Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “FLUOROURACIL”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Randomized trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus carboplatin and fluorouracil in patients with stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: A randomized trial was designed to compare cisplatin (CDDP) and fluorouracil (FU) versus carboplatin (CBDCA) and FU as neoadjuvant treatment in stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer to assess whether CBDCA-FU is better than CDDP-FU with regard to response and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive CDDP 100 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 and FU 5,000 mg/m2 over a 120-hour continuous infusion, or CBDCA 400 mg/m2 over a 24-hour continuous infusion on day 1 and FU with the same schedule. Both regimens were repeated every 21 days. The patients received three courses of chemotherapy, excluding those who failed to achieve a partial response (PR) after the second course. Complete responders were treated with radiotherapy. The remaining patients underwent surgery if the tumor was resectable. RESULTS: Interim analysis was performed when 95 patients were included. The trial was stopped due to significantly better results in the control arm. Differences in response (P = .04) were favorable to CDDP-FU. Hematologic toxicity predominated in the CBDCA-FU arm (P < .001). Mucositis and vomiting predominated in the CDDP-FU arm (P = .03, P < .001, respectively). Favorable outcomes (complete response [CR] plus any grade of toxicity and PR plus grade 0 to 3 toxicity) predominated in the CDDP-FU arm (P = .02). Only the treatment assigned was associated with response (P = .02) and favorable outcomes (P = .009) in the logistic regression analysis. In the CDDP-FU arm, disease-free and overall survival were significantly better. Cox regression analysis showed that only treatment association with disease-free survival remains significant. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that CDDP-FU is more effective than CBDCA-FU as neoadjuvant treatment in stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Phase III randomized study to compare interferon alfa-2a in combination with fluorouracil versus fluorouracil alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles of a combination of fluorouracil (5-FU) and recombinant human interferon alfa-2a ([IFN alpha 2a] Roferon-A; Hoffmann-LaRoche, Basel, Switzerland) versus 5-FU alone in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 245 previously untreated ACC patients were randomized to receive either IFN alpha 2a (9 million IU) subcutaneously (SC) three times weekly with 5-FU (750 mg/m2/d) by continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion on days 1 to 5 and then, after a 1-week hiatus, as a weekly IV bolus at the same dose (IFN/ 5-FU), or 5-FU alone at the same dose schedule (5-FU). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between IFN/5-FU and 5-FU alone in the overall response rate (24% v 17%, P = .2), duration of response (median, 6.4 v 8.1 months), time to response (plateau at 3 months), time to progressive disease ([PD] median, 4.8 v 4.9 months), or survival duration (median, 13.9 v 13.2 months). Toxicity profiles were not statistically different except for constitutional symptoms, which were more frequent and more severe with IFN/5-FU. More patients interrupted treatment for adverse events (AEs) with IFN/ 5-FU (34%) than with 5-FU alone (21%) (P = .03). The number of deaths (mostly unrelated to drug treatment) during the study (8%) was similar with both regimens. CONCLUSION: The combination IFN/5-FU produced a response rate, response duration, and survival duration similar to that of 5-FU alone. The addition of IFN to 5-FU in the doses and schedules used in this study did not provide any further benefit over 5-FU alone and cannot be recommended for patients with metastatic ACC. This study confirms the value of large prospective randomized clinical trials to determine the clinical value of regimens that emerge from smaller single-center phase II studies.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECF regimen) with the standard combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventy-four patients with adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized and analyzed for survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life (QL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 54%) with ECF and 21% (95% CI, 13% to 29%) with FAMTX (P = .0002). Toxicity was tolerable and there were only three toxic deaths. The FAMTX regimen caused more hematologic toxicity and serious infections, but ECF caused more emesis and alopecia. The median survival duration was 8.9 months with ECF and 5.7 months with FAMTX (P = .0009); at 1 year, 36% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) of ECF and 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) of FAMTX patients were alive. The median failure-free survival duration was 7.4 months with ECF and 3.4 months with FAMTX (P = .00006). The global QL scores were better for ECF at 24 weeks, but the remaining QL data showed no differences between either arm of the study. Hospital-based cost analysis on a subset of patients was similar for each arm and translated into an increment cost of $975 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: The ECF regimen results in a survival and response advantage, tolerable toxicity, better QL and cost-effectiveness compared with FAMTX chemotherapy. This regimen should now be considered the standard treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1997

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.

