SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “FLUOROURACIL”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1988

Sensitivity test for 5-fluorouracil and its analogues, 1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil, uracil/1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil (4:1) and 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil, using the subrenal capsule assay.

The chemosensitivity of 20 human neoplastic tissues including 13 gastric and 7 colorectal cancers was tested using 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its analogues: 1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-FU (FT), uracil/FT (UFT) and 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-FU (HCFU), and the in vivo subrenal capsule (SRC) assay. The relative variation of tumor size (delta TS/TSo) was calculated as follows: delta TS/TS0 = (TS6-TS0/TS0) x 100%, where TS6 was the tumor size on day 6 and TS0 on day 0, and the chemosensitivity was considered to be sensitive when delta TS/TS0 in the treated group was decreased to below -10%. The mean tumor size was -10.9 +/- (SD) 10.9% for 5-FU, -12.3 +/- 17.1% for FT, -18.4 +/- 15.8% for UFT and -17.9 +/- 15.4% for HCFU. The decrease of tumor size was marked when exposed to UFT (p less than 0.01) or HCFU (p less than 0.02), compared with that to 5-FU. Positive correlations were noted between the tumor sizes of 5-FU and its analogues (5-FU vs. FT, r = 0.851; 5-FU vs. UFT, r = 0.746; 5-FU vs. HCFU, r = 0.685). In 9 tissues resistant to 5-FU, 2 (22%) were sensitive to FT, 4 (44%) to UFT, 5 (56%) to HCFU and 7 tissues (78%) to at least one of these analogues. These results suggest that the SRC assay is useful for predicting the effective drug among 5-FU and 5-FU analogues, for individual patients with cancer.

Animals↗

PubMed1985

A comparison of three chemotherapeutic regimens in the treatment of advanced pancreatic and gastric carcinoma. Fluorouracil vs fluorouracil and doxorubicin vs fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin.

Three hundred five patients with advanced pancreatic and gastric carcinoma were randomly assigned to treatment with fluorouracil, fluorouracil plus doxorubicin (Adriamycin) (FA), or fluorouracil plus doxorubicin plus mitomycin (mitomycin C) (FAM). All regimens were equivalent with regard to patient survival. There is no reasonable likelihood that either the FA or FAM regimen could produce a meaningful survival advantage over fluorouracil alone. Interval to disease progression, objective response rates, and palliative effects (improved performance, body weight, or symptoms) were essentially equivalent among the three regimens. With regard to toxicity, the FAM regimen produced more anorexia, nausea, vomiting, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and cumulative bone marrow suppression. Fluorouracil alone produced more stomatitis and diarrhea. Because of a failure to produce improved survival or palliation, unrewarded toxicity, and excessive cost, neither the FA nor FAM regimen can be recommended for the treatment of advanced pancreatic or gastric cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1988

UFT is more antineoplastic against gastric carcinoma than 5-fluorouracil, 1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil and 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil.

The sensitivity of human gastric cancer tissue to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its analogues 1-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil (FT), UFT and 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (HCFU) was determined, using the in vivo subrenal capsule (SRC) assay. The relative variation of tumor size (delta TS/TS0) was calculated as follows: delta TS/TS0 = (TS6-TS0/TS0) x 100%, where TS6 was the tumor size on day 6 and TS0 on day 0. The chemosensitivity was considered to be positive when delta TS/TS0 in the treated group decreased to below -10%. For their cytotoxic effects, 5-FU analogues are converted to 5-FU and positive correlations were noted between the tumor sizes of 5-FU and its analogues (5-FU vs. FT, r = 0.737; 5-FU vs. UFT, r = 0.653; 5-FU vs. HCFU, r = 0.709), in gastric tissues from 22 patients. The means +/- SD of tumor size were -8.5 +/- 11.5% for 5-FU, -8.3 +/- 16.0% for FT, -18.1 +/- 15.8% for UFT and -13.7 +/- 13.4% for HCFU. Decrease in tumor size was marked in case of exposure to UFT, compared with that to 5-FU (p less than 0.001), FT (p less than 0.001) and HCFU (p less than 0.05). 18% were sensitive to UFT and resistant to 3 other drugs. Thus, UFT proved to be the most effective among 5-FU and its analogues for decreasing the size of gastric cancer tissues.

