Dataset Information

Comparison of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

ABSTRACT: Although capecitabine has theoretical advantages in the pharmacokinetics, such as higher intratumoral and lower systemic concentration, relative to bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), outcomes of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine or bolus 5-FU have not been directly compared in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Therefore, we retrospectively compared the outcomes, including toxicity, tumor response, and overall survival, of oral capecitabine plus radiotherapy (RT) with bolus 5-FU plus RT, in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.Between August 2006 and January 2012, 98 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer received CRT, with 52 receiving concurrent oral capecitabine and 46 receiving bolus injection of 5-FU. Primary tumor and overall response after CRT were evaluated radiologically, and toxicity, tumor response, and overall survival (OS) were compared in the two groups.Baseline clinical parameters of the two groups were similar. The rates of???Grade 3 hematologic (0% vs. 8.7%, p?=?0.045) and non-hematologic (0% vs. 8.7%, p?=?0.045) toxicities were significantly lower in the capecitabine group than in the 5-FU group. Primary tumor (30.7% vs. 28.2%, p?=?0.658) and overall (13.7% vs. 15.2%, p?=?0.273) response rates and median OS time (12.5 months vs. 11.6 months, p?=?0.655) were similar in the two groups.Capecitabine plus RT may be a safe and feasible regimen for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, with similar efficacy and low rates of toxicities compared with bolus 5-FU plus RT.

SUBMITTER: Kim YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3702484 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Kim Yeon-Joo YJ Lee Woo Jin WJ Woo Sang Myung SM Kim Tae Hyun TH Han Sung-Sik SS Kim Bo Hyun BH Moon Sung Ho SH Kim Sang Soo SS Koh Young Hwan YH Park Sang-Jae SJ Kim Joo-Young JY Kim Dae Yong DY Park Joong-Won JW

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20130703

<h4>Background</h4>Although capecitabine has theoretical advantages in the pharmacokinetics, such as higher intratumoral and lower systemic concentration, relative to bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), outcomes of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine or bolus 5-FU have not been directly compared in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Therefore, we retrospectively compared the outcomes, including toxicity, tumor response, and overall survival, of oral capecitabine plus radiotherapy ( ...[more]

PMID: 23822606

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987.Findings114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups.InterpretationOur results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small.FundingCancer Research UK.

Project description:BackgroundDistant metastasis has been the main failure pattern for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients, and intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become a popular research topic. The present study aimed to compare the survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy with triweekly oxaliplatin and capecitabine (triweekly XELOX) or capecitabine.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, patients with clinically staged II-III rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy using either triweekly XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 plus capecitabine 825 mg/m2) or capecitabine were included. Variables potentially influencing chemotherapy treatment selection were used to generate propensity scores (PS). The association between chemotherapy regimens and survival endpoints, including distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were evaluated and adjusted with PS. The acute toxicities and surgical complications were also compared.ResultsA total of 810 patients were included in the analysis; 277 (34.2%) patients received triweekly XELOX, and 533 (65.8%) received capecitabine. The pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 20.2 and 19.9% (P = 0.912) for the groups treated with triweekly XELOX and capecitabine, respectively. The 5-year DMFS, OS and DFS with triweekly XELOX versus capecitabine were 75.6% vs. 77.6% (P = 0.555), 79.2% vs. 83.3% (P = 0.101), and 69.9% vs. 73.7% (P = 0.283), respectively. Triweekly XELOX was not associated with an increased risk of severe toxicity during chemoradiotherapy, but it increased the risk of postoperative complications compared to capecitabine. After PS adjustment, the differences between the two groups remained insignificant in pCR rate, survival outcomes, and acute toxicities, and the difference in surgical complications disappeared.ConclusionsTriweekly XELOX or capecitabine concurrent with neoadjuvant radiotherapy leads to similar long-term survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients.