PURPOSE: This multicenter study compared the therapeutic ratio of a monthly schedule of low-dose leucovorin (LV) and fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus with a bimonthly schedule of high-dose LV and 5-FU bolus plus continuous infusion in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 448 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 433 were assessable. Treatment A was a monthly regimen of intravenous (IV) LV 20 mg/m2 plus bolus 5-FU 425 mg/m2 for 5 days every 4 weeks. Treatment B was a bimonthly regimen of IV LV 200 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion followed by bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m2 and 22-hour infusion 5-FU 600 mg/m2 for 2 consecutive days every 2 weeks. Therapy was continued until disease progression. Second-line chemotherapy, which included 5-FU continuous infusion, was allowed in both arms. RESULTS: The response rates in 348 patients with measurable lesions were 14.4% (monthly regimen) and 32.6% (bimonthly regimen) (P = .0004). The median progression-free survival times were 22 weeks (monthly regimen) and 27.6 weeks (bimonthly regimen) (P = .0012). The median survival times were 56.8 weeks (monthly regimen) and 62 weeks (bimonthly regimen) (P = .067). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 23.9% of patients in the monthly arm compared with 11.1% of those in the bimonthly arm (P = .0004). Patients in arm A more frequently experienced severe granulocytopenia (7.3% v 1.9%), diarrhea (7.3% v 2.9%), and mucositis (7.3% v 1.9%) than patients in arm B. CONCLUSION: The bimonthly regimen was more effective and less toxic than the monthly regimen and definitely increased the therapeutic ratio. However, there was no evidence of increased survival.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Fluorouracil plus racemic leucovorin versus fluorouracil combined with the pure l-isomer of leucovorin for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of fluorouracil (FU) and racemic leucovorin (d,l-LV) versus FU combined with the l-isomer of leucovorin (l-LV) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 248 patients with advanced measurable colorectal cancer previously unexposed to chemotherapy were randomly assigned to treatment with either FU (400 mg/m2/d by intravenous [I.V.] infusion for 2 hours) and racemic LV (100 mg/m2/d by I.V. bolus injection) given for 5 consecutive days, or the combination of FU and the pure l-isomer of LV using the same dose schedule. In both treatment arms, courses were administered every 28 days if toxicity allowed for a total of 6 months, unless evidence of tumor progression was documented earlier. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the FU/racemic LV and the FU/l-LV arm in the overall response rate (25% v 32%), duration of response (7.2 v 8.0 months), median time to progression or death (6.25 v 8.0 months), or median overall survival time (14.5 v 15.0 months). Except for minor myeloid toxic effects associated with FU/l-LV, there was also no significant difference in terms of adverse reactions. Gastrointestinal symptoms, specifically mucasitis and diarrhea, were less frequent and less severe in both treatment arms compared with other trials with FU/racemic LV reported in the literature, which might be because of the prolonged administration of FU used in both arms. CONCLUSION: The combination of FU/l-LV produced response rates, response durations, and survival times similar to those with FU/d,l-LV. Biochemical modulation of FU by either pure l-LV or racemic LV thus appears to result in equivalent clinical efficacy.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Phase II trial of hepatic arterial infusion of fluorouracil and recombinant human interferon alfa-2b for liver metastases of colorectal cancer refractory to systemic fluorouracil and leucovorin.