Animals↗

PubMed2000

Final results of a randomized phase III trial of sequential high-dose methotrexate, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin versus etoposide, leucovorin, and fluorouracil versus infusional fluorouracil and cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer: A trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Cooperative Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of etoposide, leucovorin, and bolus fluorouracil (ELF) or infusional fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FUP) with that of the reference protocol of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 399 patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach were randomized and analyzed for toxicity, tumor response, and progression-free and overall survival. Only reviewed and confirmed responses were considered. The analysis of remission was based on assessable patients with documented measurable lesions. The intent-to-treat principle, log-rank test, and Cox regression model were used for the statistical analysis of time-to-event end points. RESULTS: The overall response rate for 245 eligible patients with measurable disease was 9% with ELF, 20% with FUP, and 12% with FAMTX, with no significant differences. One hundred twelve patients were eligible for efficacy in assessable, nonmeasurable disease. No change was observed in 66% of patients treated with ELF, 56% with FUP, and 55% with FAMTX. Two patients achieved a complete tumor regression (one each for ELF and FAMTX). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the median survival times were 7.2 months with ELF, 7.2 months with FUP, and 6.7 months with FAMTX, respectively, with no significant differences. Nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities of ELF, FUP, and FAMTX were acceptable, with neutropenia being the major toxicity for all three regimens. Seven treatment-related deaths occurred (two with FUP and five with FAMTX). CONCLUSION: All three investigated regimens demonstrate modest clinical efficacy and should not be regarded as standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer. New strategies should be considered to achieve a better clinical efficacy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1999

Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FU+LV) with that of fluorouracil and levamisole (FU+LEV) or with the combination of FU+LV and levamisole (FU+LV+LEV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1989 and December 1990, 2,151 patients with Dukes' B (stage II) and Dukes' C (stage III) carcinoma of the colon were entered onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowl Project protocol C-04. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FU+LV (weekly regimen), FU + LEV, or the combination of FU+LV+LEV. The average time on study was 86 months. RESULTS: A pairwise comparison between patients treated with FU+LV or FU+LEV disclosed a prolongation in disease-free survival (DFS) in favor of the FU+LV group (65% v 60%; P =.04); there was a small prolongation in overall survival that was of borderline significance (74% v 70%; P =.07). There was no difference in the pairwise comparison between patients who received FU+LV or FU+LV+LEV for either DFS (65% v 64%; P =.67) or overall survival (74% v 73%; P =.99). There was no interaction between Dukes' stage and the effect of treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon, treatment with FU+LV seems to confer a small DFS advantage and a borderline prolongation in overall survival when compared with treatment with FU+LEV. The addition of LEV to FU+LV does not provide any additional benefit over and above that achieved with FU+LV. These findings support the use of adjuvant FU+LV as an acceptable therapeutic standard in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon.

Aged↗

PubMed1998

Comparison of 5-fluorouracil pharmacokinetics in patients receiving continuous 5-fluorouracil infusion and oral uracil plus N1-(2'-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil.

