Stephen P. Ackland

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.

Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND Resection remains the best treatment for carcinoma of the oesophagus in terms of local control, but local recurrence and distant metastasis remain an issue after surgery. We aimed to assess whether a short preoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen improves outcomes for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. METHODS 128 patients were randomly assigned to surgery alone and 128 patients to surgery after 80 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, 800 mg/m(2) fluorouracil on days 1-4, with concurrent radiotherapy of 35 Gy given in 15 fractions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, tumour response, toxic effects, patterns of failure, and quality of life. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS Neither progression-free survival nor overall survival differed between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.61-1.10] and 0.89 [0.67-1.19], respectively). The chemoradiotherapy-and-surgery group had more complete resections with clear margins than did the surgery-alone group (103 of 128 [80%] vs 76 of 128 [59%], p=0.0002), and had fewer positive lymph nodes (44 of 103 [43%] vs 69 of 103 [67%], p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with squamous-cell tumours had better progression-free survival with chemoradiotherapy than did those with non-squamous tumours (HR 0.47 [0.25-0.86] vs 1.02 [0.72-1.44]). However, the trial was underpowered to determine the real magnitude of benefit in this subgroup. INTERPRETATION Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil does not significantly improve progression-free or overall survival for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer compared with surgery alone. However, further assessment is warranted of the role of chemoradiotherapy in patients with squamous-cell tumours.

Randomized Trial of Short-Course Radiotherapy Versus Long-Course Chemoradiation Comparing Rates of Local Recurrence in Patients With T3 Rectal Cancer: Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Trial 01.04

PURPOSE To compare the local recurrence (LR) rate between short-course (SC) and long-course (LC) neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had ultrasound- or magnetic resonance imaging-staged T3N0-2M0 rectal adenocarcinoma within 12 cm from anal verge. SC consisted of pelvic radiotherapy 5 × 5 Gy in 1 week, early surgery, and six courses of adjuvant chemotherapy. LC was 50.4 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fraction, in 5.5 weeks, with continuous infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) per day, surgery in 4 to 6 weeks, and four courses of chemotherapy. RESULTS Three hundred twenty-six patients were randomly assigned; 163 patients to SC and 163 to LC. Median potential follow-up time was 5.9 years (range, 3.0 to 7.8 years). Three-year LR rates (cumulative incidence) were 7.5% for SC and 4.4% for LC (difference, 3.1%; 95% CI, -2.1 to 8.3; P = .24). For distal tumors (< 5 cm), six of 48 SC patients and one of 31 LC patients experienced local recurrence (P = .21). Five-year distant recurrence rates were 27% for SC and 30% for LC (log-rank P = 0.92; hazard ratio [HR] for LC:SC, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.56). Overall survival rates at 5 years were 74% for SC and 70% for LC (log-rank P = 0.62; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.67). Late toxicity rates were not substantially different (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer G3-4: SC, 5.8%; LC, 8.2%; P = .53). CONCLUSION Three-year LR rates between SC and LC were not statistically significantly different; the CI for the difference is consistent with either no clinically important difference or differences in favor of LC. LC may be more effective in reducing LR for distal tumors. No differences in rates of distant recurrence, relapse-free survival, overall survival, or late toxicity were detected.

Capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group randomized phase III MAX study

PURPOSE To determine whether adding bevacizumab, with or without mitomycin, to capecitabine monotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in an open-label, three-arm randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 471 patients in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom with previously untreated, unresectable mCRC were randomly assigned to the following: capecitabine; capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CB); or capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin (CBM). We compared CB with capecitabine and CBM with capecitabine for progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), toxicity, response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Median PFS was 5.7 months for capecitabine, 8.5 months for CB, and 8.4 months for CBM (capecitabine v CB: hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001; C v CBM: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75; P < .001). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median OS was 18.9 months for capecitabine and was 16.4 months for CBM; these data were not significantly different. Toxicity rates were acceptable, and all treatment regimens well tolerated. Bevacizumab toxicities were similar to those in previous studies. Measures of overall QOL were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION Adding bevacizumab to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin, significantly improves PFS without major additional toxicity or impairment of QOL.