PURPOSE: To determine the toxicity, response rate, and survival in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of fluorouracil (5-FU) plus recombinant human interferon alfa-2b (rIFN-alpha 2b) (Intron-A; Schering-Plough, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ) for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) liver metastases refractory to systemic 5-FU plus leucovorin (LCV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients were given a 6-hour HAI of rIFN-alpha 2b 5 MU/m2 followed by an 18-hour HAI of 5-FU, 1,500 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Twenty-nine patients were treated through percutaneously placed catheters and 19 through implantable infusion pumps (Shiley Infusaid Inc, Noorwood, MA). Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 to 35 days. RESULTS: There were three (6.6%) complete remissions (CRs) and 12 (26.6%) partial remissions (PRs), for a CR plus PR rate of 33.3% among 45 assessable patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 20% to 49%). The median response duration was 7 months, while median survival duration was 15 months. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxic effects included mucositis (40%), neutropenia (42%), and thrombocytopenia (12%). No hepatobiliary toxicity was encountered in any of the patients. Treatment was discontinued because of progressive liver disease in 23 patients and extrahepatic progression in 16, while six patients continue treatment through an infusaid pump. CONCLUSION: HAI of 5-FU plus rIFN-alpha 2b is well tolerated, devoid of hepatobiliary toxicity, and can produce a response rate of 33.3% among patients refractory to bolus intravenous (IV) 5-FU plus LCV. The lack of hepatobiliary toxicity may permit salvage HAI with floxuridine (FUDR) in patients whose liver tumors fail to respond to HAI of 5-FU plus rIFN-alpha 2b. Because diarrhea was not a common side effect of HAI of 5-FU plus rIFN-alpha 2b, it would be of interest to investigate whether alternating HAI of 5-FU and rIFN-alpha 2b with systemic irinotecan (CPT-11) will decrease the incidence of both hepatic and extrahepatic disease progression.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Randomized phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus infusional fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cisplatin in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We previously developed an inpatient regimen that consisted of infusional fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cisplatin (ECisF), with a response rate of 86% in advanced breast cancer. The current phase II 2:1 randomized study investigated whether cyclophosphamide can be substituted for cisplatin (ECycloF) to reduce toxicity and allow the regimen to be administered on an outpatient basis without loss of efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six women (median age, 49 years; range, 28 to 73) with breast cancer (59 metastatic, 37 locally advanced) received continuous infusional 5-FU (200 mg/m2/d via Hickman line) and six cycles of epirubicin (60 mg/m2 every 21 days) with either cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 every 21 days (38 metastatic, 24 locally advanced) or cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 21 days (21 metastatic, 13 locally advanced). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between these groups. RESULTS: ECycloF was better tolerated than ECisF in terms of lethargy (P = .005), stomatitis (P = .008), plantar palmar erythema (P = .02), constipation (P < .001), thrombosis (P = .0014), and nausea and vomiting (P = .05). Although there was a trend toward more anemia and leukopenia with ECisF (P =. 1), there was no significant difference in the rates of infection. Efficacy was comparable in terms of overall response (69% v 68%), complete response (CR; 13% v 15%), and median progression-free survival (9 v 8 months). CONCLUSION: ECycloF is an outpatient regimen with a lower incidence of severe nonhematologic toxicity than inpatient ECisF; it has comparable efficacy and is considerably more economical.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Long-term weekly treatment of colorectal metastatic cancer with fluorouracil and leucovorin: results of a multicentric prospective trial of fluorouracil dosage optimization by pharmacokinetic monitoring in 152 patients.

