Literature DB >> 17011184

Patient preference for oral or intravenous chemotherapy: a randomised cross-over trial comparing capecitabine and Nordic fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with colorectal cancer.

P Pfeiffer1, J P Mortensen, B Bjerregaard, L Eckhoff, K Schønnemann, E Sandberg, K Aabo, A Jakobsen.   

Abstract

Until recently, fluorouracil (F) and leucovorin (L) had been considered the standard therapy for patients with colorectal cancer. However, several studies have shown that oral therapy with UFT/L or capecitabine is as effective as intravenous (i.v.) therapy and in addition it is claimed that patients prefer oral to i.v. therapy as long as efficacy is not compromised. In a previous crossover study by Borner et al., it was shown that 26 out of 31 patients preferred oral therapy with UFT/L to i.v. FL (Mayo regimen) [Borner M, Schöffski P, de Wit R, et al. Patient preferences and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin: a randomised crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:349-58]. The objective of the present study was to investigate patient preference between i.v. FL and oral capecitabine using the design described by Borner. The Nordic FL schedule is a bolus regimen with efficacy comparable to other i.v. regimens and at the same time a very tolerable and easy administered regimen. We randomised 60 patients with colorectal cancer (53 patients received adjuvant therapy and seven patients received palliative therapy) to start therapy with either oral capecitabine or Nordic bolus FL. After 6 weeks of therapy (two courses of capecitabine or three courses of Nordic FL) patients were crossed over to the other regimen. After having completed 12 weeks of therapy the patients (49 evaluable patients) were asked to choose one of the regimens for a further 12 weeks of therapy. Patients had more side-effect when treated with capecitabine and a total of 30 out of 49 (61%) preferred the Nordic FL regimen and 19 (39%) preferred capecitabine. We conclude that patients prefer the regimen with less toxicity and that it is of minor importance whether the medication is administrated orally at home or i.v. at the hospital.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17011184     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.06.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  24 in total

Review 1.  Polymeric nanoparticle drug delivery technologies for oral delivery applications.

Authors:  Eric M Pridgen; Frank Alexis; Omid C Farokhzad
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Deliv       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 6.648

2.  Phase II trial of simple oral therapy with capecitabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0430.

Authors:  Anne F Schott; William E Barlow; Kathy S Albain; Helen K Chew; James L Wade; Keith S Lanier; Danika L Lew; Daniel F Hayes; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-01-20

Review 3.  Capecitabine, alone and in combination, in the management of patients with colorectal cancer: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Pasquale Comella; Rossana Casaretti; Claudia Sandomenico; Antonio Avallone; Luca Franco
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Health-related quality of life and cost comparison of adjuvant capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in stage III colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Hong-Hwa Chen; William Tzu-Liang Chen; Hsin-Chung Lee; Jen-Kou Lin; Chuan-Yin Fang; Yenn-Hwei Chou; Peng-Chan Lin; Bo-Wen Lin; Chi-Chou Huang; Chung-Hung Yeh; Hsi-Hsien Hsu; Hung-Chang Chen; Wen-Chien Ting; Ming-Chin Yang; Elise Chia-Hui Tan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Should capecitabine replace 5-fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Carlos Aguado; Beatriz García-Paredes; Miguel Jhonatan Sotelo; Javier Sastre; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Retrospective analysis of the effect of CAPOX and mFOLFOX6 dose intensity on survival in colorectal patients in the adjuvant setting.

Authors:  A Mamo; J Easaw; F Ibnshamsah; A Baig; Y S Rho; T Kavan; G Batist; P Kavan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Prechemotherapy Touch Sensation Deficits Predict Oxaliplatin-Induced Neuropathy in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Xin Shelley Wang; Qiuling Shi; Patrick M Dougherty; Cathy Eng; Tito R Mendoza; Loretta A Williams; David R Fogelman; Charles S Cleeland
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.935

8.  Randomised trial comparing biweekly oxaliplatin plus oral capecitabine versus oxaliplatin plus i.v. bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology study 0401.

Authors:  Pasquale Comella; Bruno Massidda; Gianfranco Filippelli; Antonio Farris; Donato Natale; Giuseppe Barberis; Luigi Maiorino; Sergio Palmeri; Michele Cannone; Giovanni Condemi
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-22       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Safety of chronic low-dose capecitabine as maintenance therapy in gastrointestinal cancers.

Authors:  Jun F Sun; Rebekah R Wu; Craig Norris; Anne-Michelle Noone; Margaret Amankwa-Sakyi; Rebecca Slack; John L Marshall
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2009-07

Review 10.  Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Fiona Chionh; David Lau; Yvonne Yeung; Timothy Price; Niall Tebbutt
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.