Plasma 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) levels were compared in the same patients after approximately equimolar doses (1.9 mmol/ m2/day) of 5-day continuous i.v. infusion of 5-FU (CIFU) and oral administration of a formulation of two combined pharmacological agents, uracil (U) plus N1-(2'-tetrahydrofuryl)-5-fluorouracil (ftorafur or FT), a prodrug of 5-FU. Ten patients received CIFU for 5 days, then, after a week wash-out period, began the 28-day oral UFT regimen, which was given in three daily divided doses. Following 1 h of CIFU, the plasma 5-FU levels reached a steady state of 0.6+/-0.2 microM (mean+/-SD; day 1), which was maintained for the entire 5-day infusion period (0.6+/-0.1 microM). In contrast, the maximum 5-FU concentrations (Cpmax) generated from oral UFT at 1 h after dose administration on days 1 and 5 were 2.1+/-1.5 microM and 2.3+/-1.9 microM, respectively, which were higher than the steady-state levels during CIFU. These high 5-FU levels disappeared with an apparent elimination half-life (tl/2,beta) of 5.2+/-2.4 h (day 1) and 7.2+/-3.9 h (day 5). On day 1 of both regimens, CIFU patients had significantly larger 5-FU area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC0-8h) values (4.4+/-1.3 microM.h) than the AUC value when they received the UFT regimen (2.6+/-1.7 microM.h; P = 0.02). However, by day 5, there were no significant differences between AUC0-8 h values in patients receiving CIFU and UFT, respectively (4.8+/-1.5 microM.h versus 3.8+/-2.2 microM.h; P = 0.30)]. On day 5, the average concentration of the metabolite 5-FU at steady-state (Css,aver) within dose interval of 8 h (0.48+/-0.28 microM) for the oral UFT treatment is comparable with the Cpss values of 5-FU from CIFU-treated patients. The post-UFT generated 5-FU pharmacokinetic parameters (higher Cp(mx, comparable Css,aver, equal AUC values, and longer apparent t1/2,beta of 5-FU) may make oral UFT a preferred method of delivering this fluoropyrimidine over CIFU. In addition, oral UFT would eliminate the incidence of venous thrombosis and catheter-related infections sometimes seen in patients treated with CIFU. Furthermore, the convenience and decreased cost of oral administration may be preferable for many patients, particularly those receiving 5-FU for palliation.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1993

A phase III randomized study of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil alone in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of cisplatin-containing regimens in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, promising clinical results have been reported. A 61.5% response rate was observed with a combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion and bolus cisplatin; however, the superiority of cisplatin-containing regimens to other regimens has not been clearly verified in any randomized controlled studies. A prospective, randomized study of 5-FU and cisplatin (FP) versus 5-FU, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C (FAM) versus 5-FU alone (FU) in previously untreated patients with advanced gastric cancer is reported. METHODS: A total of 324 patients were entered into the trial and 295 patients (103 for FP, 98 for FAM, 94 for FU) were evaluable. The patients were randomized to receive FP, FAM, or FU after stratifying by the following factors: performance status, presence of measurable disease, and resection of the primary tumor. RESULTS: The overall response rate for patients with measurable disease in the FP arm was significantly higher than in the FAM and FU arms (51% for FP; 25% for FAM; 26% for FU). The durations of response for each arm, however, were not significantly different. Even though the median time to progression for the FP arm (21.8 weeks) was longer than that for the FAM arm (12 weeks; P < 0.05) and for the FU arm (9.1 weeks; P < 0.005), there was no statistical difference in overall survival among the three arms. Toxicity for all three regimens was moderate and consisted primarily of myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, and alopecia. CONCLUSIONS: Although the FP regimen showed a significantly higher response rate and a longer time to progression than the FAM or FU regimens, a survival benefit was not observed.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1996

Biochemical modulation of fluorouracil: comparison of methotrexate, folinic acid, and fluorouracil versus folinic acid and fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized trial.

Recent advances in biochemical pharmacology have revealed the basis for the biological modulation of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by methotrexate (MTX) and folinic acid (FA). Sequential use of MTX given 24 h prior to 5-FU has resulted in enhanced cell kill in vitro and in vivo. In addition, administration of FA prior to 5-FU has led to potentiation of 5-FU action by stabilization of the ternary complex of thymidine synthase. In the present randomized study, two groups of patients with advanced colorectal cancer were treated as follows: 43 patients (pts) in group A received 5-FU + FA, whereas 45 pts in group B received 5-FU + FA + MTX. The dosage was as follows: group A received FA i.v. at 300 mg/m2 per day, prior to i.v. 5-FU at 500 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4; group B was given MTX i.v. at 130 mg/m2 per day on day 0, followed 24 h later by FA at 15 mg q6h x 6, and 5-FU + FA was started on day 1 and given at the same doses and schedule described for group A. Objective responses were achieved by 8/43 pts in group A (1 complete response and 7 partial responses) and by 18/45 pts in group B (3 complete and 15 partial responses), all occurring in the liver. There was no significant difference in the median time to progression (group A 6.1 months, group B 6.8 months) or the median survival (group A 9.2 months, group B 10.3 months). Toxicity was significantly greater in group B [grade 2-3 mucositis 20% versus only 2% in group A (P < 0.0001); grade 3 diarrhea in group B 15% versus 3% in group A (P < 0.001)]. According to our results, double biological modulation of 5-FU with MTX + FA led to an enhanced response rate with increased toxicity as compared with the 5-FU + FA regimen given at less than its maximally tolerated dose.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1993

