is still unknown.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute 60 (NCI60) cell line panel data were utilised to build the hypothesis. A total of 45 irinotecan-naive metastatic colorectal cancer patients who had undergone hepatic resection were included for the validation study. The mRNA expressions of excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), and topoisomerase-1 (TOP1) were evaluated by quantitative RT-PCR. The expressions of ERCC1 and DPD were also evaluated by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Sensitivity to oxaliplatin in 60 cell lines was significantly correlated with that of 5-FU. Resistant cells to oxaliplatin showed significantly higher ERCC1 and DPD expression than sensitive cells. In validation study, ERCC1 and DPD but not TOP1 expressions in cancer cells were significantly higher in FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and 5-FU)-treated patients (N=24) than nontreated patients (N=21). The ERCC1 and DPD protein expressions were also significantly higher in FOLFOX-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

The ERCC1 and DPD expression levels at both mRNA and protein levels were significantly higher in patients with oxaliplatin as a first-line chemotherapy than those without oxaliplatin. The IRIS regimens with the DPD inhibitory fluoropyrimidine may show superior activity against DPD-high tumours (e.g., tumours treated with oxaliplatin) compared with FOLFIRI.

S-1 for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens are used worldwide as the standard treatment in chemotherapy for gastric cancer. S-1 , a fourth-generation oral fluoropyrimidine that combines tegafur and two biochemical modulators: gimeracil and oteracil potassium, is now attracting considerable interest.

AREAS COVERED

This review addresses the clinical evidence of S-1 in gastrointestinal malignancies, such as gastric, colorectal, pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. S-1 has demonstrated advantages over standard therapies, in both advanced and postoperative settings, in large Phase III studies. S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin is recommended in the 2010 Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines, by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Results from Phase III studies have demonstrated that S-1 in combination with chemotherapies, such as cisplatin in gastric cancer, and irinotecan and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancers, is non-inferior to conventional 5-FU-based standard regimens, with the benefit of convenience and reduced toxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

The excellent design of S-1 aimed to reduce toxicity by avoiding certain routes of degradation, and to enhance activity by reducing catabolism. This has provided not only a suitable alternative to 5-FU, but also higher efficacy.