scholarly journals Oral drugs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110090
Author(s):  
Pilar García-Alfonso ◽  
Andrés Jesús Muñoz Martín ◽  
Laura Ortega Morán ◽  
Javier Soto Alsar ◽  
Gabriela Torres Pérez-Solero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Antitumour Activity ◽  
Hepatic Metabolism ◽  
Oral Drugs ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitor ◽  
Oral Fluoropyrimidines ◽  
Dna And Rna ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
And Function

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common forms of cancer, with an estimated 1.36 million new cases and almost 700,000 deaths annually. Approximately 21% of patients with CRC have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective of this article is to review the literature on the efficacy and safety of oral drugs available for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several such drugs have been developed, and fluoropyrimidines are the backbone of chemotherapy in this indication. They exert their antitumour activity by disrupting the synthesis and function of DNA and RNA. Oral fluoropyrimidines include prodrugs capecitabine, tegafur, eniluracil/5-fluorouracil, tegafur/uracil, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI). Oral drugs offer several advantages over injectable formulations, including convenience, flexibility, avoidance of injection-related adverse events (AEs) and, in some circumstances, lower costs. However, oral drugs may not be suitable for patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or malabsorption, they may result in reduced treatment adherence and should not be co-administered with drugs that interfere with absorption or hepatic metabolism. Oral fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine, as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan or bevacizumab, are as effective as intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in first-line treatment of mCRC. Other oral fluoropyrimidines, such as FTD/TPI, are effective in patients with mCRC who are refractory, intolerant or ineligible for 5-FU. In addition, oral fluoropyrimidines are used in adjuvant treatment of mCRC. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor used in patients in whom several previous lines of therapy have failed. Frequent AEs associated with oral drugs used in the treatment of CRC include hand-foot syndrome and gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities.

Regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitors in Chinese patients with microsatellite stable/mismatch repair proficient metastatic colorectal cancer: A real-world study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15585-e15585
Author(s):  
Kaili Yang ◽  
Lu Han ◽  
Yun-Bo Zhao ◽  
Yang Ge ◽  
Qin LI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Mismatch Repair ◽  
Real World ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Disease Control Rate ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

e15585 Background: A previous phase 1b trial has shown encouraging efficacy of regorafenib plus nivolumab in patients with microsatellite stable/mismatch repair proficient (MSS/pMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen in Chinese patients in the real world. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MSS/pMMR mCRC who received at least one dose of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors plus regorafenib from 5/2019 to 2/2021 in 10 Chinese medical centers. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and the safety. Results: Fifty-two patients were identified. Liver metastases were presented in 35 patients (67%). A total of 48 patients (92%) received regorafenib plus a PD-1 inhibitor as the third or later line treatment. At the data cut-off, 11 patients (21%) were still on treatment. Other patients terminated treatment because of progressive disease (45%), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) (14%) or treatment-unrelated deaths (6%). The median treatment cycle was 3 (range, 1-18). At a median follow-up of 4.9 months, the median OS was 17.3 months (95% CI, 10.2-NR) and the median PFS was 3.1 months (95%CI, 2.5-6.0). Baseline liver metastases were associated with inferior PFS (2.7 versus 6.3 months, p <0.05), but not OS (17.3 months versus NR, p =0.6). Among 38 patients evaluable for response, two patients (5%) achieved partial response, and 17 patients (45%) experienced stable disease as the best response. The DCR was 50% (95%CI, 5.0-NR) and was similar among different PD-1 inhibitors (Table). TRAEs were observed in 30 patients (58%). Fatigue (21%), hand-foot syndrome (19%) and rash (13%) were the most common TRAEs. Eight patients (15%) experienced grade 3-4 TRAEs, including rash (n=3), hand-foot syndrome (n=2), hypertension (n=1), myocardial enzyme elevation (n=1) and visual field loss (n=1). No treatment-related death occurred. Conclusions: The combination of regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitors was generally tolerated and exhibited potential benefit in terms of OS and DCR. The presence of baseline liver metastases was predictive for shorter PFS but requires further investigation. Disease control rate of different PD-1 inhibitors.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borut Stabuc
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oral Fluoropyrimidines ◽  
Significant Difference