PURPOSE: A relationship between fluorouracil (5-FU) dose and response has been previously shown in advanced colorectal cancer. In a previous study with 5-FU stepwise dose escalation in a weekly regimen, and pharmacokinetic monitoring, we defined a therapeutic range for 5-FU plasma levels: 2,000 to 3,000 microg/L (area under the concentration-time curve at 0 to 8 hours [AUC0-8], 16 to 24 mg x h/L). The current study investigated 5-FU therapeutic intensification with individual dose adjustment in a multicentric phase II prospective trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Weekly high-dose 5-FU was administered by 8-hour infusion with 400 mg/m2 leucovorin. The initial dose of 5-FU (1,300 mg/m2) was adapted weekly according to 5-FU plasma levels, to reach the therapeutic range previously determined. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients entered the study from December 1991 to December 1994: 117 patients with measurable metastatic disease and 35 with assessable disease. Toxicity was mainly diarrhea (39%, with 5% grade 3) and hand-foot syndrome (30%, with 2% grade 3). Among 117 patients with measurable disease, 18 had a complete response (CR), 48 a partial response (PR), 35 a minor response (MR) and stable disease (SD), and 16 progressive disease (PD). Median overall survival time was 19 months. The 5-FU therapeutic plasma range was rapidly reached with a variable 5-FU dose in the patient population: mean, 1,803 +/- 386 mg/m2/wk (range, 950 to 3,396). Thirteen patients were immediately in the toxic zone, whereas 51 required a > or = 50% dose increase. CONCLUSION: Individual 5-FU dose adjustment with pharmacokinetic monitoring provided a high survival rate and percentage of responses, with good tolerance.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1999

Multicenter phase II study of bimonthly high-dose leucovorin, fluorouracil infusion, and oxaliplatin for metastatic colorectal cancer resistant to the same leucovorin and fluorouracil regimen.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the objective tumor response rates and toxicities of leucovorin (LV) plus fluorouracil (5-FU) cancer regimen combined with oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) every 2 weeks on metastatic colorectal cancer patients with documented proof of progression while on bimonthly LV and 5-FU alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients were enrolled onto this study and 97 received the study drugs between October 1995 and December 1996. Eighty-nine patients were eligible for per-protocol efficacy analysis with documented proof of progression on one of the following two treatments: LV 500 mg/m(2) and continuous 5-FU infusion 1.5 to 2 g/m(2)/22 hours, days 1 through 2 every 2 weeks (FOLFUHD); or LV 200 mg/m(2), bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m(2), and continuous 5-FU infusion 600 mg/m(2)/22 hours, days 1 through 2 every 2 weeks (LV5FU2). In our study, 40 patients received FOLFUHD + 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin day 1 (FOLFOX3) and 57 patients received LV5FU2 + 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin day 1 (FOLFOX4). RESULTS: Of the 97 patients treated, 20 partial responses were observed (FOLFOX3/4: response rate, 20.6%; 95% confidence interval, 13% to 31.1%; FOLFOX3: response rate,18.4%; FOLFOX4: response rate, 23.5%). For patients treated with FOLFOX3/4, the median response duration for was 7.5 months, and the major toxicities were peripheral neuropathy and neutropenia. The incidence of grade 3 (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria) peripheral neuropathy was 20.6%; whereas the overall incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was 27.8%, 15%, and 36.9% for FOLFOX3/4, FOLFOX3, and FOLFOX4, respectively (P =.02). From the start of treatment, median progression-free survival was 4. 7, 4.6, and 5.1 months for FOLFOX3/4, FOLFOX3, FOLFOX4, respectively, and median overall survival was 10.8, 10.6, and 11.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: This phase II study of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m(2) in combination with bimonthly LV plus 5-FU in patients with colorectal cancer resistant to LV plus 5-FU alone confirms the enhanced antitumor activity of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1999

Irinotecan combined with bolus fluorouracil, continuous infusion fluorouracil, and high-dose leucovorin every two weeks (LV5FU2 regimen): a clinical dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study in patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose of irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV), using a biweekly LV5FU2 regimen and increasing doses of CPT-11, and to assess the efficacy of this combination in pretreated patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients had metastatic CRC and a World Health Organization performance status of 0 or 1. CPT-11 was administered over a 90-minute infusion every 2 weeks at a range of dose levels (100, 120, 150, 180, 200, 220, and 260 mg/m(2)). LV5FU2 was started 1 hour after the end of the biweekly CPT-11 infusion and was also administered on day 2. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were entered onto this trial; 549 cycles were administered. The MTD was not reached at 260 mg/m(2), and a dose level of 300 mg/m(2) was added. The MTD as defined in the protocol was not reached at this dose level either, but all patients had cycles delayed and/or required a dose reduction. This dose was deemed to be the MTD. To take into account both the toxicity of and compliance with the biweekly schedule, the recommended CPT-11 dose was established at 180 to 200 mg/m(2). Antitumor activity was observed at almost all dose levels, with an objective response rate of 22%. Median time to progression was 6.3 months and overall survival was 15 months. CONCLUSION: The biweekly CPT-11/LV5FU2 combination is feasible and safe, without overlapping toxicity. CPT-11 at 180 to 200 mg/m(2) in combination with LV5FU2 has been selected as the recommended dose for further studies.