Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to A Sobrero.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: Although several evidences have demonstrated a synergistic activity of 5-fluorouracil with irinotecan and oxaliplatin, thus explaining the use of this drug combination in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, the need for the reintroduction of 5-FU in the second-line setting is more questionable. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the outcome of patients developing progressive disease while on an infusional 5-FU-based front-line chemotherapy and subsequently treated with one of the four following chemotherapy regimens: irinotecan, oxaliplatin and irinotecan or oxaliplatin both combined with the de Gramont schedule (LV5-FU2). RESULTS: 225 patients (137 males and 88 females), were eligible for analysis. Second-line chemotherapy consisted of irinotecan in 79 patients (35%, group A), oxaliplatin in 47 patients (21%, group B), irinotecan with LV5-FU2 in 53 patients (24%, group C) and oxaliplatin with LV5-FU2 in the remaining 46 cases (20%, group D). The response rate to second-line chemotherapy was obtained in 6/79 patients (8%) in group A, in 4/47 patients (9%) in group B, in 11/53 patients (21%) in group C and in 10/46 patients (22%) in group D (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that reintroduction of 5-FU could increase irinotecan and oxaliplatin activity in patients progressing during a 5-FU-based first-line chemotherapy.
The aim of the study was to determine whether modulation of 5-fluorouracil (FU) by methotrexate (MTX) improves survival compared to FU+6-s-leucovorin (LV) following potentially curative resection of stage II and III colon cancer. Within 8 weeks from surgery, 1945 patients with stage III (44%) or high-risk stage II (55%) colon cancer were randomly assigned to receive either 6 monthly cycles of FU 370 mg m(-2) i.v. bolus preceded by LV 100 mg m(-2) i.v. bolus on days 1-5, or 6 monthly cycles of sequential MTX 200 mg m(-2) i.v. days 1 and 15 and FU 600 mg m(-2) i.v. on days 2 and 16 followed by LV rescue (15 mg given p.o. q 6 h x 6 doses). Levamisole 50 mg p.o. t.i.d. on days 1-3, every 14 days for 6 months, was planned to be given in both arms. After a median follow-up of 4.2 years, 568 patients have relapsed and 403 have died. Survival was similar with MTX --> FU and FU+LV (77 vs 77% at 5 years; P = 0.90), as were 5-year disease-free survivals (67 vs 63%; P = 0.44). Efficacy results were similar for both stage III and II patients. There were two toxic deaths, two in the MTX --> FU arm (0.2%) and zero in the control arm. We conclude that biochemical modulation of FU with LV or with MTX produces similar results in the adjuvant setting of colon cancer.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the antitumor activity and the safety of paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients affected by advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCC). Eighty-five patients affected by advanced TCC and measurable disease were randomized to receive either paclitaxel at dosage of 70 mg/m2, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (GCP) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 2 every 4 weeks (GC). All enrolled patients were considered evaluable for response and toxicity (intention to treat). The observed response rate was 43% for GCP and 44% for GC combination, respectively. Median time to treatment failure was 32 weeks for GCP and 26 weeks for GC and overall survival 61 vs 49 weeks, respectively (p-value not significant). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 49% of patients treated with GCP vs 35% of those treated with GC (P=0.05) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 36% of GCP treated patients as compared to 21% of those treated with GC (P=0.01). Seven patients over 70 years old or with poor PS were removed from the study: 6 patients from GCP group (2 toxic deaths, 2 grade 4 myelotoxicity and 2 grade 3 asthenia) and 1 from GC group was lost to follow-up after the first cycle. The combination of paclitaxel, gemcitabine and cisplatin is effective in the treatment of TCC. However, the addition of paclitaxel to the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin seems to increase toxicity, therefore it seems not suitable for poor PS patients and those over 70 years old. Larger and more powered studies are needed to exactly define the role of paclitaxel in this combination.
Building upon the concept of schedule-specific biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil (FU), which alternates bolus and continuous infusion (CI) FU, we have incorporated oxaliplatin (l-OHP) following the bolus part of the regimen to explore the activity of this new combination. Patients with advanced, untreated, measurable colorectal cancer received sequential methotrexate (MTX) (days 1 and 15)-->l-OHP+FU (days 2 and 16) (200, 85 and 600 mg m(-2), respectively) followed by 3 weeks of CI FU (200 mg m(-2) day(-1)) given from day 29 to 50, modulated by weekly leucovorin (LV) (20 mg m(-2)). After 1 week of rest, the second cycle was started. The treatment was continued until progression or patient's refusal. According to the intention-to-treat analysis on all 46 patients accrued, the response rate was 42% (95% CL=28-55%), with three complete responses and 16 partial responses. The median overall survival was 15.9 months and the median progression-free survival 6.9 months. Toxicity was very mild, with the bolus part of the regimen more toxic than the infusional part (24 vs 7% of grade III-IV, respectively). This new combination of MTX -->l-OHP-FU followed by FU CI is well tolerated, feasible and produces activity results similar to other more simple, but more toxic, regimens. Pros and cons of the different fluoropyrimidines-l-OHP combinations are discussed.
