Jean A. Maroun

Irinotecan plus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND The combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin has until recently been standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with colorectal cancer that is refractory to treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin. In a multicenter trial, we compared a combination of irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin with bolus doses of fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. A third group of patients received irinotecan alone. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously), fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus), and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) weekly for four weeks every six weeks; fluorouracil (425 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) daily for five consecutive days every four weeks; or irinotecan alone (125 mg per square meter intravenously) weekly for four weeks every six weeks. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS Of 683 patients, 231 were assigned to receive irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin; 226 to receive fluorouracil and leucovorin; and 226 to receive irinotecan alone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 7.0 vs. 4.3 months; P=0.004), a higher rate of confirmed response (39 percent vs. 21 percent, P<0.001), and longer overall survival (median, 14.8 vs. 12.6 months; P=0.04). Results for irinotecan alone were similar to those for fluorouracil and leucovorin. Grade 3 (severe) diarrhea was more common during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin than during treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, but the incidence of grade 4 (life-threatening) diarrhea was similar in the two groups (<8 percent). Grade 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin. Adding irinotecan to the regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin did not compromise the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Weekly treatment with irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin is superior to a widely used regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer

PURPOSE To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. RESULTS A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. CONCLUSION Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer

PURPOSE This multicenter, randomized trial compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for 24 weeks) or a standard bolus FU/FA adjuvant regimen (Mayo Clinic for 24 weeks or Roswell Park for 32 weeks). The primary study end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS The intention-to-treat population comprised 1,886 patients; 944 patients were randomly assigned to XELOX and 942 to FU/FA (Mayo Clinic, n = 664; Roswell Park, n = 278). After 57 months of follow-up for the primary analysis, 295 patients (31.3%) in the XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new primary colon cancer, or died compared with 353 patients (37.5%) in the FU/FA group (hazard ratio [HR] for DFS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93; P = .0045). The 3-year DFS rate was 70.9% with XELOX and 66.5% with FU/FA. The HR for overall survival (OS) for XELOX compared to FU/FA was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .1486). The 5-year OS for XELOX and FU/FA were 77.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Follow-up is ongoing. Preplanned multivariate and subgroup analyses supported the robustness of these findings. CONCLUSION The addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine improves DFS in patients with stage III colon cancer. XELOX is an additional adjuvant treatment option for these patients.

Oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: integrated efficacy data and novel analyses from two large, randomised, phase III trials.

This study evaluates the efficacy of capecitabine using data from a large, well-characterised population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in two identically designed phase III studies. A total of 1207 patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomised to either oral capecitabine (1250 mg m−2 twice daily, days 1−14 every 21 days; n=603) or intravenous (i.v.) bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV; Mayo Clinic regimen; n=604). Capecitabine demonstrated a statistically significant superior response rate compared with 5-FU/LV (26 vs 17%; P<0.0002). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that capecitabine consistently resulted in superior response rates (P<0.05), even in patient subgroups with poor prognostic indicators. The median time to response and duration of response were similar and time to progression (TTP) was equivalent in the two arms (hazard ratio (HR) 0.997, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885–1.123, P=0.95; median 4.6 vs 4.7 months with capecitabine and 5-FU/LV, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified younger age, liver metastases, multiple metastases and poor Karnofsky Performance Status as independent prognostic indicators for poor TTP. Overall survival was equivalent in the two arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.06, P=0.48; median 12.9 vs 12.8 months, respectively). Capecitabine results in superior response rate, equivalent TTP and overall survival, an improved safety profile and improved convenience compared with i.v. 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment for MCRC. For patients in whom fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is indicated, capecitabine should be strongly considered. Following encouraging results from phase I and II trials, randomised trials are evaluating capecitabine in combination with irinotecan, oxaliplatin and radiotherapy. Capecitabine is a suitable replacement for i.v. 5-FU as the backbone of colorectal cancer therapy.

Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline

BackgroundA systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed.MethodsThe MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.ResultsSix randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not.ConclusionFollow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence.Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed.Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review From the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care’s Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group

PURPOSE To develop a systematic review that would address the following question: Should patients with stage II colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy? METHODS A systematic review was undertaken to locate randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant therapy to observation. RESULTS Thirty-seven trials and 11 meta-analyses were included. The evidence for stage II colon cancer comes primarily from a trial of fluorouracil plus levamisole and a meta-analysis of 1,016 patients comparing fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus observation. Neither detected an improvement in disease-free or overall survival for adjuvant therapy. A recent pooled analysis of data from seven trials observed a benefit for adjuvant therapy in a multivariate analysis for both disease-free and overall survival. The disease-free survival benefits appeared to extend to stage II patients; however, no P values were provided. A meta-analysis of chemotherapy by portal vein infusion has also shown a benefit in disease-free and overall survival for stage II patients. A meta-analysis was conducted using data on stage II patients where data were available (n = 4,187). The mortality risk ratio was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P =.07). CONCLUSION There is preliminary evidence indicating that adjuvant therapy is associated with a disease-free survival benefit for patients with stage II colon cancer. These benefits are small and not necessarily associated with improved overall survival. Patients should be made aware of these results and encouraged to participate in active clinical trials. Additional investigation of newer therapies and more mature data from the presently available trials should be pursued.