Folinic acid does improve 5-fluorouracil activity in vivo. Results of a phase III study comparing 5-fluorouracil to 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in advanced colon cancer patients.

We report the results of a phase III trial in which we compared 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) to 5-FU and folinic acid (FA) in 150 previously untreated metastatic colon cancer patients. Patients were randomized in the ratio of 1:2 to receive 5-FU (370 mg/m2, i.v., for 5 days) in arm A or equidose 5-FU plus FA (200 mg/m2, i.v., for 5 days) for arm B, each cycle being repeated every 4 weeks. Five of 49 evaluable arm A patients (10.2%) and 31 of 97 arm B (31.9%) achieved a complete or partial response (p < or = 0.01). Median survival time of arm A patients was 6 months (mean: 6.18), while it was 8 months (mean: 9.01) for arm B cases (p < or = 0.05). In conclusion, our data indicate that FA can enhance 5-FU activity and that this combination is an effective palliative treatment for metastatic colon cancer patients.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2002

A phase III randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil alone in curatively resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase III single-center randomized trial was performed in order to determine whether the addition of mitomycin C (MMC) and/or doxorubicin to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) as adjuvant chemotherapy could influence survival in patients with curatively resected gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 416 patients who had undergone curative resection for stage IB-IIIB gastric adenocarcinoma were stratified according to the stage and type of surgery, and then randomized to receive one of the three chemotherapy regimens, 5-FU alone (F) or 5-FU and MMC (FM) or 5-FU, doxorubicin and MMC (FAM) within 5 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Of 416 patients registered, 395 (133 in F, 131 in FM and 131 in FAM) were assessable. Median follow-up duration was 91 months. Five-year overall survival rates were 67.2% for F, 67.0% for FM and 66.7% for FAM (P = 0.97). Five-year disease-free survival rates were 62.1% for F, 63.3% for FM and 62.5% for FAM (P = 0.83). Hematological toxicities were more frequent in the FM and FAM groups, whereas stomatitis was more common in the F group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant 5-FU alone, the addition of MMC and/or doxorubicin to 5-FU did not influence survival in patients with resected gastric cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2002

A phase III study of 5-fluorouracil versus 5-fluorouracil plus interferon alpha 2b versus 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study.

We conducted a phase III study in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma (ACC). The total number of patients randomized from October 1993 until July 1998 was 192, whereas therapy was started on 179 and 158 (82.3%) have been evaluable. The treatment schedules consisted of weekly bolus administration for 6 weeks of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 600 mg/m2 (arm I) versus 5-FU (500 mg/m2) intravenous bolus and interferon-alpha, 5 MU subcutaneously, three times a week (arm II) versus leucovorin 200 mg/m2 in 2-hour infusion and 5-FU 500 mg/m2 intravenous bolus at the midtime of leucovorin infusion (arm III) followed by a 2-week rest period. Treatment was continued for six cycles or until progression. This study failed to show any superiority of the modulated 5-FU versus single administration of 5-FU. There were no significant differences between the three arms in the overall response rate (10.3% versus 11.3% versus 12.9%, p = 0.95), the time to tumor progression (median, 3.9 versus 3.8 versus 6.0 months, p = 0.59), or survival duration (median, 14.7 versus 12.4 versus 16.3 months, p = 0.71). The incidence of severe (grades III and IV) toxicity was significantly higher in patients in arm II and III (24.5% and 18.6%) versus arm I (6.0%) (p = 0.01). Because modulated 5-FU failed to show superiority versus 5-FU, new agents and new strategies are needed for the treatment of advanced colorectal carcinoma.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1989

Effects of the plasma concentration of 5-fluorouracil and the duration of continuous venous infusion of 5-fluorouracil with an inhibitor of 5-fluorouracil degradation on Yoshida sarcomas in rats.

