A randomised cross-over trial comparing patient preference for oral capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

被引:127
作者
Twelves, C
Gollins, S
Grieve, R
Samuel, L
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Bradford NHS Trust & Beatson Oncol Ctr, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
[2] N Wales Canc Treatment Ctr, Rhyl, Wales
[3] Walsgrave Gen Hosp, Coventry CV2 2DY, W Midlands, England
[4] Aberdeen Royal Infirm, Aberdeen, Scotland
关键词
5-FU/LV; capecitabine; colorectal cancer; patient preference; quality of life; treatment satisfaction;
D O I
10.1093/annonc/mdj023
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 [肿瘤学];
摘要
Background: Traditionally, metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been treated with intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV). The tumour-activated, oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine demonstrates superior activity and favourable safety compared with the Mayo regimen, while potentially avoiding the complications and inconvenience associated with i.v. regimens. Patients and methods: Ninety-seven patients with previously untreated advanced/MCRC were randomised to receive capecitabine followed by i.v. 5-FU/LV [Mayo Clinic, in-patient de Gramont (IPdG) or out-patient modified de Gramont (OPdG) regimens], or i.v. 5-FU/LV followed by capecitabine. Results: Before treatment, of those patients for whom a preference was recorded, almost all (95%) preferred oral treatment (consistent across all treatment groups) and the majority retained this preference after treatment (64% overall; 86%, 63% and 50% in the Mayo, IPdG and OPdG groups, respectively). Following treatment, the principal reasons for oral treatment preference were increased convenience, home-based administration and tablet formulation. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher with capecitabine compared with Mayo (P < 0.05) and with OPdG compared with capecitabine (P < 0.05). Quality of life (QoL) was largely constant across the regimens, although it appeared better with OPdG than capecitabine (P < 0.05). Grade 3/4 adverse events were uncommon in all arms. Conclusions: This study confirmed that the majority of patients with MCRC prefer oral to i.v. therapy, although the OPdG regimen appears to be the most popular i.v. option. Capecitabine clearly represents an effective, well-tolerated oral alternative to i.v. 5-FU/LV.
引用
收藏
页码:239 / 245
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]
Patient preference and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin:: a randomised crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancer [J].
Borner, MM ;
Schöffski, P ;
de Wit, R ;
Caponigro, F ;
Comella, G ;
Sulkes, A ;
Greim, G ;
Peters, GJ ;
van der Born, K ;
Wanders, J ;
de Boer, RF ;
Martin, C ;
Fumoleau, P .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2002, 38 (03) :349-358
[2]
Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Borras, JM ;
Sanchez-Hernandez, A ;
Navarro, M ;
Martinez, M ;
Mendez, E ;
Ponton, JLL ;
Espinas, JA ;
Germa, JR .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7290) :826-828A
[3]
First-line oral capecitabine therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer:: a favorable safety profile compared with intravenous 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin [J].
Cassidy, J ;
Twelves, C ;
Van Cutsem, E ;
Hoff, P ;
Bajetta, E ;
Boyer, M ;
Bugat, R ;
Burger, U ;
Garin, A ;
Graeven, U ;
McKendrick, J ;
Maroun, J ;
Marshall, J ;
Osterwalder, B ;
Pérez-Manga, G ;
Rosso, R ;
Rougier, P ;
Schilsky, RL .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2002, 13 (04) :566-575
[4]
Taking responsibility for cancer treatment [J].
Deadman, JM ;
Leinster, SJ ;
Owens, RG ;
Dewey, ME ;
Slade, PD .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2001, 53 (05) :669-677
[5]
Randomized trial comparing monthly low-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus with bimonthly high-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus plus continuous infusion for advanced colorectal cancer: A French intergroup study [J].
deGramont, A ;
Basset, JF ;
Milan, C ;
Rougier, P ;
Bouche, O ;
Etienne, PL ;
Morvan, F ;
Louvet, C ;
Guillot, C ;
Francois, E ;
Bedenne, L .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1997, 15 (02) :808-815
[6]
Douillard JY, 2004, ANN ONCOL, V15, P73
[7]
Ionic implantation of silicone chronic venous access devices does not alter thrombotic complications: A double-blinded, randomized clinical trial [J].
Frank, JL ;
Garb, JL ;
Halla, B ;
Reed, WP .
SURGERY, 2001, 129 (05) :547-551
[8]
Phase III study of bolus versus infusion fluorouracil with or without cisplatin in advanced colorectal cancer [J].
Hansen, RM ;
Ryan, L ;
Anderson, T ;
Krzywda, B ;
Quebbeman, E ;
Benson, A ;
Haller, DG ;
Tormey, DC .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1996, 88 (10) :668-674
[9]
Totally implantable venous access devices: evaluation of complications and a prospective comparative study of two different port systems [J].
Hartkamp, A ;
van Boxtel, AJH ;
Zonnenberg, BA ;
Witteveen, PO .
NETHERLANDS JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 57 (06) :215-223
[10]
2-PERIOD CROSSOVER CLINICAL-TRIAL [J].
HILLS, M ;
ARMITAGE, P .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1979, 8 (01) :7-20