Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. Meta-analysis Group In Cancer.P Piedbois, P Piedbois, Philippe Rougier et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|1998 PURPOSE: The administration of fluorouracil (5-FU) by continuous intravenous infusion (CI) is an alternative to the bolus administration of 5-FU in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Although more than 1,200 patients have been enrolled onto randomized trials that compared these two treatment modalities, there is still no definitive evidence of an advantage of 5-FU CI, and the magnitude of this advantage, if any, is also controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess this benefit in terms of tumor response and survival, and to compare the toxicity profiles of these two modalities of administration of 5-FU. DESIGN: Individual data of 1,219 patients included in six randomized trials served as the basis for this meta-analysis, which was conducted by an independent secretariat in close collaboration with the investigators. RESULTS: Tumor response rate was significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI than in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (22% v 14%; overall response odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.41 to 0.75; P = .0002). Overall survival was also significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI (overall hazards ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99; P = .04), although the median survival times were close. Multivariate analyses showed that randomized treatment and performance status were the only two significant predictors of tumor response, whereas the same plus primary tumor site were independent significant predictors of survival (patients with rectal cancer did somewhat better). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was more frequent in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (31% v 4%; P < 10(-16)), whereas hand-foot syndrome was more frequent in the 5-FU CI group (34% v 13%; P < 10(-7)). CONCLUSION: 5-FU CI is superior to 5-FU bolus in terms of tumor response and achieves a slight increase of overall survival. The hematologic toxicity is much less important in patients who receive 5-FU CI, but hand-foot syndrome is frequent in this group of patients.
Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer.E Lévy, Elliot Levy, P Piedbois et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|1998 PURPOSE: Fluorouracil (5-FU) continuous infusion is superior to 5-FU bolus in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but the survival difference between the two treatments is small and, therefore, the difference in toxicity profile is crucial in choosing a treatment for individual patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized trials that compared 5-FU bolus with 5-FU CI, based on individual data from 1,219 patients, to compare the toxicity of the two schedules of 5-FU administration and to identify predictive factors for toxicity. The toxicities considered were World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 anemia, thrombopenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-foot syndrome. RESULTS: Hematologic toxicity, mainly neutropenia, was more frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (31% and 4%, respectively; P < .0001). Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (13% and 34%, respectively; P < .0001). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of other nonhematologic toxicities. Independent prognostic factors were age, sex, and performance status for nonhematologic toxicities, performance status, and treatment for hematologic toxicities, and age, sex, and treatment for hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION: Based on a large data set, this study confirmed and quantified the toxicity profile of the two schedules of administration of 5-FU and allowed the identification of clinical predictors of toxicity.
Liposomal doxorubicin: antitumor activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies.Beatrice Uziely, Susan Jeffers, Rut Isacson et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|1995 PURPOSE: The purpose of our studies was to define the maximal-tolerated dose of liposomal doxorubicin (DOX-SL; Liposome Technology Inc, Menlo Park, CA), a doxorubicin formulation of polyethyleneglycol-coated liposomes, characterize the toxicities associated with this formulation, and evaluate any indication of antitumor activity within a phase I setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two separate phase I studies were conducted following the initial human pharmacokinetic testing at one of the sites (Hadassah). The starting dose of 20 mg/m2 at the University of Southern California was just below the dose without toxicity in the pharmacokinetic study. At Hadassah, the phase I starting dose was just above their earlier safe single doses, 60 mg/m2. Both studies involved cohorts of at least three patients and redosing every 3 to 4 weeks. To determine the recommended dose for phase II trials, an additional level of 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was explored, and the level of 60 mg/m2 every 4 weeks was expanded. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients receiving 281 courses of DOX-SL was accrued and evaluated for toxicity. Hand-foot (H-F) syndrome and stomatitis are the two main dose-limiting factors of DOX-SL. Stomatitis was dose-limiting for high single doses of DOX-SL greater than 70 mg/m2. Skin toxicity manifested primarily as H-F syndrome was dose-limiting for repetitive dosing, but acceptable at either 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 60 mg/m2 every 4 weeks. Attenuation of acute subjective symptoms and lack of alopecia were generally observed. Patients with carcinomas of the breast, ovary, prostate, and head and neck were among those showing objective antitumor responses or improvement based, in part, on blood levels of tumor markers. CONCLUSION: The toxicity profile of DOX-SL differs prominently from that of the free drug administered by bolus or rapid infusion and with some differences, resembles that of prolonged continuous infusion. This finding, as well as the antitumor activity observed, supports wide phase II testing of DOX-SL in solid tumors.
Clinical Studies of Liposome-Encapsulated DoxorubicinInitial clinical studies with doxorubicin entrapped in the bilayer of phosphatidylglycerol-rich liposomes were hindered by the avid reticuloendothelial system (RES) uptake and by drug leakage from circulating liposomes. In contrast, recent tests of a doxorubicin formulation of polyethyleneglycol-coated liposomes (Doxil) in cancer patients indicate that the drug pharmacokinetic properties are significantly altered, with a prolonged distribution half-life of approximately 2 days. Plasma fractionation studies show that nearly all the drug measured in plasma is in liposome-encapsulated form. The dose of Doxil has been escalated from 25 to 60 mg/m2. Stomatitis is the most significant toxicity, and skin toxicity, in the form of hand-foot syndrome, may complicate the repeated administration of Doxil. A number of objective antitumor responses in a variety of malignancies have been observed, indicating that Doxil is an active antitumor compound. Polyethyleneglycol-coated liposomes show a distinct advantage over previous liposome formulations directed at the RES and appear to be a promising drug delivery system for doxorubicin.
An open-label study to evaluate dose and cycle dependence of the pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicinAlberto Gabizón, Rut Isacson, Ora Rosengarten et al.|Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology|2007