Capecitabine and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of capecitabine and bevacizumab in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) considered unsuitable for receiving first-line chemotherapy with an irinotecan or oxaliplatin-based combination were assessed in a phase II, open, multicentre, uncontrolled study. METHODS: Treatment consisted of capecitabine 1250 mgm 2 (or 950 mgm 2 for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30–50ml min 1) twice daily on days 1–14 and bevacizumab (7.5 mg kg 1) on day 1 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients aged X70 years with mCRC were enrolled. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 34%, with 71% of patients achieving disease control. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 months and 18 months, respectively. In all, 32 patients (54%) had grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), the most common being hand–foot syndrome (19%), diarrhoea (9%) and deep venous thrombosis (7%). Four patients died because of treatment-related AEs. A relationship was detected between creatinine clearance p50 ml min 1 and the development of non-bevacizumab-related grade 3/4 AEs. The incidence of bevacizumab-associated AEs (hypertension, thromboembolic events and proteinuria) was consistent with that of previous reports in elderly patients. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab combined with capecitabine represents a valid therapeutic alternative in elderly patients considered to be unsuitable for receiving polychemotherapy.This study was supported by Hoffmann-La Roche, Nutley, NJ, USA

The clinical and economic benefits of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil in metastatic colorectal cancer

Two oral fluoropyrimidine therapies have been introduced for metastatic colorectal cancer. One is a 5-fluorouracil pro-drug, capecitabine; the other is a combination of tegafur and uracil administered together with leucovorin. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these oral therapies against standard intravenous 5-fluorouracil regimens. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of the therapies and costs were calculated from the UK National Health Service perspective for drug acquisition, drug administration, and the treatment of adverse events. A cost-minimisation analysis was used; this assumes that the treatments are of equal efficacy, although direct randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of the oral therapies with infusional 5-fluorouracil schedules were not available. The cost-minimisation analysis showed that treatment costs for a 12-week course of capecitabine (£2132) and tegafur with uracil (£3385) were lower than costs for the intravenous Mayo regimen (£3593) and infusional regimens on the de Gramont (£6255) and Modified de Gramont (£3485) schedules over the same treatment period. Oral therapies result in lower costs to the health service than intravenous therapies. Further research is needed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of oral therapies vs infusional regimens

Phase II study of irinotecan with bolus and high dose infusional 5-FU and folinic acid (modified de Gramont) for first or second line treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer

We investigated the activity of irinotecan given with a more convenient modified bimonthly de Gramont regimen of bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil [IrMdG] in advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer in the first and second line setting. Irinotecan 180 mg m−2 was infused over 90 min. L-folinic acid 175 mg or d,l folinic acid 350 mg was given over 2 h followed by a bolus of 5-fluorouracil (400 mg m−2) and a 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (2.4–2.8 g m−2). Forty-six previously untreated patients (Group A) and 36 who had received 5-fluorouracil for metastatic disease (Group B) were recruited. Seventy-eight patients were evaluable for response. A partial response was seen in 13 out of 43 (30% [95%CI 28.1–31.9%]) in Group A and 8/35 (23% [95% CI 17.9–28.1%]) in Group B. 40% (95%CI 38.1–41.9%) of Group A and 26% (95% CI 20.9–31.1%) of Group B patients achieved disease stabilisation. The median progression free survival from the start of this treatment was 7 months (95% CI 4.4–9.6 months) in Group A and 5 months (95% CI 2.8–7.2 months) in Group B. Median overall survival was 14 months (95% CI 9.0–18.9) in Group A and 11 months (95% CI 5.9–16.1) in Group B. Grade 3–4 toxicity in both treatment groups were similar; leucopenia 17% and diarrhoea 7–8%. Grade 3–4 mucositis was not seen and severe alopecia affected only three patients. IrMdG is an active and well-tolerated regimen for both the first and second line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

A ‘modified de Gramont’ regimen of fluorouracil, alone and with oxaliplatin, for advanced colorectal cancer

The standard de Gramont (dG) regimen of fortnightly leucovorin, bolus fluorouracil and 22-h infusion of fluorouracil, d1+2, and the same regimen plus oxaliplatin, are effective but also cumbersome. We therefore present simplified ‘Modified de Gramont’ (MdG) regimens. Forty-six advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients entered a dose-exploring study of MdG, including an expanded cohort of colorectal cancer patients at optimum dose. Treatment (fortnightly) comprised: 2-h i.v.i. leucovorin (350 mg d,l-LV or 175 mg l-LV, not adjusted for patient surface area); bolus fluorouracil (400 mg m−2), then ambulatory 46-h fluorouracil infusion (2000–3600 mg m−2, cohort escalation). Subsequently, 62 colorectal patients (25 unpretreated; 37 fluorouracil-resistant) received MdG plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG) 85 mg m−2. Fluorouracil pharmacokinetics during MdG were compared with dG. The optimum fluorouracil doses for MdG alone were determined as 400 mg m−2 bolus + 2800 mg m−2 46-h infusion. A lower dose of 400 mg m−2 bolus + 2400 mg m−2 infusion which, like dG produces minimal toxicity, was chosen for the OxMdG combination. Fluorouracil exposure (AUC0–48 h) at this lower dose is equivalent to dG. With OxMdG, grade 3–4 toxicity was rare (neutropenia 2.8% cycles; vomiting or diarrhoea <1% cycles), but despite this there were two infection-associated deaths. Oxaliplatin was omitted for cumulative neurotoxicity in 17 out of 62 patients. Objective responses in colorectal cancer patients were: 1st-line MdG (22 assessable): PR=36%, NC=32%, PD=32%. 1st-line OxMdG (24 assessable): CR/PR=72%; NC=20%; PD=8%; 2nd line OxMdG (34 assessable): PR=12%; NC=38%; PD=50%. MdG and OxMdG are convenient and well-tolerated. OxMdG was particularly active as 1st-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Both regimens are being further evaluated in the current UK MRC phase III trial

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions

Background Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting. Methods A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions. Results Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility. Conclusions This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance. Trial registration ISRCTN18046709 - Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE

Toxicity associated with combination oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with or without cetuximab in the MRC COIN trial experience

We present the preliminary toxicity data from the MRC COIN trial, a phase III randomised controlled trial of first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with particular reference to the addition of cetuximab to an oxaliplatin–fluoropyrimidine combination. A total of 804 patients were randomised between March 2005 and July 2006 from 78 centres throughout the United Kingdom. Patients were allocated to oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with or without the addition of weekly cetuximab. The choice of fluoropyrimidine (either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine) was decided by the treating physician and patient before randomisation. Toxicity data were collected from all patients. Two hundred and three patients received 5FU plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG, 25%), 333 oxaliplatin+capecitabine (Xelox, 41%), 102 received OxMdG+cetuximab (OxMdG+C, 13%) and 166 Xelox+cetuximab (21%). Percent grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhoea 6, 15, 13 and 25%, nausea/vomiting 3, 7, 7 and 14% for OxMdG, Xelox, OxMdG+C and Xelox+C, respectively. Sixty-day all-cause mortality was 6, 5, 5 and 7%. Statistically significant differences were evident for patients receiving Xelox+cetuximab vs Xelox alone: diarrhoea relative risk (RR) 1.69 (1.17, 2.43, P=0.005) and nausea/vomiting RR 2.01 (1.16, 3.47, P=0.012). The excess toxicity observed in the oxaliplatin-, capecitabine-, cetuximab-treated patients led the trial management group to conclude that a capecitabine dose adjustment was required to maintain safety levels when using this regimen