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.
BACKGROUND: The level of the enzyme thymidylate synthase (TS) is known to inversely correlate with the clinical activity of 5-fluorouracil (FU) in advanced colorectal cancer patients. Since the correlation is not very strong, we have retrospectively analyzed the expression of E2F-1 in tumor samples or metastases from 25 patients with advanced colorectal cancer, homogeneously treated with an FU-based regimen. E2F-1 is a transcription factor regulating the expression of TS along with other crucial DNA synthesis related enzymes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: E2F-1 expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry using the anti-E2F-1 monoclonal antibody KH95, scoring 2000 cells/case. Expression of TS was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using a rabbit anti-human polyclonal antibody. RESULTS: The level of E2F-1 expression did not correlate with TS expression, although a trend for correlation between E2F-1 level and maximal tumor shrinkage was observed (r = 0.42; P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: In spite of previous reports demonstrating that E2F-1 quantified by rt-PCR and western blot correlates with TS and could be used as a predictor to select colorectal cancer patients more likely to respond to FU treatment, our data suggest that, under these experimental conditions, immunohistochemistry cannot be used for such selection.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: To determine whether the addition of leucovorin to the combination 5-fluorouracil plus levamisole prolongs disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with radically resected colon cancer (Dukes' B(2-3) and C). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (1703) were accrued between March 1992 and February 1995 in a large-scale clinical trial within five Italian cooperative groups. After stratification for center, patients were randomized as follows: arm A, 5-fluorouracil [450 mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) bolus on days 1-5] and levamisole (150 mg orally for 3 days, every 14 days for 6 months) versus arm B, 6-S-leucovorin (100 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus on days 1-5) followed by 5-fluorouracil (370 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus on days 1-5), plus levamisole (as arm A), every 4 weeks for six cycles. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.4 years no significant difference was seen for either disease-free survival (58% versus 60%, not significant) or 5-year overall survival (68% versus 71%, not significant), respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity (World Health Organization grade 3/4) was more frequent in arm B (8% versus 18%, not significant). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial the schedules used showed no statistically significant differences in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival in the treatment of colorectal cancer.
The chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) has undergone a succession of refinements. Through the biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with folinic acid (FA), the use of infusional rather than bolus regimens and the combination of 5-FU/FA with other active agents (notably irinotecan), first-line response rates (RRs) of 40% can be achieved, with patients surviving up to 17 months. Significant benefits on survival are also seen with second-line chemotherapy. The question of how best to sequence combination chemotherapy was addressed in a recent trial in which patients were randomized to receive either an irinotecan-based combination with 5-FU/FA (FOLFIRI) followed by an oxaliplatin-based combination (FOLFOX), or the two regimens in the reverse order. In both arms, RRs were greater than 50% and median survival exceeded 20 months. The primary end point was time to progression after two lines of treatment, and this was not significantly different. However, the sequence FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX appears preferable because of the better tolerability of FOLFIRI in first-line use. Use of the sequence FOLFIRI/FOLFOX is also supported by the greater chance of a second-line response with FOLFOX. Concern has been expressed about the safety of irinotecan combined with bolus 5-FU/FA. Infusional regimens have a better risk/benefit ratio than bolus regimens. However, the adverse event profile with both approaches is manageable, and irinotecan plus 5-FU/FA can be considered one standard of care in metastatic CRC.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We have reported that an alternating regimen of bolus and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (FU) was superior to bolus FU in terms of response rate and progression-free survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Biochemical modulation was an essential part of this regimen and it was selective for the schedule of FU administration: bolus FU was in fact modulated by methotrexate (MTX) while continuous infusion FU was potentiated by 6-s-leucovorin (LV). Considering the low cost and the favourable report on the activity of mitomycin C (mito) added to CI FU, we have incorporated this agent in the infusional part of our treatment programme. 105 patients with untreated, advanced, measurable colorectal cancer were accrued from 13 Italian centres and treated with the following regimen. 2 biweekly cycles of FU bolus (600 mg/m(2)), modulated by MTX (24 h earlier, 200 mg/m(2)) were alternated with a 3-week continuous infusion of FU (200 mg/m(2)daily), modulated by LV (20 mg/m(2)weekly bolus). Mito, 7 mg/m(2), was given on the first day of the infusional period. After a 1 week rest, the whole cycle (8 weeks) was repeated, if indicated. 5 complete and 34 partial responses were obtained (response rate, 37% on the intention to treat basis; 95% confidence limits, 28-46%). After a median follow-up time of 26 months, 37 patients are still alive. The median progression-free survival is 7.7 months with an overall survival of 18.8 months and a 2-year survival rate of 30%. The regimen was very well tolerated with fewer than 13% of patients experiencing WHO grade III-IV toxicity. These results are consistent with those obtained by our group in 3 previous trials of schedule specific biochemical modulation of FU. They also indicate a highly active, little toxic, inexpensive regimen of old drugs to be used (a) as an alternative to the more expensive combinations including CPT-11 or oxaliplatin or (b) as the basis for combination programmes with these agents.