The correlations of the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) level in the plasma and the duration of continuous 5-FU infusion with the antitumor activity of 5-FU on Yoshida sarcomas in rats were examined. The circadian variation in the plasma level of 5-FU during continuous infusion was prevented by treatment with 3-cyano-2,6-dihydroxypyridine (CNDP), which strongly inhibits 5-FU degradation. On continuous venous infusion of 2 to 30 mg/kg of 5-FU over 24 h with CNDP at a molar ratio of 1:10 into normal rats, the 5-FU level in the blood was linearly proportional to the dose of 5-FU. The optimum schedule for antitumor activity on Yoshida sarcomas in rats was found to be infusion of 5-FU at 5 mg/kg over 24 h for 6 consecutive days, which gave a plasma 5-FU level of 176 ng/ml. Continuous infusion of 5-FU to give a plasma level of 300 ng/ml for 6 consecutive days from day 5 after implantation of tumor cells, when the tumors weighed about 1.0 g, resulted in complete regression of the tumors in all rats.

Animals↗

PubMed1987

A prospective randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil versus 5-fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin versus 5-fluorouracil and methotrexate in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.

Seventy-four previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma were prospectively randomized into one of three treatment regimens: (1) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 450 mg/m2 as an intravenous (IV) bolus daily for five days or toxicity, then 200 mg/m2 IV bolus every other day for six doses; (2) methotrexate (MTX) 50 mg/m2 in normal saline by IV infusion over four hours followed by an IV bolus of 5-FU 600 mg/m2. This was administered weekly for 4 weeks and then every 2 weeks. (3) Leucovorin 500 mg/m2 in a two-hour IV infusion of normal saline with 5-FU 600 mg/m2 as an IV bolus one hour after the Leucovorin began every week for 6 weeks. The combined complete and partial response rates in the three regimens were 11%, 5%, and 48%, respectively (P = .0009). The median duration of response in the 5-FU and Leucovorin regimen was 10 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment regimens with respect to survival time (P = .6). Toxicity in the 5-FU and Leucovorin regimen was predominantly diarrhea (13 of 30 patients, 40%). In this regimen, eight of 13 patients (52%) who developed diarrhea not only required a dose reduction of 5-FU, but also hospitalization for IV hydration. The predominant toxicity in the 5-FU alone regimen and the 5-FU and MTX regimen was leukopenia. One drug-related death occurred in each regimen.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1989

Treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinomas with fluorouracil alone, high-dose leucovorin plus fluorouracil, or sequential methotrexate, fluorouracil, and leucovorin: a randomized trial of the Northern California Oncology Group.

We compared the effectiveness of fluorouracil (5-FU) alone (arm A), high-dose leucovorin plus 5-FU (arm B), and sequential methotrexate, 5-FU, and leucovorin (arm C) for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinomas who had not received prior chemotherapy. Arm A consisted of infusions of 5-FU at 12 mg/kg/d intravenously (IV) for 5 days followed by weekly infusions of 5-FU at 15 mg/kg; arm B consisted of leucovorin infusions at 200 mg/m2/d IV plus infusions of 5-FU at 400 mg/m2/d IV on days 1 through 5 of a 28-day cycle; arm C consisted of methotrexate at 50 mg/m2 orally every 6 hours for five doses followed by infusions of 5-FU, 500 mg/m2 IV, and leucovorin, 10 mg/m2 orally, every 6 hours for five doses every other week. A total of 265 patients were entered into the trial, of whom 249 (94%) were fully evaluable. The objective response rate (complete [CR] plus partial [PR] responses) was 17.3% on arm A, 18.8% on arm B, and 19.8% on arm C (log-rank test, P greater than .4). The median time to failure was 138 days on arm A, 166 days on arm B, and 182 days on arm C (log-rank test, P values of arm A v B = .06; arm A v arm C = .04). Median survival was 345 days on arm A, 324 days on arm B, and 356 days on arm C (log-rank test, P greater than .4). Treatment with 5-FU alone was significantly more dose intensive and more toxic than either of the experimental combinations. The rates of grade 3 or greater nonhematologic toxicity were 42.3% on arm A, 24.3% on arm B, and 14.3% on arm C. Hematologic toxicity was milder but had the same pattern. This study indicates that these regimens of high-dose leucovorin plus 5-FU and sequential methotrexate, 5-FU, and leucovorin are not more effective than is 5-FU alone for treatment of patients with colorectal carcinomas when 5-FU is administered at high-dose intensity.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil.