Colorectal cancer alone accounts for around 200,000 deaths in Europe and represents a significant health problem. Although about fifty percent of patients are cured by surgery alone, the other half will eventually die due to metastatic disease, which includes approximately 25% of patients who have evidence of metastases at the time of diagnosis. Surgical resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes is the only curative therapy for colorectal cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III for colon cancer following curative resection has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence by 19-40% and of death by 16-33%. Today, 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin given for six months may represent the best adjuvant treatment available The contribution of levamisole to adjuvant treatment seems to be marginal, if any. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for the patients with Dukes B colon cancer is less clear. A meta-analysis of 1,381 patients with advanced colorectal cancer showed a significant increase in response rate with the bolus 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin versus 5-fluoroUracil alone but no significant difference in median survival. Continuous infusion allows higher doses of 5-FU than rapid bolus infusion and improves response rate survival and time to progression. Oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine and Uracil/Tegafur [UFT]) are as active as intravenous fluoropyrimidines. Compared to intravenous 5FU, oral fluoropyrimidines have safety advantages clinical benefits, and are more convenient for patients. Phase III randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer demonstrate the significant superiority of combining irinotecan with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin or oxaliplatin with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin over the same 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin alone. Several phase II studies have shown that the combination of the oral fluoropyrimidines plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin is very active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials with agents acting on novel targets in colorectal cancer are progressing rapidly, including doxifluridine, new inhibitors of thymidylate synthase (ZD9331), oral camptothecins (Rubitecan), multitarget antifolate antimetabolite (Premetrexet), inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (Cetuximab), COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) and farnesyltransferaze inhibitors (Zarnestra). However, a few randomized trials failed to show a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer.

Randomized phase II trial of capecitabine versus capecitabine, low molecular weight heparin, and prednisone in refractory colorectal carcinoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15126-e15126 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Mak ◽  
C. Townsley ◽  
R. Buckman ◽  
E. Chen ◽  
L. Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

e15126 Background: Capecitabine is widely used in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Continuous low dose chemotherapy has been postulated to have anti-angiogenic effects discrete from its anti-proliferative effects on tumors (metronomic therapy). Dalteparin and prednisone have also been implicated in inhibiting tumour angiogenesis and hypothesized to have additive benefit to chemotherapy. This randomized phase II study examined the additive effect of dalteparin and prednisone with capecitabine in metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized to either capecitabine (C) 2,500 mg/m2 in divided doses from days 1–14 in a 3-week cycle or capecitabine with dalteparin and prednisone (CDP). There was no restriction on previous treatment, other than no prior capecitabine. Dalteparin was given at 5,000 units once daily subcutaneously, and prednisone orally 10 mg daily, both on a continuous basis. Thirty patients were planned for accrual in each arm with interim analysis when accrual reached fifteen in each arm. The primary end-point was disease control defined as treatment response or stable disease >4 months. Radiological evaluation was performed every 6 weeks. Treatment was discontinued if patients had progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. Results: Thirty patients were recruited. Fourteen patients had received ≥3 previous regimens (median 3 (C), 2 (CDP)). Median performance statuses were ECOG 1 (C) and 0 (CDP). Nine patients achieved stable disease greater than 6 months (5 (C)/4 (CDP)). There was no statistical difference in the median survival time and time-to- progression for the two groups (11.1 mth (C)/15.8 mth (CDP); 3.2 mth (C)/2.8 mth (CDP)). The commonest toxicities overall were myelosuppression and hand-foot syndrome (HFS). The most common Grade 3+ adverse events were HFS (6 patients) and diarrhea (4 patients). Conclusions: The combination of dalteparin, prednisone and capecitabine did not improve disease control over that seen with capecitabine in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2006-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Cassidy ◽  
Stephen Clarke ◽  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).Patients and MethodsThe initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

scholarly journals Comparison between the three oxaliplatin-based regimens with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 687-687
Author(s):  
Yoshihito Ohhara ◽  
Mitsukuni Suenaga ◽  
Satoshi Matsusaka ◽  
Eiji Shinozaki ◽  
Nobuyuki Mizunuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Treatment ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

687 Background: XELOX (capecitabine/L-OHP) therapy that includes orally administered fluoropyrimidine instead of infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) was approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Sep 2009 in Japan. A pivotal trial (NO16966 study) demonstrated the non-inferiority of XELOX to FOLFOX (5-FU/L-OHP/LV) and the superiority of those L-OHP-based regimens plus bevacizumab (BV) to those without in the first-line treatment of mCRC. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of XELO+BV compared with FOLFOX4 or mFOLFOX6 plus BV in the first-line treatment for mCRC patients at a single institute. Methods: Between Jun 2007 and Nov 2008, 85 patients received FOLFOX4+BV (FF4 arm), between Dec 2008 and Sep 2009, 40 patients received mFOLFOX6+BV (FF6 arm), and between Oct 2009 and Sep 2010, 60 patients received XELOX+BV (XELOX arm). The best overall responses were evaluated using RECIST 1.0 during chemotherapeutic treatment, and adverse events were graded according to CTCAE ver.3.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Characteristics of patients of FF4 arm, FF6 arm, and XELOX arm were below: median age, 60 yr vs. 62 yr vs. 60.5 yr; gender (male), 48.2 % vs. 62.5 % vs. 58.3%. The overall response rates (CR+PR) were 61.1 %, 72.5 %, and 75 % (95% CI; 50.6-71.8%, 58.0-87.0%, and 63.7-86.3%). Median PFS were 17.0 months, 15.5 months, and 14.4 months, respectively (cut-off: Aug 31, 2011). There were no statistical significances not only between FF4 arm and FF6 arm (log-rank; p=0.641), but also between XELOX arm and FF4+FF6 (FOLFOX) arm (log-rank; p=0.138). FOLFOX arm was associated with higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia than XELOX arm. Grade3 diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome (HFS) were more frequent in XELOX arm. Conclusions: This study suggests that XELOX arm was equal to FOLFOX arm, regardless of regimen, in tumor response and PFS. Further follow-up is necessary to confirm the benefit on survival.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis comparing regorafenib with TAS-102 for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052092640
Author(s):  
Guan-Li Su ◽  
Yuan-Yuan Wang ◽  
Jin-Cheng Wang ◽  
Hao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