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Randomized multicenter phase II study comparing a combination of fluorouracil and folinic acid and alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin with oxaliplatin and irinotecan in fluorouracil-pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To assess antitumor activity and safety of two regimens in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with proven fluorouracil (5-FU) resistance in a randomized phase II study: 5-FU/folinic acid (FA) combined with alternating irinotecan (also called CPT-11) and oxaliplatin (FC/FO tritherapy), and an oxaliplatin/irinotecan (OC) combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients were treated: arm FC/FO (32 patients) received, every 4 weeks, FA 200 mg/m(2) followed by a 400-mg/m(2) 5-FU bolus injection, then a 600-mg/m(2) continuous infusion of 5-FU on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks administered alternately with irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) on day 1) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on day 15). Arm OC (30 patients) received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, two partial responses lasting 10.7 and 16 months were observed with the tritherapy regimen, and seven (median duration, 11 months; range, 10.6 to 11.4 months) were observed with the bitherapy regimen. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 8.2 and 9.8 months, respectively, in the FC/FO arm and 8.5 and 12.3 months, respectively, in the OC arm. Main grade 3/4 toxicities were, respectively, neutropenia, 53% and 47%; febrile neutropenia, 13% and 3%; diarrhea, 19% and 10%; vomiting, 6% and 13%; and neurosensory toxicity, 3% and 3%. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: The every-3-weeks OC combination is safe and active in advanced 5-FU-resistant CRC patients. The lower activity data seen with the tritherapy regimen may be related to the lower dose intensities of irinotecan and oxaliplatin in this schedule.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Comparative pharmacokinetic study of continuous venous infusion fluorouracil and oral fluorouracil with eniluracil in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous venous infusion (CVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of oral eniluracil/5-FU and to describe toxicities and clinical activity of prolonged oral administration of eniluracil/5-FU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study compared CVI 5-FU to an oral 5-FU/eniluracil combination. Seventeen patients (arm A) were randomly assigned to receive eniluracil/5-FU combination tablets (10:1 mg/m(2) BID for 7 days) during the first study period, followed by 5-FU (300 mg/m(2) CVI for 7 days) during period 2, with a 14-day washout between periods. Sixteen patients (arm B) received treatment in the opposite sequence. In period 3, all patients received eniluracil/5-FU tablets BID for 28 days. Plasma levels of 5-FU during CVI and oral administration were analyzed in periods 1 and 2. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity was determined by measuring plasma uracil, urinary alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine, and peripheral-blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DPD activity. RESULTS: There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities in either arm. Partial responses were observed in three patients. Another three patients had stable disease for > or = 3 months. Eniluracil and 5-FU pharmacokinetics were similar to those observed in previous studies and were unaffected by administration sequence. The mean +/- SD steady-state plasma concentration (C(P)) and area under the curve (AUC)(144-168h) for CVI 5-FU (104 +/- 45 ng/mL and 2,350 +/- 826 ng x h/mL, respectively) were three-fold greater than those for oral 5-FU (38.1 +/- 7.7 ng/mL and 722 +/- 182 ng x h/mL, respectively [P <.00001]). Individual 5-FU concentrations during CVI were highly variable, whereas those after eniluracil/5-FU were very reproducible. DPD activity in PBMCs before each study period was normal. CONCLUSION: Both CVI 5-FU and oral eniluracil/5-FU were well tolerated, with moderate activity in these heavily pretreated patients. However, 5-FU steady-state C(P) and AUCs achieved with oral eniluracil/5-FU were significantly less than with CVI 5-FU.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Randomized phase III trial of fluorouracil alone versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin in patients with unresectable, advanced gastric cancer: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9205).