PURPOSE: To compare sequential methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) (M-->F) with surgery (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-13) and cyclophosphamide (C), M, and F with M-->F (NSABP B-19), in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 760 patients were randomized to B-13; 1,095 patients with the same eligibility requirements were randomized to B-19. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were determined using life-table estimates. RESULTS: A significant benefit in overall DFS (74% v 59%; P < .001) was demonstrated at 8 years in all B-13 patients who received M-->F (69% v 56% [P = .006] in those or= 50 years). A survival advantage was evident in older patients (89% v 80%; P = .03). In B-19, through 5 years, an overall DFS advantage (82% v 73%; P < .001) and a borderline survival advantage (88% v 85%; P = .06) were evident with CMF. The DFS (84% v 72%; P < .001) and survival (89% v 84%; P = .04) benefits from CMF were greater in women aged F or CMF after lumpectomy and breast irradiation resulted in a low probability of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women treated by lumpectomy; it was 0.6% following CMF in B-19. Toxicity >or= grade 3 was more frequent among CMF patients in B-19. The age-related difference in CMF benefit was not related to amount of drug received. CONCLUSION: M-->F and CMF are effective for node-negative patients with ER-negative tumors. The incidence of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy. The benefit from either therapy was evident in all patients, but the CMF advantage was greater in those F may be used in patients with medical problems that would preclude CMF administration.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed2001

Comparison of 5-fluorouracil alone, 5-fluorouracil with levamisole, and 5-fluorouracil with hepatic irradiation in the treatment of patients with residual, nonmeasurable, intra-abdominal metastasis after undergoing resection for colorectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a randomized Phase III trial of three treatment regimens for patients with residual, nonmeasurable, intra-abdominal metastatic disease after undergoing resection for primary colorectal carcinoma. METHODS: To be eligible for this study, patients had to be both free of other malignancies and capable of starting their therapy within 3-6 weeks after surgery. They were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < 3; to be chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy naïve; to have adequate bone marrow, renal, and hepatic function; and to provide written, informed consent. The patients were divided into two cohorts: patients with no demonstrable hepatic metastasis (Group A) and patients with hepatic metastasis (Group B). RESULTS: The 229 patients in Group A were randomized to receive either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (n = 116 patients) or 5-FU with levamisole (n = 113 patients). The median survival (15.4 months and 15.3 months, respectively, for Groups A and B) was virtually identical. The two groups also were similar in terms of time to treatment progression, which was 7.9 months for group that received 5-FU alone 7.7 months for the group that received levamisole with 5-FU. The 168 patients in Group B with hepatic metastasis underwent a three-way randomization: 5-FU alone (n = 60 patients), 5-FU with levamisole (n = 54 patients), and 5-FU with hepatic irradiation (n = 54 patients). The median overall survival for the three treatment arms were similar, with 17.3 months for the group that received 5-FU alone, 16 months for the group that received 5-FU with levamisole, and 14.4 months for the group that received hepatic irradiation in addition to 5-FU: The time to treatment failure was 6.7 months, 6.8 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, for the three groups. The toxicity experienced by patients was as expected with the regimens, and no differences were observed between any of the treatment groups. The primary toxicities were hematologic and gastrointestinal. There was one treatment-related death due to adult respiratory distress syndrome, which occurred on the first day of the fourth cycle of 5-FU and levamisole. Other Grade 4 toxicities included nine patients with Grade 4 leukopenia, one patient with Grade 4 sepsis, and one patient with Grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity, including blood loss and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no treatment advantage for any of the combined modalities over 5-FU alone in this group of patients with intra-abdominal, nonmeasurable disease.

