UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 127-130

of 'Fluoropyrimidine-associated cardiotoxicity: Incidence, clinical manifestations, mechanisms, and management'

127
TI
The role of UFT in metastatic colorectal cancer.
AU
Bennouna J, Saunders M, Douillard JY
SO
Oncology. 2009;76(5):301-10. Epub 2009 3 20.
 
5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the most widely used chemotherapeutic agent for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 5-FU combination therapy improves efficacy compared with monotherapy. The oral fluoropyrimidine UFT (tegafur-uracil) with leucovorin (LV) improves tolerability and has replaced 5-FU in many regimens. The efficacy and tolerability of UFT with LV in the first-line treatment of mCRC has been demonstrated in a number of phase II studies. In two phase III studies, UFT with LV has been shown to have comparable efficacy and improved tolerability versus intravenous bolus 5-FU, with very few cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS). Indirect comparisons of UFT and capecitabine suggest that they are comparable in terms of survival. In first-line treatment, UFT in combination with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) or irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) is effective and well tolerated, with similar efficacy and tolerability to the corresponding 5-FU- and capecitabine-based combinations, but with a lower incidence of HFS. Alternating cycles of TEGAFOX and TEGAFIRI are effective and well tolerated, and the combination of TEGAFIRI and the targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab has shown promising activity, similar to that of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. UFT can be considered a rational replacement for intravenous 5-FU in the first- and second-line treatment of patients with mCRC.
AD
Centre R Gauducheau, St Herblain, France. j-bennouna@nantes.fnclcc.fr
PMID
128
TI
FOLFOX4 with cetuximab vs. UFOX with cetuximab as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The randomized phase II FUTURE study.
AU
Douillard JY, Zemelka T, Fountzilas G, Barone C, Schlichting M, Heighway J, Eggleton SP, Srimuninnimit V
SO
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014 Mar;13(1):14-26.e1. Epub 2013 Nov 16.
 
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX4, comprising infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab compared with UFOX, comprising UFT, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, LV, and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab as first-line treatment for mCRC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients, unselected by tumor KRAS status, were randomized 1:1 to FOLFOX4 with cetuximab or UFOX with cetuximab. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, and safety. Outcome according to KRAS mutation status was investigated.
RESULTS: Recruitment was curtailed at 302 patients after reporting of the importance of tumor KRAS mutation status for cetuximab activity. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. PFS was significantly longer in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group compared with UFOX with cetuximab group (median 8.2 vs. 6.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.89; P = .0048). The response rate was also significantly greater in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group (51.3% vs. 37.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78; P = .0160), although overall survival was comparable. In the KRAS wild type subgroup, efficacy outcomes were similar to those in the intention-to-treat population. Side effect profiles were manageable and consistent with expectations.
CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of mCRC, UFOX with cetuximab had an acceptable safety profile but inferior activity compared with FOLFOX4 with cetuximab in relation to PFS and response. The regimens were comparable with regard to overall survival.
AD
Institut de Cancerologie de l'Ouest - Centre RenéGauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France. Electronic address: jean-yves.douillard@ico.unicancer.fr.
PMID
129
TI
Alternating irinotecan with oxaliplatin combined with UFT plus leucovorin (SCOUT) in metastatic colorectal cancer.
AU
Sheikh HY, Valle JW, Waddell T, Palmer K, Wilson G, Sjursen A, Craven O, Swindell R, Saunders MP
SO
Br J Cancer. 2008;99(4):577.
 
Tegafur-uracil (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV, folinic acid) with alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin were effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase I study. This study expanded the maximum tolerated dose group. Patients aged>or=18 years had histologically confirmed, inoperable, previously untreated, measurable mCRC. Patients received irinotecan 180 mg m(-2) on day 1, oxaliplatin 100 mg m(-2) on day 15 and UFT 250 mg m(-2) plus LV 90 mg on days 1-21 every 28 days. The phase I/II study comprised 45 patients, 29 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The response rate in 38 evaluable patients was 63% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49-80). Median time to progression and overall survival were 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.9-10.4) and 16.8 months (95% CI: 9.6-25.3), respectively. In the MTD group, one patient had grade 3 leucopenia; one had grade 3 neutropaenia; three had grade 3 diarrhoea; and one had grade 3 neurotoxicity. No hand-foot syndrome grade>1 was seen. In total, 67% of eligible patients received second-line therapy. UFT plus LV with alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin is an efficacious first-line treatment for mCRC, with minimal neurotoxicity and hand-foot syndrome.
AD
Department of Clinical Oncology, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
PMID
130
TI
Uracil/ftorafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of randomised phase II study.
AU
Bajetta E, Di Bartolomeo M, Buzzoni R, Mariani L, Zilembo N, Ferrario E, Lo Vullo S, Aitini E, Isa L, Barone C, Jacobelli S, Recaldin E, Pinotti G, Iop A
SO
Br J Cancer. 2007 Feb;96(3):439-44. Epub 2007 Jan 23.
 
This randomised phase II study evaluates the safety and efficacy profile of uracil/tegafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX). One hundred and forty-three patients with measurable, non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomised in a multicentre study to receive TEGAFIRI (UFT 250 mg m(-2) day days 1-14, LV 90 mg day days 1-14, irinotecan 240 mg m(-2) day 1; q21) or TEGAFOX (UFT 250 mg m(-2) day days 1-14, LV 90 mg day days 1-14, oxaliplatin 120 mg m(-2) day 1; q21). Among 143 randomised patients, 141 were analysed (68 received TEGAFIRI and 73 TEGAFOX). The main characteristics of the two arms were well balanced. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (13% of cases with TEGAFIRI; 1% in the TEGAFOX group). Diarrhoea was prevalent in the TEGAFIRI arm (16%) vs TEGAFOX (4%). Six complete remission (CR) and 19 partial remission (PR) were recorded in the TEGAFIRI arm (odds ratio (OR): 41.7; 95% confidence limit (CL), 29.1-55.1%), and six CR and 22 PR were recorded in the TEGAFOX group, (OR: 38.9; 95% CL, 27.6-51.1). At a median time follow-up of 17 months (intequartile (IQ) range 12-23), a median survival probability of 20 and 19 months was obtained in the TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX groups, respectively. Median time to progression was 8 months for both groups. TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX are both effective and tolerable first-line therapies in MCRC patients. The employment of UFT/LV given in doublet combination is interesting and the presented data appear comparable to equivalent infusion regimens described in the literature. The safety profile of the two combinations also allows an evaluation with other biological agents such as monoclonal antibodies.
AD
Department of Medical Oncology, Unit 2, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori of Milano, Milano, Italy. emilio.bajetta@istitutotumori.mi.it
PMID