PURPOSE: To compare fluorouracil (FU) alone with FU plus cisplatin (FP) and with uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin (UFTM) for patients with advanced gastric cancer in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 280 patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomly allocated and analyzed for survival, response, and toxicity. The survival curves were compared between groups by log-rank test on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At the interim analysis, the UFTM arm showed a significantly inferior survival with higher incidences of hematologic toxic effects than did control arm FU alone, and the registration to UFTM was terminated. Both investigational regimens, FP and UFTM, had a significantly higher incidence of hematologic toxic effects than FU alone, although the effects were manageable. The overall response rates of the FU-alone, FP, and UFTM arms were 11%, 34%, and 9%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 1.9 months with FU alone, 3.9 months with FP, and 2.4 months with UFTM, respectively. Although FP demonstrated a higher response rate (P <.001) and longer progression-free survival than did FU alone (P <.001), no differences in overall survival were observed between the arms. The median survival times and 1-year survival rates were 7.1 months and 28% with FU, 7.3 months and 29% with FP, and 6.0 months and 16% with UFTM, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neither investigational regimen, FP nor UFTM, showed a survival advantage as compared with FU alone. FU alone will remain a reference arm in our future trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with mitomycin, Fluorouracil, and Cytosine arabinoside followed by oral Fluorouracil in serosa-negative gastric cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group 9206-1.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection in serosa-negative gastric cancer patients (excluding patients who were T1N0), we conducted a multicenter phase III clinical trial in which 13 cancer centers in Japan participated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1993 to December 1994, 252 patients were enrolled into the study and allocated randomly to adjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone. The chemotherapy comprised intravenous mitomycin 1.33 mg/m2, fluorouracil (FU) 166.7 mg/m2, and cytarabine 13.3 mg/m2 twice weekly for the first 3 weeks after surgery, and oral FU 134 mg/m2 daily for the next 18 months for a total dose of 67 g/m2. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Overall survival and the site of recurrence were secondary end points. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of patients underwent gastrectomy with D2 or greater lymph node dissection. There were no treatment-related deaths and few serious adverse events. There was no significant difference in relapse-free and overall survival between the arms (5-year relapse-free survival 88.8% chemotherapy v 83.7% surgery alone; P =.14 and 5-year survival 91.2% chemotherapy v 86.1% surgery alone; P =.13, respectively). Nine patients (7.1%) in the chemotherapy arm and 17 patients (13.8%) in the surgery-alone arm had cancer recurrence. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant relapse-free or overall survival benefit with this adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with macroscopically serosa-negative gastric cancer after curative resection, and there was no statistical difference between the two arms relating to the types of cancer recurrence. We do not recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with this regimen for this population in clinical practice.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Randomized phase III study of high-dose fluorouracil given as a weekly 24-hour infusion with or without leucovorin versus bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer: European organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group Study 40952.

PURPOSE: This trial was conducted to determine whether high-dose fluorouracil (FU) given as a weekly 24-hour infusion is more active than bolus FU + leucovorin (LV), and whether high-dose infusional FU can be modulated by LV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 497 patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive bolus FU 425 mg/m2 intravenously + LV 20 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5 and repeated on day 28 (FU + LV), or FU 2600 mg/m2 as a 24-hour infusion alone (FU24h) or in combination with 500 mg/m2 LV (FU24h + LV)-all given weekly x6 followed by a 2-week rest period. Survival was the major study end point. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of more than 3 years, survival did not differ among the treatment groups (median FU + LV, 11.1 months [95% CI, 10.2 to 15.0 months]; FU24h, 13.0 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 15.4 months]; FU24h + LV, 13.7 months [95% CI, 12.0 to 16.4 months]; P =.724). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for FU24h + LV (median FU + LV, 4.0 months [95% CI, 3.4 to 4.9]; FU24h, 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.4 to 5.0]; FU24h + LV 5.6 months [95% CI, 4.4 to 6.7]; P =.029). The response rates in the subgroup of patients with measurable disease were 12%, 10%, and 17% for FU + LV, FU24h, and FU24h + LV, respectively (not significant). Occurrence of grade 3 and 4 diarrhea was higher in the FU24h + LV arm (22%) compared with the FU24h (6%) or FU + LV (9%) arms; however, stomatitis (11% in FU + LV v 3% in FU24h v 5% in FU24h + LV arms) and hematologic toxicity were higher in the bolus FU + LV arm. Global quality of life did not differ within the three arms. CONCLUSION: Neither FU24h + LV nor FU24h prolong survival, relative to bolus FU + LV. Leucovorin increases PFS if added to FU24h, but increases toxicity.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Superiority of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil-leucovorin compared with either therapy alone in patients with progressive colorectal cancer after irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin: interim results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: In North America, no effective therapy has been available for patients with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer after front-line treatment with irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil (FU), and leucovorin (IFL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed after IFL therapy were randomly assigned to bolus and infusional FU and leucovorin (LV5FU2), single-agent oxaliplatin, or the combination (FOLFOX4). This planned interim analysis evaluated objective response rate (RR), time to tumor progression (TTP), and alleviation of tumor-related symptoms (TRS) in an initial cohort of patients. RESULTS: Between November 2000 and September 2001, 463 patients from 120 sites in North America were randomly assigned to treatment. FOLFOX4 proved superior to LV5FU2 in all measures of clinical efficacy. Objective RRs determined by an independent radiology panel were 9.9% for FOLFOX4 versus 0% for LV5FU2 (Fisher's exact test, P <.0001). Median TTP was 4.6 months for FOLFOX4 versus 2.7 months for LV5FU2 (two-sided, stratified log-rank test, P <.0001). Relief of TRS occurred in 33% of patients treated with FOLFOX4 versus 12% of patients treated with LVFU2 (chi2 test, P <.001). Single-agent oxaliplatin was not superior to LV5FU2 in any measure of efficacy. Patients treated with FOLFOX4 experienced a higher incidence of clinically significant toxicities than patients treated with LV5FU2, but these toxicities were predictable and did not result in a higher rate of treatment discontinuation or 60-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, second-line treatment with FOLFOX4 is superior to treatment with LVFU2 in terms of RR, TTP, and relief of TRS.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus fluorouracil to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the antitumor activity and toxicity of the two induction chemotherapy treatments of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (FU; PCF) versus standard cisplatin and FU (CF), both followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT), in locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included biopsy-proven, previously untreated, stage III or IV locally advanced HNC. Patients received either CF (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 plus FU 1000 [corrected] mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 1 through 5) or PCF (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2, and FU 500 mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 2 through 6); both regimens were administered for three cycles every 21 days. Patients with complete response (CR) or partial response of greater than 80% in primary tumor received additional CRT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 plus 70 Gy). RESULTS: A total of 382 eligible patients were randomly assigned to CF (n = 193) or PCF (n = 189). The CR rate was 14% in the CF arm v 33% in the PCF arm (P < .001). Median time to treatment failure was 12 months in the CF arm compared with 20 months in the PCF arm (log-rank test, P = .006; Tarone-Ware, P = .003). PCF patients had a trend to longer overall survival (OS; 37 months in CF arm v 43 months in PCF arm; log-rank test, P = .06; Tarone-Ware, P = .03). This difference was more evident in patients with unresectable disease (OS: 26 months in CF arm v 36 months in PCF arm; log-rank test, P = .04; Tarone-Ware, P = .03). CF patients had a higher occurrence of grade 2 to 4 mucositis than PCF patients (53% v 16%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy with PCF was better tolerated and resulted in a higher CR rate than CF. However, new trials that compare induction chemotherapy plus CRT versus CRT alone are needed to better define the role of neoadjuvant treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Phase III Southwest Oncology Group 9415/Intergroup 0153 randomized trial of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole versus fluorouracil continuous infusion and levamisole for adjuvant treatment of stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Modest toxicity and possibly enhanced activity makes continuous-infusion fluorouracil (FU) an attractive alternative to FU plus leucovorin (FU/LV) for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. Intergroup trial 0153 (Southwest Oncology Group trial 9415) was developed to compare the efficacy of continuous-infusion FU (CIFU) plus levamisole to FU/LV plus levamisole in the adjuvant treatment of high-risk Dukes' B2 and C1 or C2 colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to CIFU 250 mg/m(2)/d for 56 days every 9 weeks for three cycles or FU 425 mg/m(2) and LV 20 mg/m(2) daily for 5 days every 28 to 35 days for six cycles. All patients received levamisole 50 mg tid for 3 days every other week. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study closed in December 1999 after an interim analysis demonstrated little likelihood of CIFU showing superiority to FU/LV within the stipulated hazard ratio. A total of 1,135 patients were registered. At least one grade 4 toxicity occurred in 39% of patients receiving FU/LV and 5% of patients receiving CIFU. However, almost twice as many patients receiving CIFU discontinued therapy early compared with those receiving FU/LV. The 5-year OS is 70% (95% CI, 66% to 74%) for FU/LV and 69% (95% CI, 64% to 73%) for CIFU. The corresponding 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 61% (95% CI, 56% to 65%) and 63% (95% CI, 59% to 68%), respectively. For all patients, 5-year OS is 83%, 74%, and 55%; 5-year DFS is 78%, 67%, and 47% for N0, N1, and N2-3, respectively. CONCLUSION: CIFU had less severe toxicity but did not improve DFS or OS in comparison with bolus FU/LV.

Adult↗