Abdominal Neoplasms↗

PubMed1987

A Northern California Oncology Group randomized trial of leucovorin plus 5-fluorouracil versus sequential methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer who failed treatment with 5-fluorouracil or 5-fluorodeoxyuridine alone.

The current study was initiated to confirm preliminary reports that 20% or more of patients with colorectal cancer who fail treatment with 5-fluorouracil (FUra) will respond to treatment with either leucovorin plus FUra or with sequential methotrexate, FUra, leucovorin. One hundred two patients with advanced, measureable colorectal cancer who failed treatment with FUra and/or 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (FUdR) were randomized to treatment with either high-dose leucovorin plus FUra (Arm B) or sequential methotrexate, FUra, leucovorin (Arm C). In this interim report, 92 patients were evaluable for toxicity and 89 patients were evaluable for response. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity which was primarily gastrointestinal was experienced by 25% of patients on both treatment arms during at least 1 treatment cycle. Hematologic toxicity was minimal. Among 43 evaluable patients on Arm B, there were 2 complete responses (5%) and 1 minor response (3%). Among 46 evaluable patients on Arm C, there was 1 complete response (2%), 1 partial response (2%), and 6 minor responses (14%). The median time to treatment failure was 2.2 months on Arm B and 3.5 months on Arm C. The median survival was 8.3 months on Arm B and 8.7 months on Arm C. Colorectal cancers that are resistant to FUra are cross-resistant to both experimental combinations.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗

PubMed2000

Post-operative 5-fluorouracil for glaucoma surgery.

BACKGROUND: Trabeculectomy is performed as a treatment for many types of glaucoma in an attempt to lower the intra-ocular pressure. The surgery involves creating a channel through the sclera, through which intra-ocular fluid can leave the eye. If scar tissue blocks the exit of the surgically created channel intra-ocular pressure rises and the operation fails. Antimetabolites are used to inhibit wound healing to prevent the conjunctiva scarring down on to the sclera. The principal antimetabolites used are 5-Fluorouracil and Mitomycin C. Both may be applied on a sponge between the conjunctiva and sclera at the beginning of surgery. 5-Fluorouracil may also be given as one or more injections under the conjunctiva after the surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of post-operative injections of 5-Fluorouracil in eyes of people undergoing surgery for glaucoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional trials, and we used the Science Citation Index to search for articles that cited the included studies. We contacted investigators and experts for details of additional relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of post-operative 5-Fluorouracil injections compared to placebo injections or no injections in trabeculectomy for glaucoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. Data were summarised using relative risk, Peto odds ratio and weighted mean difference as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials, which randomised a total of 536 participants, are included in the review. As far as can be determined from the trial reports, the methodological quality of the trials was not high. 5-Fluorouracil when delivered by post-operative injection appears to be effective in reducing the likelihood of surgical failure of trabeculectomy both in eyes at high risk of failure and those undergoing surgery for the first time. Complications are more common after 5-Fluorouracil injections, especially early and late wound leaks and temporary damage to the ocular surface. Whilst no evidence was found of an increased risk of serious sight threatening complications, people undergoing initial trabeculectomy had a substantially increased risk of ocular hypotony. None of the trials reported on the participants' perspective of care. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This treatment is now rarely used on the basis of a planned series of post-operative injections.This presumably reflects an aspect of the treatment that is unacceptable to both patients and doctors. None of the trials reported on the participants' perspective of care which constitutes a serious omission for an invasive treatment such as this. Increasingly, injections are used on an ad hoc basis. The effectiveness of this strategy is the subject of a future systematic review.

Antimetabolites↗