Phase III Trial of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin As Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: A Planned Safety Analysis in 1,864 Patients

PURPOSE To report the results of a planned safety analysis from a phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FU/LV) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either XELOX (intravenous oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine; 3-week cycle for eight cycles) or standard intravenous bolus FU/LV administered as the Mayo Clinic (Mayo; Rochester, MN) or Roswell Park (RP; Buffalo, NY) regimen for a similar length of time. A total of 1,886 patients were randomly assigned. RESULTS The safety population comprised 1,864 patients, of whom 938 received XELOX and 926 received FU/LV. Most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred at similar rates in both treatment arms. However, patients receiving XELOX experienced less all-grade diarrhea, alopecia, and more neurosensory toxicity, vomiting, and hand-foot syndrome than those patients receiving FU/LV. Compared with Mayo, XELOX showed fewer grade 3/4 hematologic AE and more grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE. Compared with RP, XELOX showed less grade 3/4 gastrointestinal AE and more grade 3/4 hematologic AE. As expected grade 3/4 neurosensory toxicity and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome were higher with XELOX. Treatment-related mortality within 28 days from the last study dose was 0.6% in the XELOX group and 0.6% in the FU/LV group. CONCLUSION XELOX has a manageable tolerability profile in the adjuvant setting. Efficacy data will be available within the next 24 months.

Survival benefit of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To estimate the magnitude of benefit of chemotherapy in prolonging survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial was performed. A systematic search was performed to identify randomized trials comparing chemotherapy with observation or supportive care alone. Trials were assessed for quality of reporting, publication bias and heterogeneity. Relative risks for outcomes from published data were pooled using a random-effects model. Seven trials with 614 patients were included. All trials used fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, through a variety of routes and schedules, including intravenous, intra-portal and hepatic arterial infusion. Compared with the ‘no-chemotherapy’ arm, chemotherapy significantly reduced 1-year mortality (risk ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60–0.81, P< 0.00001). The mortality at 2 years was not significantly different (risk ratio 0.93; 95% CI 0.87–1.00, P = 0.053). Between-trial comparisons demonstrated benefit with a variety of routes and schedules. Chemotherapy significantly prolongs 1-year survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and should be offered to those with good performance status.

Oral Etoposide and Carboplatin: Effective Therapy for Elderly Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer

PurposeElderly patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and/or those with comorbid conditions are frequently not considered candidates for standard combination chemotherapy. An active, but less toxic regimen is needed for this group of patients. Patients and MethodsForty-seven elderly (>65 years) or medically unfit patients with SCLC were treated with oral etoposide 100 mg/m2 × 7 days and carboplatin 150 mg/m2 day 1. Treatment was given every 3–4 weeks for six cycles in responding patients. Patients responding to the chemotherapy regimen were also treated with prophylactic cranial irradiation, and limited-stage patients received thoracic radiotherapy. The study population included 36 extensive-stage patients and 11 limited-disease patients with renal or cardiac disease that precluded standard chemotherapy. The median age of the study population was 69 years (range: 47–84). ResultsNine of 47 patients were inevaluable for response, including four patients who succumbed to sepsis. Of the 38 patients evaluable for response, 71% responded (95% CI: 56–86%) (88% LD; 67% ED) with a complete response in 29% of patients (50% LD; 23% ED). Based on an analysis of intent to treat, the overall response rate was 60% and the median survival time of the whole group was 46 weeks (LD, 59 weeks; ED, 45 weeks). Treatment was generally well tolerated. Neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity; the median nadir granulocyte count was 1.04 × 109/L (range: 0–8.2). ConclusionWe conclude that this regimen can provide palliation to SCLC patients who might not otherwise be considered for systemic chemotherapy.

Platinum concentrations in human autopsy tumor samples

Platinum concentrations were determined in autopsy tumor samples obtained from 27 patients who had received cisplatin 40–1,029 mg/m2 from 0 to 240 days antemortem. Liver metastases had significantly higher platinum concentrations than did tumors in other sites (p < 0.005). Platinum concentrations in liver metastases were similar to platinum concentrations in normal liver. Platinum concentrations in gliomas and brain metastases were similar to platinum concentrations in other extrahepatic tumors. Platinum concentration generally decreased with increasing distance into brain from tumor. By multiple stepwise linear regression analysis, the factors that were independently most closely associated with tumor platinum concentration were time from last cisplatin treatment, cumulative lifetime dose of cisplatin, route of cisplatin administration (intraarterial vs. other), and site of tumor deposit (liver vs. other) (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Patients whose tumors had responded to cisplatin-containing regimens had mean tumor platinum concentrations that were higher than the mean tumor platinum concentrations in patients whose tumors had not responded to cisplatin (p < 0.05).