Objective We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and toxicity of regorafenib and TAS-102. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer using pooled analyses. Results Three clinical trials were included in this analysis. Regarding the reasons for treatment discontinuation, regorafenib was significantly associated with disease progression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21–0.50) and adverse events (OR = 4.38, 95% CI = 2.69–7.13). However, overall (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.81–1.17) and progression-free survival (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.86–1.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the regorafenib group were neutropenia (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03–0.11), hand–foot syndrome (OR = 50.34, 95% CI = 10.44–242.84), and liver dysfunction (OR = 34.51, 95% CI = 8.30–143.43). Conversely, the incidence of thrombocytopenia did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions Regorafenib and TAS-102 have similar efficacy but different adverse event profiles. Differences in the toxicity profiles of the two drugs will help guide treatment selection.

A randomized phase II non-comparative study of Ispinesib given weekly or every three weeks in metastatic colorectal cancer. A California Cancer Consortium Study (CCC-P)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3595-3595 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. El-Khoueiry ◽  
S. Iqbal ◽  
D. A. Singh ◽  
S. D’Andre ◽  
R. K. Ramanathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Significant Activity ◽  
Heavily Pretreated ◽  
And Function

3595 Background: Ispinesib(SB-715992) is a polycyclic, nitrogen-containing heterocycle that inhibits the mitotic kinesin spindle protein (KSP). KSP is essential for mitotic spindle assembly and function during mitosis, and is a rational target of anti-cancer therapy. This phase II study used two different dosing schedules; the primary objective was to determine the response rate (RR) and the secondary objectives were to determine time to tumor progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomized to receive (Arm A) ispinesib 7 mg/m2 every week for 3 weeks, every 28 days or (Arm B) 18 mg/m2 every 21 days. Response was assessed every 6 weeks. Chemotherapy was administered until disease progression or intolerance. Results: A total of 64 pts were accrued. The median number of cycles was 2 for both arms. Five pts had stable disease and 48 had progressive disease. PFS was 49 days in Arm A (44 to 51) and 37 days in Arm B (35 to 42 days). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities in arms A and B respectively included neutropenia (3 and 20), nausea and vomiting (3 and 1), neurologic (1 and 2). Of these, only 1 pt had febrile neutropenia and 1 pt had peripheral sensory neuropathy. The toxicity data is not available on 2 patients. Eleven pts are not evaluable for response yet. Conclusions: Ispinesib did not demonstrate significant activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer at the dose and schedule employed in this trial. Correlative studies are in progress. Supported by NO1 CM17101 [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine as first line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15074-e15074
Author(s):  
E. Vrdoljak ◽  
T. Omrcen ◽  
A. Hrabar
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15074 Background: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine as first line treatment in elderly patients with MCC. Methods: 40 elderly patients (median age 75 years) with MCC have been treated with bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine as their first line therapy. Regimen consisted of bevacizumab 7.5 mg mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1–14 followed by 7 days rest. Results: The median follow up time at time of ASCO will be 12 months. Median number of 9 cycles was administrated, ranging from 1 to 23. 3 patients (7.5 %) had complete response, 19 patients (47.5 %) had partial response, 11 patients (27.5 %) had stable disease, 1 patient (2.5 %) progressed according to RECIST criteria and 6 patients (15%) were not evaluated yet. Until this report 15 of 40 patients progressed and 9 of 40 patients died. Median time to progression is 6.37 months. Median overall survival will be reported at ASCO 2009 meeting. The most common hematological adverse events were mild (grade I and II): anemia (27.5%) neutropenia (22.5%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). The most common non-hematological toxicity were mild as well (grade I and II): hand-foot syndrome (70%), arterial hypertension (52.5%), proteinuria (45%), hyperbilirubinemia (45%), diarrhea (25%), loss of appetite (23.5%), fever (22.5%), fatigue (17.5%), tearing (17.5%), and nail changes (12.5%). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred rarely: hand-foot syndrome (12.5%), deep vein thrombosis (7.5%), fever (5%), and arterial hypertension (2.5%). Conclusions: This prospective phase II study has demonstrated that bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine as first line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is an effective and well-tolerated regimen. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document