Basis for effective combination cancer chemotherapy with antimetabolites.

Most current chemotherapy regimens for cancer consist of empirically designed combinations, based on efficacy and lack of overlapping toxicity. In the development of combinations, several aspects are often overlooked: (1) possible metabolic and biological interactions between drugs, (2) scheduling, and (3) different pharmacokinetic profiles. Antimetabolites are used widely in chemotherapy combinations for treatment of various leukemias and solid tumors. Ideally, the combination of two or more agents should be more effective than each agent separately (synergism), although additive and even antagonistic combinations may result in a higher therapeutic efficacy in the clinic. The median-drug effect analysis method is one of the most widely used methods for in vitro evaluation of combinations. Several examples of classical effective antimetabolite-(anti)metabolite combinations are discussed, such as that of methotrexate with 6-mercaptopurine or leucovorin in (childhood) leukemia and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) with leucovorin in colon cancer. More recent combinations include treatment of acute-myeloid leukemia with fludarabine and arabinosylcytosine. Other combinations, currently frequently used in the treatment of solid malignancies, include an antimetabolite with a DNA-damaging agent, such as gemcitabine with cisplatin and 5FU with the cisplatin analog oxaliplatin. The combination of 5FU and the topoisomerase inhibitor irinotecan is based on decreased repair of irinotecan-induced DNA damage. These combinations may increase induction of apoptosis. The latter combinations have dramatically changed the treatment of incurable cancers, such as lung and colon cancer, and have demonstrated that rationally designed drug combinations offer new possibilities to treat solid malignancies.

Initial Paclitaxel Improves Outcome Compared With CMFP Combination Chemotherapy as Front-Line Therapy in Untreated Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the place of single-agent paclitaxel compared with nonanthracycline combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 3 hours for eight cycles (24 weeks) or standard cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8, and prednisone 40 mg/m(2)/d orally on days 1 to 14 (CMFP) for six cycles (24 weeks) with epirubicin recommended as second-line therapy. RESULTS A total of 209 eligible patients were randomized with a median survival duration of 17.3 months for paclitaxel and 13.9 months for CMFP. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received paclitaxel survived significantly longer than those who received CMFP (P =.025). Paclitaxel produced significantly less severe leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, documented infections (all P <.001), nausea or vomiting (P =.003), and fever without documented infection (P =.007), and less hospitalization for febrile neutropenia than did CMFP (P =.001). Alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, and myalgia or arthralgia were more severe with paclitaxel (all P <.0001). Overall, quality of life was similar for both treatments (P > = .07). CONCLUSION Initial paclitaxel was associated with significantly less myelosuppression and fewer infections, with longer survival and similar quality of life and control of metastatic breast cancer compared with CMFP.

High-dose methotrexate: a critical reappraisal.

High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) with leucovorin (LV) rescue has been used as a therapeutic strategy in oncology for more than a decade. Administration of HDMTX results in tumoricidal plasma concentrations of the drug without significant host toxicity, provided that plasma MTX levels are monitored and LV rescue is properly administered. The original premise of LV rescue was that the provision of reduced folate to normal cells would circumvent the metabolic block produced by MTX and allow resumption of DNA synthesis, although the presumed therapeutic selectivity of leucovorin has not yet been adequately explained. Despite a strong pharmacologic rationale and a vast clinical experience, HDMTX with leucovorin rescue has not been shown to be unequivocally superior to conventional doses of MTX in any clinical situation except, perhaps, for treatment of osteogenic sarcoma and childhood acute leukemia. While HDMTX is an important component of effective treatment regimens for these diseases, its precise contribution to the success of these regimens remains undefined. Although HDMTX can theoretically overcome all known mechanisms of MTX resistance, no data exist to suggest that this can be accomplished in the clinic. Thus, this well-known but poorly understood treatment regimen must remain a subject of clinical investigation rather than a part of routine clinical practice.

Randomised, phase II trial comparing oral capecitabine (Xeloda) with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines.

Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, was designed to generate 5-fluorouracil preferentially at the tumour site. This randomised, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine or paclitaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Outpatients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer whose disease was unresponsive or resistant to anthracycline therapy were randomised to 3-week cycles of intermittent oral capecitabine (1255 mg m−2 twice daily, days 1–14, (22 patients)) or a reference arm of i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg m−2, (20 patients)). Two additional patients were initially randomised to continuous capecitabine 666 mg m−2 twice daily, but this arm was closed following selection of the intermittent schedule for further development. Overall response rate was 36% (95% CI 17–59%) with capecitabine (including three complete responses) and 26% (95% CI 9–51%) with paclitaxel (no complete responses). Median time to disease progression was similar in the two treatment groups (3.0 months with capecitabine, 3.1 months with paclitaxel), as was overall survival (7.6 and 9.4 months, respectively). Paclitaxel was associated with more alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, myalgia and neutropenia, whereas typical capecitabine-related adverse events were diarrhoea, vomiting and hand–foot syndrome. Twenty-three per cent of capecitabine-treated patients and 16% of paclitaxel-treated patients achieved a ⩾10% improvement in Karnofsky Performance Status. Oral capecitabine is active in anthracycline-pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer and has a favourable safety profile. Furthermore, capecitabine provides a convenient, patient-orientated therapy.

Factors affecting epirubicin pharmacokinetics and toxicity: evidence against using body-surface area for dose calculation.

PURPOSE An exploratory study to test whether body-surface area (BSA) should be used for the calculation of epirubicin dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS The relationship between pretreatment characteristics and the effects of epirubicin were investigated in 20 chemotherapy-naive patients. Measurements of body size, renal and hepatic function, and other factors were correlated with epirubicin pharmacokinetics (PK) and epirubicin-induced neutropenia. All patients received 150 mg of epirubicin infused continuously over 120 hours, regardless of body size. Factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate linear regression. RESULTS There were no correlations between BSA or weight with any PK parameter or with the degree of neutropenia. In multivariate analysis, indicators of liver function were the only factors that correlated with neutropenia and epirubicin PK. Thus, correlations for neutropenia were seen with antipyrine clearance (P = .003), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) (P = .005) and serum transferrin (P = .01). Further, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for epirubicin correlated with prothrombin index (P < .01), antipyrine clearance (P < .01), and serum bile salt concentration (P = .03), and there were similar correlations for epirubicin steady-state concentration (CpSS). Epirubicin clearance correlated with antipyrine clearance (P = .02). PK parameters for dihydroepirubicin correlated with prothombin index, serum transferrin, and bile salt concentrations (P < .001 for all correlations). Because of the number of statistical examinations performed, some of these correlations may be spurious. However, some are likely to be real, since the same variables repeatedly correlated with different epirubicin-associated outcomes. There were no correlations between epirubicin PK indices or neutropenia and serum aminotransferase levels or other biochemical liver function tests, creatinine, or any of the clinical factors examined. CONCLUSION These results led us to question the use of BSA for epirubicin dose calculation. In contrast, quantitative liver function tests may give a better indication of drug handling and toxicity and may be useful to determine more accurate methods for dose calculation of epirubicin.

Phase IV Study of Bevacizumab in Combination with Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background: Bevacizumab (Avastin®) significantly improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with first-line irinotecan (IFL) plus bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This open-label, phase IV trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line bevacizumab in combination with IFL and infusional 5-FU/LV (FOLFIRI). Methods: Two-hundred and nine treatment-naïve metastatic CRC patients were enrolled and received bevacizumab and FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. Treatment was continued until disease progression. The primary objective was PFS, with additional determinations of OS, response and toxicity. Results: Median PFS was 11.1 months and is comparable to that observed in published phase III and community-based trials using first-line bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI, and to phase III trials using bevacizumab in combination with bolus 5-FU/LV plus IFL. Median OS was 22.2 months. Overall response rate was 53.1% and the disease control rate 85.6%. Most adverse events were grade 1/2 and were manageable. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (≥10%) were neutropenia, venous thromboembolic events, diarrhea, and fatigue. Conclusion: Bevacizumab combined with first-line FOLFIRI is an effective and well-tolerated therapy option for patients with metastatic CRC.