Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Capecitabine”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Lower dose capecitabine has a more favorable therapeutic index in metastatic breast cancer: retrospective analysis of patients treated at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and a review of capecitabine toxicity in the literature.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine is active against anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Post-marketing use of capecitabine at the FDA-approved dose (2500 mg/m2/day) leads to unacceptable toxicity in many patients. Dose reductions anecdotally improve tolerability without compromising efficacy. This retrospective analysis was designed to verify these anecdotal reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 141 consecutive patients with metastatic breast cancer identified from pharmacy records as receiving capecitabine outside of a clinical trial between May 1998 and February 1999. Responses were defined as clinical improvement (ID), stabilization of disease (SD) for 6 weeks or longer, or progression (PD). Patients were grouped according to the starting dose level of capecitabine: A=2500+/-5% (dose range 2385-2560) mg/m2/day; B=2250+/-5% (range 2130-2350) mg/m2/day; C < or = 2000+5% (range 1000-2100) mg/m2/day. We also reviewed the safety profile of capecitabine at these doses and performed a safety review of capecitabine in phase II and III metastatic breast and colorectal cancer trials. RESULTS: Clinical data were available for 113 patients (105 for response, 106 for toxicity). The median age was 52.5 years and the mean number of prior metastatic chemotherapy regimens was 2 (range 0-7). The mean capecitabine starting dose was 2220 mg/m2/day and the median number of cycles administered was 4 (range 1-19). The mean tolerated dose was 2040 mg/m2/day (range 960-2670). Grade 3/4 toxic effects at dose levels A, B and C, respectively, included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (33%, 63%, 20%), diarrhea (13%, 12%, 3%), stomatitis (8%, 0%, 3%), and nausea/vomiting (4%, 6%, 5%). Forty per cent of all patients required capecitabine dose reductions; fewer patients treated with 2000 mg/m2/day required dose modification (28%). Five per cent of the patients required discontinuation of capecitabine owing to toxicity. Patients started at the lowest doses of capecitabine did not have poorer response rates or shorter time to progression. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis supports a starting dose of 2000 mg/m2/day because of its superior therapeutic index; however, patients may still have toxic effects and individualization of dosing is necessary. A phase III, multicenter, randomized study to establish the safety and efficacy of different doses of capecitabine is urgently needed.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

5-Fluorouracil can cross brain-blood barrier and cause encephalopathy: should we expect the same from capecitabine? A case report on capecitabine-induced central neurotoxicity progressing to coma.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is a relatively new oral fluoropyrimidine currently licensed for the treatment of colorectal and breast cancer. RESULTS: It has the advantage of oral administration with good tolerability and comparable activity to intravenous 5-fluorouracil. Central neurotoxicity has been described in 5-fluorouracil-treated patients but there is little data regarding capecitabine. We report here a case of reversible capecitabine-induced encephalopathy progressing to coma. DISCUSSION: Literature on fluoropyrimidine-related neurotoxicity will also be reviewed and possible mechanisms of the drug or its metabolites crossing the blood-brain barrier will be discussed.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2005

Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of capecitabine with or without bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine (2,500 mg/m2/d) twice daily on day 1 through 14 every 3 weeks, alone or in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), as determined by an independent review facility. RESULTS: From November 2000 to March 2002, 462 patients were enrolled. Treatment arms were balanced. No significant differences were found in the incidence of diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, thromboembolic events, or serious bleeding episodes between treatment groups. Of other grade 3 or 4 adverse events, only hypertension requiring treatment (17.9% v 0.5%) was more frequent in patients receiving bevacizumab. Combination therapy significantly increased the response rates (19.8% v 9.1%; P = .001); however, this did not result in a longer PFS (4.86 v 4.17 months; hazard ratio = 0.98). Overall survival (15.1 v 14.5 months) and time to deterioration in quality of life as measured by the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Treatment--Breast were comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated patient population. Although the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine produced a significant increase in response rates, this did not translate into improved PFS or overall survival.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Capecitabine: a review.

BACKGROUND: Fluorouracil (FU) is an antimetabolite with activity against numerous types of neoplasms, including those of the breast, esophagus, larynx, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. Systemic toxicity, including neutropenia, stomatitis, and diarrhea, often occur due to cytotoxic nonselectivity. Capecitabine was developed as a prodrug of FU, with the goal of improving tolerability and intratumor drug concentrations through tumor-specific conversion to the active drug. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to review the available information on capecitabine with respect to clinical pharmacology, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, clinical efficacy for breast and colorectal cancer adverse-effect profile, documented drug interactions, dosage and administration, and future directions of ongoing research. METHODS: Relevant English-language literature was identified through searches of PubMed (1966 to August 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1977 to August 2004), and the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (January 1995 to August 2004). Search terms included capecitabine, Xeloda, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. The references of the identified articles were reviewed for additional sources. In addition, product information was obtained from Roche Pharmaceuticals. Studies from the identified literature that addressed this article's objectives were selected for review, with preference given to Phase II/III trials. RESULTS: Capecitabine is an oral prodrug that is converted to its only active metabolite, FU, by thymidine phosphorylase. Higher levels of this enzyme are found in several tumors and the liver, compared with normal healthy tissue. In adults, capecitabine has a bioavailability of approximately 100% with a Cmax of 3.9 mg/L, Tmax of 1.5 to 2 hr, and AUC of 5.96 mg.h/L. The predominant route of elimination is renal, and dosage reduction of 75% is recommended in patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) of 30 to 50 mL/min. The drug is contraindicated if CrCl is < 30 mL/min. Capecitabine has shown varying degrees of efficacy with acceptable tolerability in numerous cancers including prostate, renal cell, ovarian, and pancreatic, with the largest amount of evidence in metastatic breast and colorectal cancer. Single-agent capecitabine was compared with IV FU/leucovorin (LV) using the bolus Mayo Clinic regimen in 2 Phase III trials as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall response rate (RR) favored the capecitabine arm (26% vs 17%, P < 0.001); however, this did not translate into a difference in time to progression (TTP) (4.6 months vs 4.7 months) or overall survival (OS) (12.9 months vs 12.8 months). In Phase II noncomparative trials, combinations of capecitabine with oxaliplatin or irinotecan have produced results similar to regimens combining FU/LV with the same agents in patients with colorectal cancer. In metastatic breast cancer patients who had received prior treatment with an anthracycline-based regimen, a Phase III trial comparing the combination of capecitabine with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone demonstrated superior objective tumor RR (42% vs 30%, P = 0.006), median TTP (6.1 months vs 4.2 months, P < 0.001), and median OS (14.5 months vs 11.5 months, P = 0.013) with the combination treatment. Noncomparative Phase II studies have also supported efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes, yielding an overall RR of 15% to 29% and median OS of 9.4 to 15.2 months. The most common dose-limiting adverse effects associated with capecitabine monotherapy are hyperbilirubinemia, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. Myelosuppression, fatigue and weakness, abdominal pain, and nausea have also been reported. Compared with bolus FU/LV, capecitabine was associated with more hand-foot syndrome but less stomatitis, alopecia, neutropenia requiring medical management, diarrhea, and nausea. Capecitabine has been reported to increase serum phenytoin levels and the international normalized ratio in patients receiving concomitant phenytoin and warfarin, respectively. The dose of capecitabine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for both metastatic colorectal and breast cancer is 1250 Mg/M2 given orally twice per day, usually separated by 12 hours for the first 2 weeks of every 3-week cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine is currently approved by the FDA for use as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy is preferred. The drug is also approved for use as (1) a single agent in metastatic breast cancer patients who are resistant to both anthracycline- and paclitaxel-based regimens or in whom further anthracycline treatment is contra indicated and (2) in combination with docetaxel after failure of prior anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Single-agent and combination regimens have also shown benefits in patients with prostate, pancreatic, renal cell, and ovarian cancers. Improved tolerability and comparable efficacy compared with IV FU/LV in addition to oral administration make capecitabine an attractive option for the treatment of several types of cancers as well as the focus of future trials.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

A phase I and pharmacologic study of capecitabine and paclitaxel in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Based on preclinical studies demonstrating that treatment with paclitaxel upregulates intratumoral thymidine phosphorylase (dTHdPase), which catalyzes the final step in the conversion of the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), as well as the overlapping spectra of activity for these agents, particularly in metastatic breast cancer, this phase I study evaluated the feasibility of administering capecitabine on an intermittent schedule in combination with paclitaxel in previously-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The study also sought to recommend doses for subsequent disease-specific studies, identify clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions, and detect preliminary antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen previously treated women with metastatic breast cancer whose prior treatment included neither paclitaxel or capecitabine received one hundred one courses of capecitabine and paclitaxel. Paclitaxel was administered as a three-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion at a fixed dose of 175 mg/m2 and capecitabine was administered as 2 divided daily doses for 14 days followed by a seven-day rest period every 3 weeks. The dose of capecitabine was increased from a starting dose of 1650 mg/m2/d. The plasma sampling scheme in the first course permitted characterization of the pharmacokinetics of each agent given alone and concurrently to detect major pharmacokinetic interactions. RESULTS: Palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (hand foot syndrome) and neutropenia were the principal dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Other toxicities included diarrhea and transient hyperbilirubinemia. Three of eight new patients treated with capecitabine 2000 mg/m2/d and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 experienced DLT in the first course, whereas none of eleven new patients treated with capecitabine 1650 mg/m2/d and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 developed DLT. Pharmacokinetic studies indicated that capecitabine did not grossly affect the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel, and there were no major effects of paclitaxel on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and capecitabine metabolites. However, AUC values for the major 5-FU catabolite, fluorobeta-alanine (FBAL), were significantly lower in the presence of paclitaxel. Two complete and seven partial responses (56% response rate) were observed in sixteen patients with measurable disease; four of six patients whose disease was previously treated with high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem-cell support had major responses. Seven of nineteen patients had stable disease as their best response. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended combination doses of capecitabine on an intermittent schedule and paclitaxel are capecitabine 1650 mg/m2/d orally for 14 days and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks. The favorable preclinical interactions between capecitabine and paclitaxel, as well as the acceptable toxicity profile and antitumor activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer, support further clinical evaluations to determine an optimal role for the combination of capecitabine and paclitaxel in breast cancer and other relevant malignancies.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Capecitabine: a review of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in the management of advanced breast cancer.

Capecitabine is an orally administered prodrug of fluorouracil which is indicated in the US and Europe, in combination with docetaxel, for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer failing anthracycline therapy, and as monotherapy for metastatic breast cancer resistant to paclitaxel and anthracycline therapy (US) or failing intensive chemotherapy (Europe). Capecitabine is also approved for use in metastatic colorectal cancer. Capecitabine is metabolically activated preferentially at the tumour site, and shows antineoplastic activity and synergy with other cytotoxic agents including cyclophosphamide or docetaxel in animal models. Bioavailability after oral administration is close to 100%. In patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer, capecitabine is effective as monotherapy and also in combination with other agents. Combination therapy with capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 2 weeks of every 3-week cycle plus intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day one of each cycle was superior to intravenous monotherapy with docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day one of each cycle. Capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly reduced the risks of disease progression and death by 35% (p = 0.0001) and 23% (p < 0.05), respectively, and significantly increased median survival (p < 0.05) and objective response rates (p < 0.01). Efficacy has also been demonstrated with capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy in previously untreated patients in preliminary trials. The most common adverse effects occurring in patients receiving capecitabine monotherapy include lymphopenia, anaemia, diarrhoea, hand-and-foot syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hyperbilirubinaemia, dermatitis and vomiting (all >25% incidence). While gastrointestinal events and hand-and-foot syndrome occurred more often with capecitabine than with paclitaxel or a regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF), neutropenic fever, arthralgia, pyrexia and myalgia were more common with paclitaxel, and nausea, stomatitis, alopecia and asthenia were more common with CMF. The incidence of adverse effects and hospitalisation was similar in patients receiving capecitabine plus docetaxel and those receiving docetaxel monotherapy. In conclusion, capecitabine, an oral prodrug of fluorouracil which is activated preferentially at the tumour site, is an effective and convenient addition to the intravenous polychemotherapeutic treatment of advanced breast cancer in pretreated patients, and also has potential as a component of first-line combination regimens. Combined capecitabine plus docetaxel therapy resulted in similar rates of treatment-related adverse effects and hospitalisation to those seen with docetaxel monotherapy. Capecitabine is also effective as monotherapy in pretreated patients and phase II data for capecitabine as first-line monotherapy are also promising. While gastrointestinal effects and hand-and-foot syndrome occur often with capecitabine, the tolerability profile was comparatively favourable for other adverse effects (notably, neutropenia and alopecia).

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Capecitabine: a review of its use in the treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer.

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine which is selectively activated in tumour tissue to the active moiety fluorouracil and is cytotoxic through inhibition of DNA synthesis. In patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line therapy with intermittent capecitabine achieved significantly higher objective tumour response rates than therapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in pooled analysis. Response rates were also higher in patients pretreated in the adjuvant setting and whose primary site of metastasis was the lung. However, no significant differences between the two treatment groups were seen in the time to disease progression, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Preliminary data suggest response may be improved by combining capecitabine with other anticancer therapies such as oxaliplatin, irinotecan and radiotherapy. Capecitabine in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability. Diarrhoea and hand-and-foot syndrome are the major dose-limiting toxicities associated with capecitabine therapy, with adverse effects generally of a gastrointestinal nature. Overall, diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and alopecia were significantly less common with capecitabine than with bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, capecitabine recipients experienced significantly less myelosuppression, although more capecitabine recipients discontinued therapy because of adverse events. Importantly, patients spent less time in hospital after capecitabine than after bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin therapy, and the oral route of administration of capecitabine is likely to be preferred. In conclusion, capecitabine has shown superior tumour response and less myelosuppression, although more grade 3 hand-and-foot syndrome, in comparison with the 'Mayo Clinic' regimen of fluorouracil therapy, but is unlikely to improve survival. Significantly, its oral route of administration is likely to be preferred by patients. Future strategies to improve patient response may involve selection of those patients likely to respond best to capecitabine, through determination of relevant enzyme levels and combination of capecitabine with various antineoplastic agents. Data on the effect of the drug on quality of life would help establish its role. In the meantime, capecitabine appears to offer an effective and more convenient alternative to fluorouracil as first-line monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Absorption↗
PubMed2006

Capecitabine: expanding options for the treatment of patients with early or locally advanced breast cancer.

Capecitabine has proven efficacy in metastatic breast cancer, extending survival in combination with docetaxel and offering a favorable safety profile, including minimal myelosuppression and alopecia, as a single agent. It is therefore logical that capecitabine could build on the improved outcomes achieved with taxanes in early breast cancer. In the neoadjuvant setting, a phase III trial of capecitabine and docetaxel (XT) versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) showed that XT was more effective than AC in terms of clinical response rate and pathologic complete response rate, with a manageable safety profile. Other studies, including a phase III trial of capecitabine, epirubicin, and docetaxel, a phase III trial of capecitabine and vinorelbine, and several phase II studies of different regimens with capecitabine, have confirmed the high activity of neoadjuvant capecitabine, with acceptable safety. In the adjuvant setting, a Finnish phase III study (FinXX) of sequential XT followed by cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine versus docetaxel followed by 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide has shown favorable safety with lower doses of both capecitabine and docetaxel in the XT combination. Efficacy results from that trial are eagerly awaited. A large, ongoing trial program is continuing to explore the potential for capecitabine in the treatment of early breast cancer, looking at capecitabine-taxane combinations, capecitabine maintenance therapy, capecitabine for elderly patients, and sequential versus combination therapy, involving >20,000 patients.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗
PubMed1999

Influence of the antacid Maalox on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: In the present study the possible influence of the antacid Maalox on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine (Xeloda) and its metabolites was investigated in cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 12 patients with solid, predominantly metastatic tumors of various origin received a single oral dose of 1250 mg/m2 of capecitabine (treatment A), a single oral dose of 1250 mg/m2 of capecitabine followed immediately by 20 ml of Maalox (treatment B), and a single oral dose of 1250 mg/m2 of capecitabine followed 2 h later by 20 ml of Maalox (treatment C) in an open, randomized, three-way cross over fashion. Serial blood and urine samples were collected for up to 24 h after each administration. Unchanged capecitabine and its metabolites were analyzed in plasma using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and in urine using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. RESULTS: Administration of Maalox either concomitantly with capecitabine or delayed by 2 h did not influence the time to peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) or the elimination half-lives of capecitabine and its metabolites. Unexpectedly, moderate increases in the Cmax and AUC0-infinity values obtained for capecitabine and 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine were observed when Maalox was given together with capecitabine. However, these increases, which ranged between 10% and 31%, were not statistically significant (P > 0.05) and are not of clinical significance. There was no indication of consistent changes in the plasma concentrations of the other metabolites 5'-deoxy-5'-fluorouridine (5'-DFUR), 5-fluorouracil, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine. The Cmax and AUC0-infinity values recorded for these three metabolites increased and decreased in a stochastic manner. The magnitude of these changes was low (<13%) and not statistically significant. The primary statistical analysis of the AUC0-infinity obtained for 5'-DFUR provided a P value of 0.4524 and clearly indicated no significant difference between the treatments. The addition of Maalox had no influence on the overall urinary recovery or the proportion of the dose recovered as capecitabine or its metabolites from urine. CONCLUSION: At the dose used in this study, the effect of concomitantly delivered Maalox on the extent and rate of gastrointestinal absorption of capecitabine is not clinically significant. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the dose or timing of capecitabine administration in patients treated with Maalox.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Randomized, open-label, phase II trial of oral capecitabine (Xeloda) vs. a reference arm of intravenous CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) as first-line therapy for advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oral capecitabine was evaluated in terms of overall response rate, safety, and tolerability as first-line therapy in women aged > or = 55 years with advanced/metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients were randomized (2:1) to either intermittent oral capecitabine 1,255 mg/m2 twice daily (two weeks' treatment followed by a one-week rest period) or intravenous CMF (cyclophosphamide. methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]) administered every three weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rate in the capecitabine group was 30% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 19%-43%), including three complete responses (5%). The response rate observed in the CMF group was 16% (95% CI: 5%-33%), with no complete responses. Median time to disease progression was 4.1 months with capecitabine and 3.0 months with CME. Survival was similar in the two treatment groups (median 19.6 months with capecitabine. 17.2 months with CMF). The safety profiles were different for capecitabine and CMF. However, both regimens were generally well tolerated and treatment interruption and/or dose modification was effective in managing toxicities associated with capecitabine. Alopecia and myelosuppression were rare in patients receiving capecitabine while diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common. Treatment interruption and/or individual dose adjustment of capecitabine was required in 34% of patients and was generally effective in managing adverse events. Treatment was stopped owing to toxicity in 16% of patients in the capecitabine arm. The incidence of deaths during or within 28 days of stopping study treatment was 8% and 6% in the capecitabine and CMF arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An oral, twice-daily regimen of capecitabine is effective and well tolerated when used as first-line chemotherapy in older patients (> or = 55 years) with advanced/metastatic breast cancer, and is suitable for outpatient therapy.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of capecitabine (Xeloda) in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the influence of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites in cancer patients. Capecitabine (Xeloda) is an orally administered precursor of 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5'-DFUR), which is preferentially activated to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in tumors. METHODS: A total of 27 patients were enrolled, of whom 24 were evaluable for pharmacokinetics (6 with normal renal function, 8 with mild, 6 with moderate, and 4 with severe renal impairment at baseline). Patients received capecitabine orally at the standard dosing regimen (1250 mg/m(2) capecitabine twice daily for 2 weeks followed by a 1-week rest period). On study days 1 and 14, blood samples were collected to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites. The relationship between the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and creatinine clearance (CL(CR)) was assessed by log-linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The primary pharmacokinetic parameter with respect to the effect of renal dysfunction was systemic exposure to 5'-DFUR, 5-FU and FBAL determined on study day 14. Renal impairment led to an increase in the systemic exposure to 5'-DFUR and FBAL (23% and 109% increase in AUC, respectively) for a 50% reduction in CL(CR). By contrast, renal impairment may lead to decreased exposure to 5'-DFCR. There was no evidence for an effect of renal impairment on systemic exposure to 5-FU or capecitabine. Renal impairment did not have a major effect on peak concentration (C(max)) or elimination half-life (t(1/2)) of capecitabine, 5'-DFCR, 5'-DFUR, and 5-FU. However, in the case of FBAL, moderate or severe renal impairment caused up to a twofold increase in C(max) and prolongation of t(1/2). All patients with severe renal impairment (four patients) had drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse-events (AEs) and serious AEs. Patients with moderate renal impairment experienced a similar number of grade 3 or 4 AEs (six of nine patients) but had a higher incidence of serious AEs (three of nine patients) when compared with those with normal renal function (four of six patients and one of six patients, respectively). A similar effect was seen in patients with mild renal dysfunction (grade 3 or 4 AEs in four of eight patients; serious AEs in three of eight patients). The relationship between systemic exposure to capecitabine or its metabolites and safety was investigated using logistic regression. This exploratory analysis showed a strong positive relationship between AUC of 5'-DFUR and treatment-related grade 3 or 4 AEs, whereas there was no relationship with exposure to capecitabine, 5'-DFCR, 5-FU or FBAL. CONCLUSIONS: Renal impairment has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine or 5-FU, but leads to an increase in the systemic exposure to 5'-DFUR and FBAL. However, only the AUC of 5'-DFUR is correlated with safety. Based on the safety results in patients with severe renal impairment, a dose modification cannot be recommended for these patients and they should not be treated with capecitabine. Additional data from the clinical safety database and pharmacokinetic results from the present study support the recommendation that patients with moderate renal impairment should be treated with 75% of the recommended standard starting dose to achieve systemic exposure comparable to that in patients with normal renal function.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗
PubMed2001

Phase I trial of capecitabine in combination with interferon alpha in patients with metastatic renal cancer: toxicity and pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: The present study was designed to determine the toxicity and maximum tolerated doses of oral intermittent oral capecitabine and subcutaneous (s.c.) rHuIFNalpha2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites were also investigated. METHODS: A total of 27 patients were treated at four dose levels of capecitabine (825 or 1000 mg/m2 twice daily orally, days 1-14, 22-36) and rHuIFNalpha2a (1.5 or 3.0 MU/m2 s.c. three times weekly). Unchanged capecitabine and its metabolites were analyzed in plasma using liquid chroatography/mass spectrometry in ten patients. RESULTS: The toxicity of combined capecitabine and rHuIFNalpha2a was moderate. Patients experienced mild nausea/vomiting (70%) and diarrhea (63%). The hand-foot syndrome was seen in 67% of patients and was generally mild, as was hematologic toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicity included diarrhea, mucositis, neutropenia and the hand-foot syndrome. The dose level recommended for further trials included capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily and rHuIFNalpha2a 3.0 MU/m2 three times weekly. One patient had a partial response of a liver lesion (duration > 200 days). Pharmacokinetic parameters of capecitabine and its metabolites (5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine, 5-fluorouracil and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine) were similar to those reported by other authors. There was rapid conversion to 5'-deoxyuridine. The peak plasma concentrations of capecitabine occurred between 0.5 and 3.0 h. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and rHuIFNalpha2a was well tolerated. The recommended dose levels for phase II trials are: rHuIFNalpha2a 3.0 MU/m2 s.c. three times weekly and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks. No evidence of an effect of rHuIFNalpha2a on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine or its metabolites was apparent. A phase II trial in untreated patients with metastatic RCC is planned.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Cost-benefit analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in the treatment of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil and has been studied for the treatment of colorectal cancer. In 2 Phase III trials, capecitabine was at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin and had a more favorable toxicity profile. OBJECTIVE: A cost-benefit analysis was used to assess the pharmacoeconomic profile of capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, given according to the Mayo regimen, for colorectal cancer patients treated in the Netherlands. METHODS: The medical files of patients treated for colorectal cancer at a single center from 1999 to 2002 were examined to determine the numbers of outpatient visits for 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin administration, health care use and medication to manage adverse effects, and travel distance to and from the hospital. The costs of capecitabine treatment were simulated by assuming that the same patients were treated with capecitabine instead of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. Toxicity data for capecitabine were derived from 2 Phase III studies that compared capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. RESULTS: The files of 65 patients were reviewed. Thirty-two patients received adjuvant treatment and 33 patients were treated palliatively for metastatic disease. The mean total costs of palliative treatment were Euro 4004 with capecitabine and Euro 5614 with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses. The cost savings were primarily related to the number of outpatient visits for capecitabine versus the number of day-care treatment days for 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, despite the higher acquisition costs of capecitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, treatment of colorectal cancer with oral capecitabine is cost saving in the Netherlands compared with 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin administered according to the Mayo regimen. Baseline savings were estimated at Euro 1610 for palliative treatment and Euro 934 for adjuvant treatment.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-FU/LV in Dukes' C colon cancer: the X-ACT trial.

Oral capecitabine (Xeloda) is an effective drug with favourable safety in adjuvant and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based therapy is becoming standard for Dukes' C colon cancer in patients suitable for combination therapy, but is not yet approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant capecitabine is at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), with significant superiority in relapse-free survival and a trend towards improved disease-free and overall survival. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine from payer (UK National Health Service (NHS)) and societal perspectives. We used clinical trial data and published sources to estimate incremental direct and societal costs and gains in quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV, but higher 5-FU/LV administration costs resulted in 57% lower chemotherapy costs for capecitabine. Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV-associated adverse events required fewer medications and hospitalisations (cost savings pound3653). Societal costs, including patient travel/time costs, were reduced by >75% with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV (cost savings pound1318), with lifetime gain in QALMs of 9 months. Medical resource utilisation is significantly decreased with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV, with cost savings to the NHS and society. Capecitabine is also projected to increase life expectancy vs 5-FU/LV. Cost savings and better outcomes make capecitabine a preferred adjuvant therapy for Dukes' C colon cancer. This pharmacoeconomic analysis strongly supports replacing 5-FU/LV with capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in the UK.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1999

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of administering the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine in combination with paclitaxel, to characterize the principal toxicities of the combination, to recommend doses for subsequent disease-directed studies, and to determine whether significant pharmacokinetic interactions occur between these agents when combined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six courses of capecitabine and paclitaxel were administered to 17 patients in a two-stage dose-escalation study. Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-hour intravenous (IV) infusion every 3 weeks, and capecitabine was administered continuously as two divided daily doses. During stage I, capecitabine was escalated to a target dose of 1,657 mg/m(2)/d, whereas the paclitaxel dose was fixed at 135 mg/m(2). In stage II, paclitaxel was increased to a target dose of 175 mg/m(2), and the capecitabine dose was the maximum established in stage I. Pharmacokinetics were characterized for each drug when given alone and concurrently. RESULTS: Myelosuppression, predominately neutropenia, was the principal dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Other toxicities included hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, skin rash, myalgia, and arthralgia. Two patients treated with capecitabine 1,657 mg/m(2)/d and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) developed DLTs, whereas none of six patients treated with capecitabine 1,331 mg/m(2)/d and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) developed DLTs during course 1. Pharmacokinetic studies indicated that capecitabine and paclitaxel did not affect the pharmacokinetic behavior of each other. No major antitumor responses were noted. CONCLUSION: Recommended combination doses of continuous capecitabine and paclitaxel are capecitabine 1,331 mg/m(2)/d and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2)/d IV every 3 weeks. Favorable preclinical mechanistic interactions between capecitabine and paclitaxel, as well as an acceptable toxicity profile without clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions, support the performance of disease-directed evaluations of this combination.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

Significant effect of capecitabine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical cases of capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based chemotherapies potentiating the effects of coumarin derivatives have been reported. This study assessed the influence of capecitabine on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of warfarin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four patients with advanced/metastatic cancer completed the study, receiving a single oral dose of 20 mg warfarin before the start of standard capecitabine treatment (day 1), and again during the third cycle of capecitabine (day 61). PK parameters of warfarin and capecitabine and PD parameters of warfarin were assessed on days 1 and 61. RESULTS: During capecitabine treatment, the area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) of S-warfarin increased by 57% (90% CI, 32% to 88%) with a 51% prolongation of the elimination half-life (t(1/2); 90% CI, 32% to 74%). Exposure to R-warfarin was not significantly affected. Plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites were not influenced by warfarin. During capecitabine treatment, the effect of warfarin on the baseline corrected AUC of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) increased by 2.8 times (90% CI, 1.33 to 5.70), with the maximum observed INR value almost doubling. Because of the administration of vitamin K to some patients with elevated INRs, these figures are likely to underestimate the true PD effect. Mean baseline factor VII levels dropped while on capecitabine therapy, potentially contributing to the observed PD interaction, though this effect did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There is a significant pharmacokinetic interaction between capecitabine and S-warfarin, resulting in exaggerated anticoagulant activity. Patients receiving warfarin anticoagulant therapy concomitantly with capecitabine should have their INR closely monitored and warfarin doses adjusted accordingly.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

[Discovery and development of novel anticancer drug capecitabine].

Capecitabine (N4-pentyloxycarbonyl-5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine) is a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, which was designed to be sequentially converted to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by three enzymes located in the liver and in tumors. N4-alkoxycarbonyl-5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine derivatives including capecitabine pass intact through the intestinal tract and are sequentially converted to 5-FU by a cascade of the three enzymes. The first step is the conversion to 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine (5'-DFCR) by carboxylesterase located in the liver, then to 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5'-DFUR) by cytidine deaminase highly expressed in the liver and various solid tumors, and finally to 5-FU by thymidine phosphorylase (dThdPase) preferentially located in tumor tissues. Among large numbers of the derivatives, capecitabine was selected based on its susceptibility to hepatic carboxylesterase, oral bioavailability in monkeys and efficacy in a human cancer xenograft. Capecitabine given orally yielded substantially higher concentrations of 5-FU within tumors than in plasma or normal tissue (muscle). The tumor 5-FU levels were also much higher than those achieved by intraperitoneal administration of 5-FU at equi-toxic doses. This tumor selective delivery of 5-FU ensured greater efficacy and a more favourable safety profile than with other fluoropyrimidines. In 24 human cancer xenograft models studied, capecitabine was more effective at a wider dose range and had a broader spectrum of antitumor activity than 5-FU, UFT or its intermediate metabolite 5'-DFUR. The susceptibility of the xenografts to capecitabine correlated with tumor dThdPase levels. Moreover, the conversion of 5'-DFUR to 5-FU by dThdPase in tumor was insufficient in a xenograft model refractory to capecitabine. In addition, the efficacy of capecitabine was enhanced by dThdPase up-regulators, such as by taxanes and cyclophosphamide and by X-ray irradiation. The efficacy of capecitabine may, therefore, be optimized by selecting the most appropriate patient population based on dThdPase status and/or by combining it with dThdPase up-regulators. Capecitabine has additional characteristics not found with 5-FU, such as potent antimetastatic and anticachectic actions in mouse tumor models. With these profiles, capecitabine may have substantial potential in cancer treatment.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Clinical pharmacokinetics of capecitabine.

Capecitabine is a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate that is preferentially converted to the cytotoxic moiety fluorouracil (5-fluorouracil; 5-FU) in target tumour tissue through a series of 3 metabolic steps. After oral administration of 1250 mg/m2, capecitabine is rapidly and extensively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract [with a time to reach peak concentration (tmax) of 2 hours and peak plasma drug concentration (Cmax) of 3 to 4 mg/L] and has a relatively short elimination half-life (t(1/2)) [0.55 to 0.89 h]. Recovery of drug-related material in urine and faeces is nearly 100%. Plasma concentrations of the cytotoxic moiety fluorouracil are very low [with a Cmax of 0.22 to 0.31 mg/L and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 0.461 to 0.698 mg x h/L]. The apparent t(1/2) of fluorouracil after capecitabine administration is similar to that of the parent compound. Comparison of fluorouracil concentrations in primary colorectal tumour and adjacent healthy tissues after capecitabine administration demonstrates that capecitabine is preferentially activated to fluorouracil in colorectal tumour, with the average concentration of fluorouracil being 3.2-fold higher than in adjacent healthy tissue (p = 0.002). This tissue concentration differential does not hold for liver metastasis, although concentrations of fluorouracil in liver metastases are sufficient for antitumour activity to occur. The tumour-preferential activation of capecitabine to fluorouracil is explained by tissue differences in the activity of cytidine deaminase and thymidine phosphorylase, key enzymes in the conversion process. As with other cytotoxic drugs, the interpatient variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters of capecitabine and its metabolites, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine and fluorouracil, is high (27 to 89%) and is likely to be primarily due to variability in the activity of the enzymes involved in capecitabine metabolism. Capecitabine and the fluorouracil precursors 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine and 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine do not accumulate significantly in plasma after repeated administration. Plasma concentrations of fluorouracil increase by 10 to 60% during long term administration, but this time-dependency is assumed to be not clinically relevant. A potential drug interaction of capecitabine with warfarin has been observed. There is no evidence of pharmacokinetic interactions between capecitabine and leucovorin, docetaxel or paclitaxel.

Antacids↗