Project description:Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the fourth most lethal cancer in the world. In the majority of cases, patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage or even metastatic, thus explaining the high mortality. The standard protocol for treating patients with locally advanced non-metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (NRCT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), but the resistance rate to this treatment remains high with approximately 30% of non-responders. The lack of evidence available in clinical practice to predict NRCT resistance to 5-FU and to guide clinical practice therefore encourages the search for biomarkers of this resistance. Methods: From twenty-three formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsies performed before NRCT with 5-FU of locally advanced non-metastatic CRC patients, we extracted and analysed the tumor proteome of these patients. From clinical data, we were able to classify the twenty-two patients in our cohort into three treatment response groups: non-responders (NR), partial responders (PR) and total responders (TR), and to compare the proteomes of these different groups. Results: We have highlighted 384 differentially expressed proteins between NR and PR, 248 between NR and TR and 417 between PR and TR. Among these proteins, we have identified many differentially expressed proteins identified as having a role in cancer (IFIT1, FASTKD2, PIP4K2B, ARID1B, SLC25A33: overexpressed in TR; CALD1, CPA3, B3GALT5, CD177, RIPK1: overexpressed in NR). We have also identified that DPYD, the main degradation enzyme of 5-FU, was overexpressed in NR, as well as several ribosomal and mitochondrial proteins also overexpressed in NR. Conclusions: From these retrospective study, we implemented a protein extraction protocol from FFPE biopsy to highlight protein differences between different response groups to RCTN with 5-FU in patients with locally advanced non-metastatic CRC. These results will pave the way for a larger cohort for better sensitivity and specificity of the signature to guide decisions in the choice of treatment.

Project description:Background: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) including three cycles of cisplatin is considered the standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). However, around one-third of the patients cannot complete cisplatin because of toxicity. Carboplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (carbo-5FU) is another accepted treatment option with a different toxicity profile. We compared tolerability and efficacy of concomitant carbo-5FU and cisplatin. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of LA-HNSCC patients treated with CRT in two Dutch cancer centers between 2007 and 2016. All patients received intensity-modulated radiotherapy. One center routinely administered carboplatin 300-350 mg/m2 at day 1, 22, and 43 followed by 5FU 600 mg/m2/day for 96 h. The other center used cisplatin 100 mg/m2 at day 1, 22, and 43. The primary endpoint of this study was chemotherapy completion rate. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control (LRC) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFS), toxicity, and unplanned admissions. Results: In the carbo-5FU cohort (n = 211), 60.2% of the patients completed chemotherapy vs. 76.7% (p < 0.001) of the patients in the cisplatin cohort (n = 223). Univariate analysis showed a higher risk of death in the carbo-5FU cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% CI, 1.09-2.14, p = 0.01] with a 3-year OS of 65.4 vs. 76.5% for cisplatin. OS was independently associated with T and N stage and p16 status, but not with chemotherapy regimen (HR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.76-1.55, p = 0.65). Three-year DFS was 70.0% for carbo-5FU vs. 78.6% for cisplatin (HR 1.37, 95% CI, 0.93-2.01, p = 0.05). A similar outcome was observed for both LRC (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 0.74-2.09, p = 0.4) and DMFS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.62-1.90, p = 0.77). The risk of discontinuation for chemotherapy-associated toxicity was higher in the carbo-5FU cohort than in the cisplatin cohort (relative risk = 1.69). Conclusion: LA-HNSCC patients treated with concomitant carbo-5FU completed chemotherapy less frequently than patients treated with cisplatin. Treatment regimen was not an independent prognostic factor for OS.

Project description:ObjectiveDue to common practice of hypofractionated radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer and heterogeneous chemotherapy regimens in previous studies, modified nomograms are required. Therefore, we aim to develop and validate prognostic nomograms for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and chemotherapy.MethodsThe development cohort comprised 925 patients with LAPC receiving SBRT and gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in our center, while 297 patients from another two centers formed the validation cohort. Nomograms were created from COX models and internally validated by bootstrap. Model discriminations were evaluated by calibration plots and concordance index (C-index). A decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate clinical benefits of nomograms. Additionally, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used for stratifications of survival probability based on the total score of each patient calculated by nomograms.ResultsWeight loss, tumor diameter, radiation dose, CA19-9 kinetics after treatment and surgical resection were included in the nomogram for overall survival (OS), while the five factors plus performance status formed the nomogram for progression free survival (PFS). The corrected C-indexes for estimated 1-year and 2-year OS of the development cohort were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90). For those of the validation cohort, it was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91). Additionally, the corrected C-index for predicted 1-year PFS in the development and validation cohort was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87), respectively. The calibration plots showed good agreement of 1- and 2-year OS and 1-year PFS between the estimations and actual observations. Potential clinical benefits were demonstrated with DCA. Additionally, for 1- and 2-year OS and 1-year PFS, patients were stratified into four groups with different survival probability by RPA.ConclusionThe validated nomograms provided useful predictions of OS and PFS for LAPC with chemoradiotherapy.

Dataset Information

Comparison of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Publications

Comparison of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets