This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hoff, P. M. Articles by Wong, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hoff, P. M. Articles by Wong, R. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Comparison of Oral Capecitabine Versus Intravenous Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin as First-Line Treatment in 605 Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

From The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; Physician Reliance Network, Inc, Dallas, TX; Michiana Hematology/Oncology, South Bend, IN; Hematology and Oncology Association of Virginia, Richmond, VA; Response Oncology, Memphis, TN; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Nutley, NJ; McGill University Department of Oncology, Montreal, Quebec; London Regional Cancer Centre, London; Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa; Group Health Center, Sault Ste Marie, Ontario; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta; H. Bliss Cancer Centre, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.

Address reprint requests to Paulo M. Hoff, MD, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 426, Houston, TX 77030-4009; email: phoff{at}mdanderson.org

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
PURPOSE: To compare the response rate, efficacy parameters, and toxicity profile of oral capecitabine with bolus intravenous (IV) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively randomized 605 patients to treatment with oral capecitabine for 14 days every 3 weeks or 5-FU/LV by rapid IV injection daily for 5 days in 4-week cycles.

RESULTS: The overall objective tumor response rate among all randomized patients was significantly higher in the capecitabine group (24.8%) than in the 5-FU/LV group (15.5%; P = .005). In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, median times to disease progression were 4.3 and 4.7 months (log-rank P = .72), median times to treatment failure were 4.1 and 3.1 months (P = .19), and median overall survival times were 12.5 and 13.3 months (P = .974), respectively. Capecitabine, compared with bolus 5-FU/LV treatment, produced a significantly lower incidence (P < .0002) of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia. Patients treated with capecitabine also displayed lower incidences of grade 3/4 stomatitis and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < .0001) leading to significantly less neutropenic fever/sepsis. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P < .00001) and grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia were the only toxicities more frequently associated with capecitabine than with 5-FU/LV treatment.

CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine was more active than 5-FU/LV in the induction of objective tumor responses. Time to disease progression and survival were at least equivalent for capecitabine compared with the 5-FU/LV arm. Capecitabine also demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits over bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of tolerability.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
COLORECTAL CANCER is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy, accounting for 10% to 15% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in Europe and the United States. An estimated 783,000 new cases are diagnosed annually worldwide.^1-4 Up to 30% of patients present with metastatic disease,^4,5 and approximately 50% to 60% eventually develop metastatic or advanced disease. The prognosis for these patients is bleak, with 5-year survival rates of 5% or less.^4-6

The most widely used agent in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer is fluorouracil (5-FU), which was developed more than 40 years ago and is included in most regimens of palliative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.^7-10 Numerous attempts have been made to improve the efficacy of 5-FU, including biomodulation and schedule modification. Protracted infusion of 5-FU and biomodulation with agents such as leucovorin (LV) have both resulted in improved response rates compared with bolus 5-FU alone, but neither approach has demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit in randomized trials or meta-analyses.^11-17

An alternative approach to optimizing 5-FU–based therapy has been the development of oral fluoropyrimidine derivatives designed to deliver 5-FU to target cells with predictable kinetics.^18,19 Oral administration enables sustained exposure to 5-FU, avoids the technical barriers of intravenous (IV) administration and allows significant flexibility in the choice of the dosage regimen. In addition, most patients prefer oral cytotoxic therapy to IV regimens, provided that efficacy is not compromised.^20-22

Capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Nutley, NJ), an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, was rationally designed to generate 5-FU predominantly within tumor cells.^23-26 After rapid and extensive absorption as an intact molecule, capecitabine is converted to 5-FU predominantly in tumor tissue by exploiting the high activity of thymidine phosphorylase in malignant tissue.²⁴ The enzymatic conversion of capecitabine occurs in three steps. In the first stage, capecitabine is hydrolyzed by hepatic carboxylesterase to 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine. This intermediate is then converted to 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5'-DFUR) by cytidine deaminase in tumor cells and the liver. The third and final step involves the conversion of 5'-DFUR to 5-FU by thymidine phosphorylase (also known as platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor or tumor-associated angiogenic factor) and occurs predominantly in tumor tissue as result of the high activity of thymidine phosphorylase.²⁵ The increasing specificity for tumor cells occurring with each successive conversion step potentially reduces systemic 5-FU exposure while increasing the 5-FU dose within tumor tissue. The tumor selectivity of capecitabine has been confirmed in patients with colorectal cancer.²⁶ Patients received capecitabine 1,250 mg/m² twice daily for 5 to 7 days before surgical resection of their primary tumor and/or liver metastases. Concentrations of 5-FU in primary tumor tissue (n = 11) were 3.2-fold higher than in adjacent healthy tissue and 21-fold higher than in plasma.

In a randomized phase II study designed to test three dosing schedules of capecitabine,²⁷ an intermittent regimen (twice-daily treatment at 1,255 mg/m² for 14 days, followed by a 7-day rest period) produced a confirmed tumor response in eight (24%) of 34 patients and a median time to disease progression of 7.7 months. This regimen was generally well tolerated and allowed administration of the highest dose-intensity among the three tested schedules. The intermittent regimen also had a shallower dose versus toxicity slope, and the inclusion of a 1-week drug-free period was considered to be more appealing to patients. In view of these promising results, we conducted one of two large randomized phase III trials^28,29 with identical protocols and monitoring to determine whether the intermittent regimen of oral capecitabine was at least as active as bolus IV 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

	PATIENTS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients
Patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were eligible for this study. Adjuvant chemotherapy, if administered, should have been completed at least 6 months before enrollment in the trial. Histologic or cytologic confirmation of colorectal adenocarcinoma was required, as was the presence of at least one bidimensionally measurable indicator lesion that had not been treated with radiotherapy. Indicator lesions had to measure 10 mm (lung or skin) or 20 mm (liver, soft tissue masses) in one dimension. Ascites and pleural effusions were not considered measurable. Patients were required to have a Karnofsky performance status 70% and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. All patients were at least 18 years old and gave written informed consent before their inclusion in the study. Contraception was required throughout treatment for females of childbearing potential and for sexually active males.

Patients were not eligible if they were pregnant or lactating, if they were hypersensitive to 5-FU or had previously experienced a severe reaction to fluoropyrimidines, if they had a history of other cancer within the previous 5 years (except for cured basal cell carcinoma of the skin or in situ cervical carcinoma), if they had received other experimental drugs or radiotherapy within 4 weeks before enrollment, or if they had not fully recovered from recent major surgery. Patients were also considered ineligible if they had organ allografts, CNS involvement of their disease, neurologic or psychiatric disorders that could interfere with treatment compliance, significant cardiac disease or a myocardial infarction within the previous 12 months, serious uncontrolled infections, or malabsorption syndrome or lack of physical integrity of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Patients were not enrolled if screening evaluations revealed significant abnormalities in neutrophils (< 1.5 x 10⁹/L); platelets (< 100 x 10⁹/L); serum creatinine or serum bilirubin (> 1.5 times the upper normal limit); or ALT, AST, or alkaline phosphatase (> 2.5 times the upper normal limit). However, up to five times the upper normal limits for ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase were allowed for patients with liver metastases, and up to 10 times the upper normal limit for alkaline phosphatase was allowed for patients with bone metastases. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study protocol was approved by ethical committees at each participating investigative site.

Study Design and Treatment
This open-label, randomized, parallel-group study was conducted at 61 centers: 48 in the United States, nine in Canada, two in Brazil, and two in Mexico. After screening to establish eligibility, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with capecitabine or 5-FU/LV according to a computer-generated randomization code. The patients were randomized centrally by country in blocks of four patients. The United States was divided into four regions for the purpose of randomization. No further stratification was performed.

Treatment schedules. Capecitabine was administered orally at a dose of 1,250 mg/m² twice daily (total daily dose 2,500 mg/m²) as an intermittent regimen in 3-week cycles (2 weeks of treatment followed by a 1-week rest period). For practical reasons, capecitabine doses were rounded to the nearest dose that could be administered with a combination of 500-mg and 150-mg tablets of drug. Capecitabine was given approximately 12 hours apart and taken orally with water within 30 minutes after ingestion of food (breakfast or dinner). 5-FU/LV was administered according to the Mayo Clinic regimen, consisting of a rapid IV injection of 20 mg/m² LV followed by an IV bolus injection of 425 mg/m² 5-FU daily, days 1 to 5 every 4 weeks.

Treatment with capecitabine or 5-FU/LV was continued until the development of progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or until the scheduled assessment at 30 weeks. Patients with a tumor response or stable disease were allowed to enter a continuation phase up to a total of 48 weeks. Treatment continuation beyond 48 weeks (postcontinuation phase) for patients without progressive disease was at the discretion of the investigator.

Treatment modifications. Treatment interruption or dose reduction was not indicated for reactions unlikely to become serious or life threatening or for grade 1 toxicity (National Cancer Institute of Canada Common Toxicity Criteria [NCIC CTC], revised December 1994). Treatment was interrupted in cases of grade 2 or higher toxicity and was not resumed until the adverse effect resolved or improved to grade 1 or 0. No capecitabine dose reduction was required at the first occurrence of a grade 2 toxicity, but capecitabine doses were reduced by 25% for patients who experienced a second occurrence of a given grade 2 toxicity or any grade 3 toxicity and by 50% for patients who experienced a third occurrence of a given grade 2 toxicity, a second occurrence of a given grade 3 toxicity, or any grade 4 toxicity. Treatment was discontinued if, despite dose reduction, a given toxicity occurred for a fourth time at grade 2, a third time at grade 3, or a second time at grade 4.

For patients assigned to receive treatment with 5-FU/LV, the dose of LV was held constant, and 5-FU doses were escalated or reduced according to toxicity. If initial treatment produced no toxicity, the 5-FU dose could be escalated by 10% for the next cycle. No change in 5-FU dose was indicated for patients who experienced grade 1 toxicity. The 5-FU dose was decreased by 20% in cases of grade 3 hematologic or grade 2 nonhematologic toxicity and by 30% in cases of grade 4 hematologic or grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity. Treatment was discontinued if a patient experienced both grade 4 hematologic and grade 4 nonhematologic toxicity.

Evaluation of Patients
Assessments of tumor dimensions and involved sites were performed before the start of treatment and were scheduled after weeks 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 of therapy. Further assessments were performed after weeks 39 and 48 for patients who received prolonged therapy (up to 48 weeks). Follow-up assessments for disease progression and survival monitoring were performed every 3 months after the end of treatment. Tumor dimensions were assessed by use of computed tomography scans, x-rays, or magnetic resonance imaging. Tumor response classification was based on standard World Health Organization criteria.³⁰ Disappearance of all known disease at all involved sites was considered a complete response (CR). Partial response (PR) was defined as residual disease with a decrease 50% in the sum of the products of greatest perpendicular diameters (SPD) of all indicator lesions. Progressive disease (PD) was defined as the appearance of a new lesion or an increase of 25% in the SPD. Stable disease (SD) was defined as no change in SPD or a change not corresponding to PR or PD. To ensure consistency in evaluation, successive tumor measurements and response evaluations for a given patient were conducted by the same investigator. Investigator assessments of tumor response were reviewed, solely on the basis of imaging, by an independent review committee (IRC) composed of radiologists who were blinded to the treatment received, the clinical condition of the patient, and the investigator’s evaluation. Oncologists were available for consultation by the IRC.

Safety evaluations were conducted at least monthly until 4 weeks after the end of therapy and included assessments of laboratory parameters and clinical adverse reactions. Clinical adverse events were graded according to the NCIC CTC grading system. Hand-foot syndrome (palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia) was classified as grade 1 (numbness, dysesthesia, painless swelling, or erythema not disrupting normal activities), grade 2 (erythema with painful swelling or disrupting daily living activities), or grade 3 (moist desquamation, ulceration, blistering, or severe pain, or any symptoms leading to an inability to work or to perform daily living activities).³¹

Statistical Analysis
The primary end point for this study was the overall objective tumor response rate (CR and PR). The study was designed primarily to determine whether capecitabine was at least as active as 5-FU/LV in the induction of tumor responses. A sample size of 302 patients per treatment group was sufficient to achieve 80% power to demonstrate at least equivalence in overall response rates, assuming a 20% response rate in both the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV treatment groups and a margin of equivalence of 10%, with alpha = 0.025. The at least equivalence test was based on confidence intervals (CI) for the difference in response rates according to the Hauck-Anderson method.³² In case the at least equivalence test was passed, a further test (two-sided at alpha = 0.05) to determine differences in tumor response rates was performed using a ² test with Schouten correction.³³ The study was also powered (80%) for a difference of 20% versus 30% in overall response rate between the two treatment groups. The study was not powered to show equivalence in survival, although a prospectively planned analysis of the integrated data from the two identical phase III trials is sufficiently powered to show equivalence in survival.

Secondary efficacy end points were time to response, duration of response, time to disease progression, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and quality of life (results to be published separately). Duration of response was calculated according to the World Health Organization response criteria. Time to disease progression was calculated from the date of randomization to the first recorded observation of PD or the occurrence of death from any cause. Time to treatment failure additionally included toxicity-related premature withdrawals, failure to return, and treatment refusals as events. Overall survival time was calculated from the date of randomization to the date of death from any cause. Results for time to disease progression and overall survival time were analyzed according to Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using the log-rank test. In addition, Cox proportional hazards models were applied to test for interactions between prognostic factors and overall survival times.

The analyses of efficacy were based on all randomized patients. The IRC assessment was not designed to provide a complete clinical assessment of time-related end points, such as time to disease progression and time to treatment failure. These parameters were analyzed using the investigator assessments and, therefore, for reasons of consistency, the response data were also analyzed and reported according to the investigator assessments as well as the IRC assessments.

The analyses of toxicity were based on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Clinical adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, hospitalizations, and treatment for adverse reactions were summarized as incidence rates. For clinically relevant, predefined grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions typically associated with fluoropyrimidines (diarrhea, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, nausea, vomiting, and neutropenia), a Kaplan-Meier estimate for the time from randomization to first onset of those adverse reactions was calculated. The log-rank test was used to test for treatment differences.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients and Treatment
A total of 605 patients were randomized to treatment with capecitabine (302 patients) or 5-FU/LV (303 patients). Patients were enrolled from 61 centers during the 17-month period from September 1996 to February 1998. Table 1 lists demographic data, baseline disease characteristics, and prior therapy for all randomized patients. As expected, most patients were elderly, and the colon was the most common site of the primary tumor. Liver, lymph nodes, and lung were the most frequent sites of metastasis. The numbers of metastatic sites were evenly distributed between the study groups. In both treatment groups, 18% to 21% of patients had tumors with poorly differentiated histology. Overall, the two treatment groups were well balanced for almost all evaluated characteristics, but serum alkaline phosphatase concentrations at baseline were significantly higher in the capecitabine group compared with the 5-FU/leucovorin group (P < .0025, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

Both treatment groups adhered closely to the planned dosage regimens. For patients treated with capecitabine, the mean daily dose corresponded to 80% of the scheduled dose, and the mean duration of treatment was 4.3 months. For patients treated with 5-FU/LV, the mean daily dose of 5-FU corresponded to 86% of the scheduled dose, and the mean duration of treatment was 4.6 months.

Primary Efficacy End Point: Overall Response Rate
The overall response rates according to the IRC assessment were statistically at least equivalent in the two groups (25.8% [95% CI, 21.0% to 31.2%] with capecitabine v 11.6% [95% CI, 8.2% to 15.7%] with 5-FU/LV), thus meeting the primary objective of the study. Subsequent application of a ² test demonstrated that the response rate for capecitabine was significantly greater than that achieved with 5-FU/LV (P = .005). Furthermore, the investigator-assessed response rate was significantly superior (P = .0001) with capecitabine (24.8% [95% CI, 20.1% to 30.1%]) compared with 5-FU/LV (15.5% [95% CI, 11.6% to 20.1%]) ( Table 2).

The median time to disease progression was 4.3 months for patients in the capecitabine group (269 events) and 4.7 months in the 5-FU/LV group (271 events) ( Fig 1). No difference was apparent between the treatment groups (P = .72, log-rank test). The hazard ratio was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.22), thus demonstrating at least equivalence. Times to treatment failure were similar in the treatment groups, with a median of 4.1 months in the capecitabine treatment arm (227 events) and a median of 3.1 months in the 5-FU/LV arm (280 events) (P = .19, log-rank test; hazard ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.06]).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1. Time to disease progression or death.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2. Overall survival.

Toxicity Profile
Compared with the 5-FU/LV group, patients in the capecitabine group experienced a significantly lower incidence of any grade of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia, although they displayed a higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome (² test, P < .00002 for each of these adverse events). Figure 3 depicts the frequency of treatment-related adverse reactions at any grade reported for 20% of patients in at least one of the treatment groups.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 3. Frequently reported adverse reactions of any grade in 20% of patients in at least one treatment group. *Statistically significant difference (P < .0002).

As described earlier, a protocol-prespecified safety analysis of the time to onset and the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 and 4 diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, vomiting, alopecia, hand-foot syndrome, and neutropenic episodes was performed. The analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference favoring capecitabine, with a lower overall incidence and later onset of these grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions with capecitabine throughout the entire treatment period (P = .0037, log-rank test). This difference was particularly pronounced during the first 4 to 5 months ( Fig 4).

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 4. Time to first onset of prespecified treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
This randomized phase III study compared the efficacy and toxicity profiles of oral capecitabine with those of IV bolus 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We found that capecitabine was more active than 5-FU/LV in the induction of tumor responses and that the two treatment groups showed similar duration of response and time to response. Time to disease progression and overall survival were at least equivalent for capecitabine compared with IV bolus 5-FU/LV. In addition, capecitabine offers clinically meaningful advantages over 5-FU/LV in terms of tolerability. We conclude that oral capecitabine provides a favorable benefit:risk ratio compared with bolus IV 5-FU/LV.

Baseline disease characteristics, demographic features, and prognostic factors were generally similar between the two treatment groups and seemed to be consistent with those described in other studies of colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.^11,12 The major exception to this observation was the significantly higher baseline concentrations of alkaline phosphatase in patients receiving capecitabine. Despite this imbalance, the overall survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to the IV 5-FU/LV group.

The response rate achieved with capecitabine was significantly higher than that observed in patients receiving 5-FU/LV. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that response rates in most subgroups were consistently higher with capecitabine than with 5-FU/LV (Table 3). Capecitabine was more active than IV bolus 5-FU/LV in patients with multiple metastatic sites and was especially effective in patients with liver metastases (25% v 17% with 5-FU/LV) and lung metastases (30% response rate v 8% with 5-FU/LV), and in patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (21% v 8% with 5-FU/LV). There were also marked differences in response rates in certain racial subgroups (for example, 21% v 8% with capecitabine and 5-FU/LV, respectively, in black patients). However, the small patient numbers involved in the racial subgroups make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions.

The types of adverse reactions reported for capecitabine are consistent with the known profiles of fluoropyrimidines in general and of continuous infusion regimens of fluoropyrimidines in particular.³⁴ However, the toxicity profile of capecitabine differed in several important respects from that of IV bolus 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine was associated with a substantially lower incidence of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia. In addition, grade 3 or 4 stomatitis and neutropenic fever/sepsis, as a consequence of rare neutropenia, were significantly less frequent among patients treated with capecitabine. There were significantly fewer hospitalizations for the treatment of adverse events with capecitabine.

There was a significantly lower overall incidence and later onset of grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions typical of fluoropyrimidine therapy in the capecitabine group throughout the treatment period. This difference was particularly pronounced during the first 4 to 5 months of therapy. Consequently, dose reductions occurred less often and later in the capecitabine group than in the 5-FU/LV group; 41% of the patients receiving capecitabine and 49% of the patients receiving 5-FU/LV required dose reduction, with median times to dose reduction of 2.1 months and 1.1 months, respectively. This analysis indicates that, compared with patients receiving 5-FU/LV, patients treated with capecitabine are significantly less likely to experience clinically relevant toxicities, particularly during the initial treatment period.

Treatment with capecitabine led to a higher incidence of cutaneous hand-foot syndrome compared with 5-FU/LV. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome responded to dose interruption and/or reduction according to the protocol, with subsequent improvement and resolution of symptoms. Although 18% of patients developed grade 3 hand-foot syndrome at the planned dose-intensity of capecitabine, this reaction caused fewer than 2% of patients to withdraw from treatment, indicating that most patients tolerated continued treatment at an adjusted dose. None of the patients who developed hand-foot syndrome required hospitalization. Patients in the capecitabine group also experienced a higher incidence of NCIC CTC grade 3 or 4 hyperbilirubinemia, corresponding to grade 2 or 3 bilirubin under the new NCI CTC criteria. In most cases this was due to the indirect fraction. Hyperbilirubinemia was only rarely accompanied by abnormalities in liver transaminases or alkaline phosphatase, and all cases were reversible.

The results of this trial were supported by data from an identical trial conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Israel, which included 602 patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.²⁸ Capecitabine resulted in a significantly superior response rate and at least equivalent time to disease progression and survival compared with 5-FU/LV. In addition, the results of the European trial and the present American trial have been combined, and a prospective analysis of the integrated data has been conducted.³⁵ The integrated analysis confirmed the results of the individual trials in terms of both efficacy and safety. Capecitabine demonstrated a significantly superior response rate (25.5% v 16.7% with 5-FU/LV, P < .00002) and at least equivalent time to disease progression and survival. The toxicity profile of capecitabine was similar to that observed in the present study, with a significantly lower incidence of key adverse events (diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia). Hand-foot syndrome was significantly more common with capecitabine but rarely led to treatment withdrawal and resulted in only two hospitalizations, both of which lasted for less than 24 hours.

5-FU/LV regimens have been considered the standard therapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.^10,36 The LV-modulated IV bolus regimen used in this study is widely used because of its convenience and documented efficacy compared with bolus 5-FU monotherapy.³⁷ Response rates reported for the 5-FU/LV regimen used in the present study range from 9%³⁸ to 43%,³⁷ although in more recent studies, response rates have consistently been less than 20%. The response rate in this study was therefore consistent with the literature. Median survival also fell within the 10- to 13-month range typical of this regimen.^{14,15,37,39-44}

Continuous infusion 5-FU leads to significantly higher response rates than bolus 5-FU, and a meta-analysis identified a statistically significant increase in overall survival.¹² However, this improvement was only modest, and other trials have failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit. Continuous infusion 5-FU is not routinely administered, partly because of its inconvenience and cost and partly because central venous access causes significant complications in 15% to 20% of patients,⁴⁵ including infections, bleeding, thrombosis, and pneumothorax. Each of these complications has a negative impact on quality of life.³⁸ As with other fluoropyrimidine regimens, the significantly superior response rates achieved with capecitabine did not translate into a significant survival benefit. However, capecitabine achieved at least equivalent survival. Moreover, capecitabine offers important advantages in terms of tolerability and convenience for patients.

Since the start of this study, other therapeutic agents have shown activity in advanced colorectal cancer, either as monotherapy or in combination with 5-FU/LV. Irinotecan has produced promising results in patients with advanced colorectal cancer who failed prior 5-FU therapy^46-49 and as first-line therapy in combination with 5-FU/LV.^39,40 The combination of capecitabine with irinotecan is currently being investigated in several clinical trials.^50-52 Other groups are exploring the combination of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin,^53,54 based on trials demonstrating improved response rates and time to disease progression with the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV regimens.^55,56 Phase I trials of the combination of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine are in the planning phase.

The use of capecitabine to replace IV bolus 5-FU/LV seems to be acceptable for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, based on its greater response rate, its favorable toxicity profile, and patient preference for oral, home-based therapy.^20-22

APPENDIX
In addition to the authors, the following investigators participated in this trial: M.J. Froimtchuk, MD, Rio De Janeiro; A. Anelli, MD, São Paulo, Brazil; D.F. Whyte, MD, Saskatoon, SK; S. Dent, MD, Thunder Bay, Ontario; K.E. Khoo, MD, C. Olweny, MD, Winnipeg, MA, Canada; A. Silva, MD, Colonia Doctores; D. Rincon, MD, Tialpan, Mexico; M. Modiano, MD, Tucson, AZ; W. Miller, MD, La Jolla; T. Godfrey, MD, Loma Linda; S. Kempin, MD, E. Camacho, MD, Palm Springs; T. Jahan, MD, San Francisco, CA; J. Marshall, MD, R.G. Wadleigh, MD, Washington, DC; M. Lewis, MD, Hollywood; J. Horton, MD, Tampa; R. Jacobson, MD, West Palm Beach, FL; C.E. Riggs Jr, MD, Iowa City, IA; W. Popovic, MD, Belleville; R. Schilsky, MD, Chicago; I. Wiznitzer, MD, Highland Park; E.H. Kaplan, MD, Skokie, IL; R. Markman, MD, Indianapolis, IN; W.J. John, MD, K. Foon, MD, and T. Meeker, MD, Lexington, KY; R. Mudad, MD, New Orleans, LA; L. Blaszkowsky, MD, J. Clark, MD, P. DeSimone, MD, and J. Lokich, MD, Boston, MA; G. Cohen, MD, Baltimore, MD; A. Shields, MD, Detroit, MI; R. Vermuri, MD, Kalamazoo, MI; M.W. Lee, MD, St Louis Park, MN; J. Picus, MD, St Louis, MO; J. Boyd, MD, Charlotte, NC; R. Mackintosh, MD, Reno, NV; S. Lichtman, MD, Manhasset; A. Chang, MD, R. Asbury, MD, and D. Sahasrabudhe, MD, Rochester; S. Madajewicz, MD, Stony Brook; B.J. Poiesz, MD, Syracuse; G.H. Chun, MD, Valhalla, NY; R.M. Bukowski, MD, Cleveland, OH; E.P. Mitchell, MD, Philadelphia; J. Raymond, MD, Pittsburgh, PA; L. Schwarzberg, MD, Memphis, TN; R. Pazdur, MD, Houston, TX; S.S. Buys, MD, Salt Lake City, UT; S. Kruger, MD, Newport News; P. Byrne, MD, and R. Beveridge, MD, Falls Church; C. Desch, MD, Richmond, VA; J.G. Craig, MD, Spokane; and F. Senecal, MD, Tacoma, WA.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
Supported in part by a grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Basel, Switzerland.

	NOTES

 
Presented in part at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Atlanta, Georgia, May 15-18, 1999.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
1. Chu KC, Tarone RE, Chow WH, et al: Temporal patterns in colorectal cancer incidence, survival, and mortality from 1950 through 1990. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 997-1006, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 49: 33-64, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 49: 8-31, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Midgley R, Kerr D: Colorectal cancer. Lancet 353: 391-399, 1999[Medline]

5. Williams NS, Northover JMA, Arnott SJ, et al: Colorectal tumors, in Peckham M, Pinedo H, Veronesi U (eds): Oxford Textbook of Oncology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1995, pp 1133-1168

6. Wingo PA, Ries LA, Parker SL, et al: Long-term cancer patient survival in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7: 271-282, 1998[Abstract]

7. Blijham GH: Chemotherapy of colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs 2: 233-245, 1991[Medline]

8. Mayer RJ: Chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 70: 1414-1424, 1992 (suppl 5)[Medline]

9. Benson AB III: Therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol 25: 2-11, 1998 (suppl 11)

10. Conley BA, Kaplan RS, Arbuck SG: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Program in Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42: S75-S79, 1998 (suppl)

11. Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project: Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: Evidence in terms of response rate. J Clin Oncol 10: 896-903, 1992[Abstract]

12. Meta-analysis Group in Cancer: Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 301-308, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Caudry M, Bonnel C, Floquet A, et al: A randomized study of bolus fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus 21-day fluorouracil infusion alone or in association with cyclophosphamide and mitomycin C in advanced colorectal carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 18: 118-125, 1995[Medline]

14. de Gramont A, Bosset JF, Milan C, et al: Randomized trial comparing monthly low-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus with bimonthly high-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus plus continuous infusion for advanced colorectal cancer: a French Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 15: 808-815, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Lokich JJ, Ahlgren AJ, Gullo JJ, et al: A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A mid-Atlantic oncology program study. J Clin Oncol 7: 425-432, 1989[Abstract]

16. Schmoll HJ, Köhne CH, Lorenz M, et al: Weekly 24 h infusion of high-dose (HD) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU_24h) with or without folinic acid (FA) vs. bolus 5-FU/FA (NCCTG/Mayo) in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC): A randomized phase III study of the EORTC GITCCG and the AIO. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19: 241a, 2000 (abstr 935)

17. Leichman CG, Fleming TR, Muggia FM, et al: Phase II study of fluorouracil and its modulation in advanced colorectal cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 13: 1303-1311, 1995[Abstract]

18. Meropol NJ: Oral fluoropyrimidines in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 34: 1509-1513, 1998

19. Pazdur R, Hoff PM, Medgyesy D, et al: The oral fluorouracil prodrugs. Oncology (Huntingt) 12: 48-51, 1998 (suppl 7)

20. Payne SA: A study of quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Soc Sci Med 35: 1505-1509, 1992

21. Liu G, Franssen E, Fitch MI, et al: Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 15: 110-115, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Borner M, Schöffski P, de Wit R, et al: A randomized crossover trial comparing oral UFT (uracil/tegafur) + leucovorin (LV) and intravenous fluorouracil (FU) + LV for patient preference and pharmacokinetics in advanced colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19: 191a, 2000 (abstr 741)

23. Ishikawa T, Utoh M, Sawada N, et al: Tumor selective delivery of 5-fluorouracil by capecitabine, a new oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, in human cancer xenografts. Biochem Pharmacol 55: 1091-1097, 1998[Medline]

24. Miwa M, Ura M, Nishida M, et al: Design of a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, capecitabine, which generates 5-fluorouracil selectively in tumours by enzymes concentrated in human liver and cancer tissue. Eur J Cancer 34: 1274-1281, 1998

25. Mackean M, Planting A, Twelves C, et al: Phase I and pharmacologic study of intermittent twice-daily oral therapy with capecitabine in patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 2977-2985, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26. Schüller J, Cassidy J, Dumont E, et al: Preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor following oral administration in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 45: 291-297, 2000[Medline]

27. Van Cutsem E, Findlay M, Osterwalder B, et al: Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate with substantial activity in advanced colorectal cancer: Results of a randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol 18: 1337-1345, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28. Twelves C, Harper P, Van Cutsem E, et al: A phase III trial (SO14796) of Xeloda (capecitabine) in previously untreated advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 263a, 1999 (abstr 1010)

29. Cox JV, Pazdur R, Thibault A, et al: A phase III trial of Xeloda (capecitabine) in previously untreated advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 265a, 1999 (abstr 1016)

30. World Health Organization : Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Publication No 48. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, 1979

31. Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU, et al: Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: 485-493, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32. Hauck WW, Anderson S: A comparison of large sample confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial probabilities. Am Stat 40: 318-322, 1986

33. Schouten HJA, Molenaar IW, Strick R: van, et al: Comparing two independent binomial distributions by a modified Chi square test. Biometrical Journal 22:241-248, 1980

34. Meta-analysis Group in Cancer: Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: Effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. J Clin Oncol 16: 3537-3541, 1998[Abstract]

35. Hoff PM: Capecitabine as first-line treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC): Integrated results of 1207 patients (pts) from 2 randomized, phase III studies. Ann Oncol 11: 60, 2000 (suppl 4, abstr 263)

36. Punt CJ: New drugs in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 83: 679-689, 1998[Medline]

37. Poon MA, O’Connell MJ, Moertel CG, et al: Biochemical modulation of fluorouracil: Evidence of significant improvement of survival and quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 7: 1407-1418, 1989[Abstract]

38. Schmoll H-J: Development of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer: Infusional 5-FU and the role of new agents. Eur J Cancer 32A: S18-S22, 1996 (suppl 5)

39. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al: Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 355: 1041-1047, 2000[Medline]

40. Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al: Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 343: 905-914, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

41. Pazdur R, Douillard JY, Skillings JR, et al: Multicenter phase III study of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or UFT in combination with leucovorin (LV) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 263a, 1999 (abstr 1009)

42. Carmichael J, Popiela T, Radstone D, et al: Randomized comparative study of ORZEL[regs] (oral uracil/tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV)) versus parenteral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus LV in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 264a, 1999 (abstr 1015)

43. Cunningham D: Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed (Tomudex). Br J Cancer 77: 15-21, 1998 (suppl 2)

44. Maughan TS, James RD, Kerr D, et al: Preliminary results of a multicentre randomised trial comparing 3 chemotherapy regimens (de Gramont, Lokich, and Raltitrexed) in metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18: 262a, 1999 (abstr 1007)

45. Grem JL: Systemic treatment options in advanced colorectal cancer: Perspectives on combination 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin. Semin Oncol 24: S8-S18, 1997 (suppl 18)

46. Cunningham D, Glimelius B: A phase III study of irinotecan (CPT-11) versus best supportive care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have failed 5-fluorouracil therapy: V301 Study Group. Semin Oncol 26: 6-12, 1999 (suppl 5)[Medline]

47. Van Cutsem E, Blijham GH: Irinotecan versus infusional 5-fluorouracil: A phase III study in metastatic colorectal cancer following failure on first-line 5-fluorouracil—V302 Study Group. Semin Oncol 26: 13-20, 1999 (suppl 5)

48. Cunningham D, Pyrhönen S, James RD, et al: Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 352: 1413-1418, 1998[Medline]

49. Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, et al: Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 352: 1407-1412, 1998[Medline]

50. Vanhoefer U, Mayer S, Harstrick A, et al: Phase I study of capecitabine in combination with a weekly schedule of irinotecan (CPT-11) as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19: 272a, 2000 (abstr 1059)

51. Vanhoefer U, Mayer S, Achterrath W, et al: Phase I study of capecitabine in combination with a weekly schedule of irinotecan as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 11: 49, 2000 (suppl 4, abstr 212)

52. Cassata A, AlùM, Beretta E, et al: Capecitabine in combination with two schedules of irinotecan (CPT-11) in advanced colorectal cancer: A pilot experience. Ann Oncol 11: 45, 2000 (suppl 4, abstr 192)

53. Díaz-Rubio E, Evans J, Tabernero J, et al: Phase I study of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19: 198a, 2000 (abstr 772)

54. Evans J, Tabernero J, Cassidy J, et al: Safety profile and preliminary efficacy of capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours: Results from a phase I study. Ann Oncol 11: 51, 2000 (suppl 4, abstr 222)

55. De Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al: Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 2938-2947, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

56. Giachetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al: Phase III multicenter randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 134-147, 2000

Submitted June 22, 2000; accepted January 16, 2001.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. A. Tang, G. R. Pond, and E. X. Chen Influence of an independent review committee on assessment of response rate and progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials Ann. Onc., October 29, 2009; (2009) mdp478v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K.-L. G. Spindler, R. F. Andersen, L. H. Jensen, J. Ploen, and A. Jakobsen EGF61A>G polymorphism as predictive marker of clinical outcome to first-line capecitabine and oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., October 22, 2009; (2009) mdp336v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Grothey Review: Medical treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in 2009 Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, September 1, 2009; 1(2): 55 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Ishida, Y. Miyake, M. Fukunaga, Y. Watanabe, T. Kato, H. Takemoto, and H. Furukawa A Feasibility Study of UFT/LV and Irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) in Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Osaka Gastrointestinal Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group (OGSG) PROG 0304 Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2009; 39(9): 601 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Claret, P. Girard, P. M. Hoff, E. Van Cutsem, K. P. Zuideveld, K. Jorga, J. Fagerberg, and R. Bruno Model-Based Prediction of Phase III Overall Survival in Colorectal Cancer on the Basis of Phase II Tumor Dynamics J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2009; 27(25): 4103 - 4108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Rosati, S. Cordio, R. Bordonaro, G. Caputo, G. Novello, G. Reggiardo, and L. Manzione Capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II study Ann. Onc., August 27, 2009; (2009) mdp359v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. P. M. Jansen, H. Boot, R. Dubbelman, M. Verheij, and A. Cats Postoperative chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer--a phase I-II study of radiotherapy with dose escalation of weekly cisplatin and daily capecitabine chemotherapy Ann. Onc., August 18, 2009; (2009) mdp345v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Shaikh, M. E Wiisanen, H. D Gunderson, and N. Leung Acquired Fanconi Syndrome After Treatment with Capecitabine, Irinotecan, and Bevacizumab Ann. Pharmacother., July 1, 2009; 43(7): 1370 - 1373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Cunningham, B. Sirohi, A. Pluzanska, B. Utracka-Hutka, J. Zaluski, R. Glynne-Jones, P. Koralewski, J. Bridgewater, P. Mainwaring, H. Wasan, et al. Two different first-line 5-fluorouracil regimens with or without oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2009; 20(2): 244 - 250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. M. Seol, M. K. Song, Y. J. Choi, G. H. Kim, H. J. Shin, G. A. Song, J. S. Chung, and G. J. Cho Oral Fluoropyrimidines (Capecitabine or S-1) and Cisplatin as First Line Treatment in Elderly Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2009; 39(1): 43 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kolinsky, B.-Q. Shen, Y.-E Zhang, J. Kohles, U. Dugan, T. F. Zioncheck, D. Heimbrook, K. Packman, and B. Higgins In vivo activity of novel capecitabine regimens alone and with bevacizumab and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer xenograft models Mol. Cancer Ther., January 1, 2009; 8(1): 75 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. KOLINSKY, Y.-E ZHANG, U. DUGAN, D. HEIMBROOK, K. PACKMAN, and B. HIGGINS Novel Regimens of Capecitabine Alone and Combined with Irinotecan and Bevacizumab in Colorectal Cancer Xenografts Anticancer Res, January 1, 2009; 29(1): 91 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. T. Lam, C. L. O'Bryant, M. Basche, D. L. Gustafson, N. Serkova, A. Baron, S. N. Holden, J. Dancey, S. G. Eckhardt, and L. Gore A phase I study of gefitinib, capecitabine, and celecoxib in patients with advanced solid tumors Mol. Cancer Ther., December 1, 2008; 7(12): 3685 - 3694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H.E. Baker, J. Lam, A. H. Kyle, J. Sy, T. Oliver, S. J. Co, W. H. Dragowska, E. Ramsay, M. Anantha, T. J. Ruth, et al. Irinophore C, a Novel Nanoformulation of Irinotecan, Alters Tumor Vascular Function and Enhances the Distribution of 5-Fluorouracil and Doxorubicin Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2008; 14(22): 7260 - 7271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Rothenberg, J. V. Cox, C. Butts, M. Navarro, Y.-J. Bang, R. Goel, S. Gollins, L. L. Siu, S. Laguerre, and D. Cunningham Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study Ann. Onc., October 1, 2008; 19(10): 1720 - 1726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Laheru, G. Croghan, R. Bukowski, M. Rudek, W. Messersmith, C. Erlichman, R. Pelley, A. Jimeno, R. Donehower, J. Boni, et al. A Phase I Study of EKB-569 in Combination with Capecitabine in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2008; 14(17): 5602 - 5609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. G. Haller, J. Cassidy, S. J. Clarke, D. Cunningham, E. Van Cutsem, P. M. Hoff, M. L. Rothenberg, L. B. Saltz, H.-J. Schmoll, C. Allegra, et al. Potential Regional Differences for the Tolerability Profiles of Fluoropyrimidines J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2118 - 2123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cassidy, H.-J. Schmoll, and E. Van Cutsem To the Editor J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2226 - 2227. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cassidy, S. Clarke, E. Diaz-Rubio, W. Scheithauer, A. Figer, R. Wong, S. Koski, M. Lichinitser, T.-S. Yang, F. Rivera, et al. Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2008; 26(12): 2006 - 2012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Chan, S. M. Ueda, V. E. Sugiyama, C. D. Stave, J. Y. Shin, B. J. Monk, B. I. Sikic, K. Osann, and D. S. Kapp Analysis of Phase II Studies on Targeted Agents and Subsequent Phase III Trials: What Are the Predictors for Success? J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2008; 26(9): 1511 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Cunningham, N. Starling, S. Rao, T. Iveson, M. Nicolson, F. Coxon, G. Middleton, F. Daniel, J. Oates, A. R. Norman, et al. Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., January 3, 2008; 358(1): 36 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cassidy Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 5043 - 5045. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Bajetta, L. Celio, E. Ferrario, M. Di Bartolomeo, A. Denaro, K. Dotti, M. Mancin, R. Bajetta, A. Colombo, and S. Pusceddu Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and irinotecan regimen every other week: a phase I/II study in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., November 1, 2007; 18(11): 1810 - 1816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Tang, S. M. Bentzen, E. X. Chen, and L. L. Siu Surrogate End Points for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis From 39 Randomized Controlled Trials of First-Line Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4562 - 4568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Porschen, H.-T. Arkenau, S. Kubicka, R. Greil, T. Seufferlein, W. Freier, A. Kretzschmar, U. Graeven, A. Grothey, A. Hinke, et al. Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil and Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Final Report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2007; 25(27): 4217 - 4223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Diaz-Rubio, J. Tabernero, A. Gomez-Espana, B. Massuti, J. Sastre, M. Chaves, A. Abad, A. Carrato, B. Queralt, J. J. Reina, et al. Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Report of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors Trial J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2007; 25(27): 4224 - 4230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Mayer Should Capecitabine Replace Infusional Fluorouracil and Leucovorin When Combined With Oxaliplatin in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2007; 25(27): 4165 - 4167. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Lichtman, H. Wildiers, E. Chatelut, C. Steer, D. Budman, V. A. Morrison, B. Tranchand, I. Shapira, and M. Aapro International Society of Geriatric Oncology Chemotherapy Taskforce: Evaluation of Chemotherapy in Older Patients--An Analysis of the Medical Literature J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2007; 25(14): 1832 - 1843. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. M. Wolpin, J. A. Meyerhardt, H. J. Mamon, and R. J. Mayer Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2007; 57(3): 168 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Meropol and K. A. Schulman Cost of Cancer Care: Issues and Implications J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 180 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M Koopman, N. Antonini, J Douma, J Wals, A. Honkoop, F. Erdkamp, R. de Jong, C. Rodenburg, G Vreugdenhil, J. Akkermans-Vogelaar, et al. Randomised study of sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer, an interim safety analysis. A Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) phase III study Ann. Onc., October 1, 2006; 17(10): 1523 - 1528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H. O'Neil and H. L. McLeod Thymidine Phosphorylase and Capecitabine: A Predictive Marker for Therapy Selection? J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2006; 24(25): 4051 - 4053. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Meropol, P. J. Gold, R. B. Diasio, M. Andria, M. Dhami, T. Godfrey, A. J. Kovatich, K. A. Lund, E. Mitchell, and R. Schwarting Thymidine Phosphorylase Expression Is Associated With Response to Capecitabine Plus Irinotecan in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2006; 24(25): 4069 - 4077. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M Gressett, B. L Stanford, and F. Hardwicke Management of hand-foot syndrome induced by capecitabine Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, September 1, 2006; 12(3): 131 - 141. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Wan, D. Cao, J. Zeng, R. Yan, and G. Pizzorno Modulation of Uridine Phosphorylase Gene Expression by Tumor Necrosis Factor-{alpha} Enhances the Antiproliferative Activity of the Capecitabine Intermediate 5'-Deoxy-5-fluorouridine in Breast Cancer Cells Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2006; 69(4): 1389 - 1395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C.-H. Kohne and G. Folprecht On prejudice and facts and choices Ann. Onc., February 1, 2006; 17(2): 185 - 187. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W. Saif, M. A. Eloubeidi, S. Russo, A. Steg, J. Thornton, J. Fiveash, M. Carpenter, C. Blanquicett, R. B. Diasio, and M. R. Johnson Phase I Study of Capecitabine With Concomitant Radiotherapy for Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Expression Analysis of Genes Related to Outcome J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 23(34): 8679 - 8687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Floyd, D. T. Nguyen, R. L. Lobins, Q. Bashir, D. C. Doll, and M. C. Perry Cardiotoxicity of Cancer Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2005; 23(30): 7685 - 7696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Sakamoto, C. Hamada, M. Rahman, S. Kodaira, K. Ito, H. Nakazato, Y. Ohashi, and M. Yasutomi An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Adjuvant Therapy with Carmofur in Patients with Curatively Resected Colon Cancer Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 35(9): 536 - 544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Wasil and S. M. Lichtman Clinical Pharmacology Issues Relevant to the Dosing and Toxicity of Chemotherapy Drugs in the Elderly Oncologist, September 1, 2005; 10(8): 602 - 612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N Andre and W Schmiegel CHEMORADIOTHERAPY FOR COLORECTAL CANCER Gut, August 1, 2005; 54(8): 1194 - 1202. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. T. Hennessy, A. M. Gauthier, L. B. Michaud, G. Hortobagyi, and V. Valero 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 Ann. Onc., August 1, 2005; 16(8): 1289 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Kelly and R. M. Goldberg Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Current Options, Current Evidence J. Clin. Oncol., July 10, 2005; 23(20): 4553 - 4560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W. Rea, J. W. R. Nortier, W. W. Ten Bokkel Huinink, S. Falk, D. J. Richel, T. Maughan, G. Groenewegen, J. M. Smit, N. Steven, J. M. Bakker, et al. A phase I/II and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan in combination with capecitabine as first-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., July 1, 2005; 16(7): 1123 - 1132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.P. Kalofonos, G. Aravantinos, P. Kosmidis, P. Papakostas, T. Economopoulos, M. Dimopoulos, D. Skarlos, A. Bamias, D. Pectasides, S. Chalkidou, et al. Irinotecan or oxaliplatin combined with leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase II study Ann. Onc., June 1, 2005; 16(6): 869 - 877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Feliu, P. Escudero, F. Llosa, M. Bolanos, J.-M. Vicent, A. Yubero, J.-J. Sanz-Lacalle, R. Lopez, L. Lopez-Gomez, E. Casado, et al. Capecitabine As First-Line Treatment for Patients Older Than 70 Years With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Oncopaz Cooperative Group Study J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2005; 23(13): 3104 - 3111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Hurwitz New Combinations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: What Are Our Expectations? Oncologist, May 1, 2005; 10(5): 320 - 322. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Venook Critical Evaluation of Current Treatments in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Oncologist, April 1, 2005; 10(4): 250 - 261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Poplin, J. K. Benedetti, N. C. Estes, D. G. Haller, R. J. Mayer, R. M. Goldberg, G. R. Weiss, S. E. Rivkin, and J. S. Macdonald 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 J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2005; 23(9): 1819 - 1825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Hamilton and G. Hortobagyi Chemotherapy: What Progress in the Last 5 Years? J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1760 - 1775. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Meyerhardt and R. J. Mayer Systemic Therapy for Colorectal Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., February 3, 2005; 352(5): 476 - 487. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. Borner, J. Bernhard, D. Dietrich, R. Popescu, M. Wernli, P. Saletti, D. Rauch, R. Herrmann, D. Koeberle, H. Honegger, et al. A randomized phase II trial of capecitabine and two different schedules of irinotecan in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy, quality-of-life and toxicity Ann. Onc., February 1, 2005; 16(2): 282 - 288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Michael and M.M. Doherty Tumoral Drug Metabolism: Overview and Its Implications for Cancer Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2005; 23(1): 205 - 229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. A. Punt New options and old dilemmas in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., October 1, 2004; 15(10): 1453 - 1459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. S. Heo, H. M. Chang, T. W. Kim, M.-H. Ryu, J.-H. Ahn, S. B. Kim, J. S. Lee, W. K. Kim, H. K. Cho, and Y.-K. Kang Hand-Foot Syndrome in Patients Treated With Capecitabine-Containing Combination Chemotherapy J. Clin. Pharmacol., October 1, 2004; 44(10): 1166 - 1172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. Crane and D. J. Sargent Substitution of Oral Fluoropyrimidines for Infusional Fluorouracil With Radiotherapy: How Much Data Do We Need? J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2004; 22(15): 2978 - 2981. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Lee, T. M. Kim, S. J. Yu, D.-W. Kim, Y.-h. Joh, D.-Y. Oh, J. H. Kwon, T. Y. Kim, D. S. Heo, Y.-J. Bang, et al. Single-agent Capecitabine in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to 5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin Chemotherapy Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2004; 34(7): 400 - 404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Hoff, R. Pazdur, Y. Lassere, S. Carter, D. Samid, D. Polito, and J. L. Abbruzzese Phase II Study of Capecitabine in Patients With Fluorouracil-Resistant Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 22(11): 2078 - 2083. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cassidy, J. Tabernero, C. Twelves, R. Brunet, C. Butts, T. Conroy, F. Debraud, A. Figer, J. Grossmann, N. Sawada, et al. XELOX (Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin): Active First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 22(11): 2084 - 2091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Rich, R. C. Shepard, and S. T. Mosley Four Decades of Continuing Innovation With Fluorouracil: Current and Future Approaches to Fluorouracil Chemoradiation Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 22(11): 2214 - 2232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Diaz-Rubio New Chemotherapeutic Advances in Pancreatic, Colorectal, and Gastric Cancers Oncologist, June 1, 2004; 9(3): 282 - 294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. B. Saltz, N. J. Meropol, P. J. Loehrer Sr, M. N. Needle, J. Kopit, and R. J. Mayer Phase II Trial of Cetuximab in Patients With Refractory Colorectal Cancer That Expresses the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2004; 22(7): 1201 - 1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Grothey, D. Sargent, R. M. Goldberg, and H.-J. Schmoll Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2004; 22(7): 1209 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Efficacy of Oral Adjuvant Therapy After Resection of Colorectal Cancer: 5-Year Results From Three Randomized Trials J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2004; 22(3): 484 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Gilbar Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, December 1, 2003; 9(4): 137 - 150. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E Mortimer, M. K. Lauman, B. Tan, C. L Dempsey, A. C Shillington, and K. S Hutchins Pyridoxine treatment and prevention of hand-and-foot syndrome in patients receiving capecitabine Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, December 1, 2003; 9(4): 161 - 166. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. W. M. van Laarhoven, D. W. J. Klomp, Y. J. L. Kamm, C. J. A. Punt, and A. Heerschap In Vivo Monitoring of Capecitabine Metabolism in Human Liver by 19Fluorine Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3 Tesla Field Strength Cancer Res., November 15, 2003; 63(22): 7609 - 7612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Zeuli, C. Nardoni, M. S. Pino, T. Gamucci, A. Gabriele, V. Ferraresi, D. Giannarelli, and F. Cognetti Phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., September 1, 2003; 14(9): 1378 - 1382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tewes, N. Schleucher, W. Achterrath, H. J. Wilke, S. Frings, S. Seeber, A. Harstrick, Y. M. Rustum, and U. Vanhoefer Capecitabine and irinotecan as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of an extended phase I study{dagger} Ann. Onc., September 1, 2003; 14(9): 1442 - 1448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Scheithauer, G. V. Kornek, M. Raderer, B. Schull, K. Schmid, E. Kovats, B. Schneeweiss, F. Lang, A. Lenauer, and D. Depisch Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial of Two Different Schedules of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2003; 21(7): 1307 - 1312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Gennatas, C. Dardoufas, D. Mouratidou, N. Tsavaris, A. Pouli, G. Androulakis, M. Philippakis, D. Voros, T. Batalis, S. Besbeas, et al. Surgical adjuvant therapy of rectal carcinoma: a controlled evaluation of leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil and radiation therapy with or without interferon-{alpha}2b Ann. Onc., March 1, 2003; 14(3): 378 - 382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Hoff, E. D. Saad, J. A. Ajani, Y. Lassere, C. Wenske, D. Medgyesy, S. Dwivedy, M. Russo, and R. Pazdur Phase I Study with Pharmacokinetics of S-1 on an Oral Daily Schedule for 28 Days in Patients with Solid Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2003; 9(1): 134 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Chau and D. Cunningham Chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: new options and new challenges Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2002; 64(1): 159 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. Kim, Y. K. Kang, J. H. Ahn, H. M. Chang, J. H. Yook, S. T. Oh, B. S. Kim, and J. S. Lee Phase II study of capecitabine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer Ann. Onc., December 1, 2002; 13(12): 1893 - 1898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Scheithauer, G. V. Kornek, M. Raderer, B. Schull, K. Schmid, F. Langle, and H. Huber Intermittent weekly high-dose capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin: a phase I/II study in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., October 1, 2002; 13(10): 1583 - 1589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Dunst, T. Reese, T. Sutter, H. Zuhlke, A. Hinke, K. Kolling-Schlebusch, and S. Frings Phase I Trial Evaluating the Concurrent Combination of Radiotherapy and Capecitabine in Rectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2002; 20(19): 3983 - 3991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T.-S. Yang, J.-Y. Wang, R. Tang, K.-C. Hsu, and J.-S. Chen Oral Uracil/Ftorafur (UFT) Plus Leucovorin as First-line Chemotherapy and Salvage Therapy with Weekly High-dose 5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2002; 32(9): 352 - 357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. R. J. Evans, G. Pentheroudakis, J. Paul, A. McInnes, R. Blackie, N. Raby, R. Morrison, G. M. Fullarton, M. Soukop, and A. C. McDonald A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of capecitabine in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin in patients with inoperable oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma Ann. Onc., September 1, 2002; 13(9): 1469 - 1478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-Y. Douillard, P. M. Hoff, J. R. Skillings, P. Eisenberg, N. Davidson, P. Harper, M. D. Vincent, B. C. Lembersky, S. Thompson, A. Maniero, et al. Multicenter Phase III Study of Uracil/Tegafur and Oral Leucovorin Versus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2002; 20(17): 3605 - 3616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Carmichael, T. Popiela, D. Radstone, S. Falk, M. Borner, A. Oza, T. Skovsgaard, S. Munier, and C. Martin Randomized Comparative Study of Tegafur/Uracil and Oral Leucovorin Versus Parenteral Fluorouracil and Leucovorin in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2002; 20(17): 3617 - 3627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Malet-Martino and R. Martino Clinical Studies of Three Oral Prodrugs of 5-Fluorouracil (Capecitabine, UFT, S-1): A Review Oncologist, August 1, 2002; 7(4): 288 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Leslie and R J C Steele Management of colorectal cancer Postgrad. Med. J., August 1, 2002; 78(922): 473 - 478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer DTB, July 1, 2002; 40(7): 49 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. Borner, D. Dietrich, R. Stupp, R. Morant, H. Honegger, M. Wernli, R. Herrmann, B. C. Pestalozzi, P. Saletti, S. Hanselmann, et al. Phase II Study of Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin in First- and Second-Line Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2002; 20(7): 1759 - 1766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Diaz-Rubio, T. R. J. Evans, J. Tabernero, J. Cassidy, J. Sastre, M. Eatock, D. Bisset, P. Regueiro, and J. Baselga Capecitabine (Xeloda(R)) in combination with oxaliplatin: a phase I, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors Ann. Onc., April 1, 2002; 13(4): 558 - 565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cassidy, C. Twelves, E. Van Cutsem, P. Hoff, E. Bajetta, M. Boyer, R. Bugat, U. Burger, A. Garin, U. Graeven, et al. First-line oral capecitabine therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a favorable safety profile compared with intravenous 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin Ann. Onc., April 1, 2002; 13(4): 566 - 575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Macdonald Vive La Difference: Sex and Fluorouracil Toxicity J. Clin. Oncol., March 15, 2002; 20(6): 1439 - 1441. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Van Cutsem, P. M. Hoff, J. L. Blum, M. Abt, and B. Osterwalder Incidence of cardiotoxicity with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is typical of that reported with 5-fluorouracil Ann. Onc., March 1, 2002; 13(3): 484 - 485. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. B. Diasio An Evolving Role for Oral Fluoropyrimidine Drugs J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2002; 20(4): 894 - 896. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Bleiberg, A. Di Leo, M. L. Rothenberg, N. J. Meropol, E. A. Poplin, E. Van Cutsem, and S. Wadler Mortality Associated With Irinotecan Plus Bolus Fluorouracil/Leucovorin J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2002; 20(4): 1145 - 1146. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. H. Cartwright, A. Cohn, J. A. Varkey, Y.-M. Chen, T. P. Szatrowski, J. V. Cox, and J. J. Schulz Phase II Study of Oral Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2002; 20(1): 160 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Summerhayes Capecitabine: a novel, orally administered, tumour-activated treatment for colorectal cancer Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, December 1, 2001; 7(4): 107 - 125. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. J. Mayer Oral Versus Intravenous Fluoropyrimidines for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: By Either Route, It's All the Same J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2001; 19(21): 4093 - 4096. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Van Cutsem, C. Twelves, J. Cassidy, D. Allman, E. Bajetta, M. Boyer, R. Bugat, M. Findlay, S. Frings, M. Jahn, et al. Oral Capecitabine Compared With Intravenous Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Large Phase III Study J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2001; 19(21): 4097 - 4106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Hoff, J. Cassidy, and H.-J. Schmoll The Evolution of Fluoropyrimidine Therapy: From Intravenous to Oral Oncologist, August 1, 2001; 6(2008): 3 - 11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hoff, P. M. Articles by Wong, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hoff, P. M. Articles by Wong, R. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?