Fatigue is a common complaint of patients with cancer or other physical or mental disorders. In cancer patients, the estimated prevalence of fatigue is high (about 70% to 90% in different surveys). However, despite the high prevalence and widely recognized clinical relevance of fatigue, few studies have been performed to evaluate the putative causal factors and therapeutic approaches for this condition. The paucity of studies has been mainly because of the lack of proper instruments to quantify this clinical problem. Moreover, fatigue is multifactorial, which makes evaluation of precise relationships with other medical conditions difficult. In particular, fatigue is considered the cardinal symptom of anemia. The pathogenesis of anemia-related fatigue remains unclear, but some suggest that abnormalities in energy metabolism play a role in inducing fatigue. In cancer patients, this effect may be exacerbated by the increased metabolic needs associated with tumor growth. At the clinical level, the relationship between anemia and fatigue is universally accepted. However, early studies were unable to show a clear association between fatigue and hemoglobin levels. Recently, new insights were afforded by the implementation of innovative survey instruments that assess the effects of fatigue and other (nonfatigue) symptoms of anemia on the patient's well-being and quality of life. The use of these validated instruments has shown a direct effect of hemoglobin levels on fatigue and other quality of life parameters. Thus, amelioration of anemia and fatigue should be considered a primary endpoint of antineoplastic and supportive-care treatment of cancer patients. Accordingly, the search for new simplified methods of assessment of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms and their treatment outcomes should be strongly encouraged.
Today, adjuvant 5-fluorouracil based therapy is known to significantly reduce the relapse rates and the risks of dying from resected colon cancer; chemotherapy approximately doubles overall survival of advanced colorectal cancer and second line treatment prolongs the survival of patients compared with best supportive care. At the molecular level a number of key genes are often mutated in cancer of the colon and some of these key regulators of apoptosis are discussed (p53 and bcl-2 family of proteins). Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity may be a potential factor controlling fluorouracil (FU) responsiveness at the tumoral level and its importance is stressed. The rationale of combining FU with DPD inhibitors is fairly strong. Ethynyluracil, UFT and S1 pursue this strategy while capecitabine has another the rationale. Drug resistance should be at least partially overcome by combination chemotherapy (FU plus mitomycin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan) and combined modality (FU+RT) regimens. Improved surgical techniques and radiotherapy have substantially decreased local failure rates for rectal cancers. Finally, innovative treatment modalities such as anti-angiogenetic and antimetastatic agents, farnesyl transferase inhibitors, vaccine and gene therapy are in early clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: We have recently suggested that bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) may work via a RNA directed mechanism while continuous infusion 5-FU may kill cells via a thymidylate synthase related pathway. It may thus be possible to selectively modulate each schedule biochemically. We have compared an alternating regimen of bolus and continuous infusion 5-FU, selectively modulated for the schedule of administration, with modulated bolus 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fourteen patients from nineteen Italian centers were randomized to the control arm consisting of biweekly cycles of MTX, 200 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by bolus 5-FU 600 mg/m2 on day 2 and 6-S-leucovorin rescue, or to the experimental arm consisting of two biweekly cycles of the same regimen as in the control arm alternated to three weeks of continuous infusion 5-FU (200 mg/m2 day) + weekly bolus 6-S-leucovorin, 20 mg/m2. RESULTS: Nine CR and twenty-seven PR were obtained on one hundred eleven evaluable patients treated in experimental arm (RR = 32%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 24%-42%), while two CR and eleven PR were observed among one hundred three evaluable patients in control arm (RR = 13%, 95% CI: 7%-21%). WHO grade 3-4 toxicity occurred in 13% of cycles of experimental arm and in 8% of cycles in control arm. The PFS was significantly longer in experimental arm (6.2 vs. 4.3 months, odds ratio 0.66, P = 0.003), while the overall survival was similar in both arms (14.8 months in experimental arm vs. 14.1 months in control arm); quality of life was similar as well. Eighty percent of patients receiving second-line chemotherapy in control arm were treated with continuous infusion 5-FU. CONCLUSIONS: Alternating, schedule-specific biochemical modulation of FU is more active than MTX --> 5-FU as first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, the overall survival was similar suggesting that alternating bolus and infusional 5-FU upfront may be as effective as giving them in sequence as first- and second-line treatment.