Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 26, No 13 (May 1), 2008: pp. 2099-2105
© 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.3934

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gamelin, E.
Right arrow Articles by Boisdron-Celle, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gamelin, E.
Right arrow Articles by Boisdron-Celle, M.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Editorial
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Individual Fluorouracil Dose Adjustment Based on Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up Compared With Conventional Dosage: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Trial of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Erick Gamelin, Remy Delva, Jacques Jacob, Yacine Merrouche, Jean Luc Raoul, Denis Pezet, Etienne Dorval, Gilles Piot, Alain Morel, Michele Boisdron-Celle

From the Oncopharmacology and Pharmacogenetic Laboratory, L'Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale; Medical Oncology Department; Anticancer Centre Paul Papin, Angers; Medical Oncology Department, Anticancer Centre François Baclesse, Caen; Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancerologie de la Loire, Saint Priest en Jarez; Medical Oncology Department, Anticancer Centre Eugene Marquis, Rennes and the European University of Brittany; Surgical Oncology Department, University Hospital, Clermont Ferrand; Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital, Tours; and Clinique, Le Havre, France

Corresponding author: Erick Gamelin, MD, PhD, Oncopharmacology and Pharmacogenetic Laboratory, L'Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Centre Paul Papin, 2 rue Moll, 49933 Angers cedex 9, France; e-mail: e.gamelin{at}unimedia.fr


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose A phase III, multicenter, randomized study compared conventional dosing of fluorouracil (FU) plus folinic acid with pharmacokinetically guided FU dose adjustment in terms of response, tolerability, and survival.

Patients and Methods Two hundred eight patients with measurable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to one of two arms: arm A (104 patients; 96 assessable), in which the FU dose was calculated based on body-surface area; and arm B (104 patients; 90 assessable), in which the FU dose was individually determined using pharmacokinetically guided adjustments. The initial regimen was 1,500 mg/m2 FU plus 200 mg/m2 folinic acid infusion during a continuous 8-hour period administered once weekly. FU doses were adjusted weekly in arm B based on a single-point measurement of FU plasma concentrations at steady state until the therapeutic range (targeted area under the curve 20-25 mg·h·L–1) previously established in other studies was reached.

Results An intent-to-treat analysis of the 208 patients showed the objective response rate was 18.3% in arm A and 33.7% in arm B (P = .004). Median overall survival was 16 months in arm A and 22 months in arm B (P = .08). The mean FU dose throughout treatment was 1,500 mg/m2/wk in arm A and 1,790 ± 386 mg/m2/wk (range, 900 to 3,300 mg/m2/wk) in arm B. Toxic adverse effects were significantly more frequent and severe in arm A compared with arm B (P = .003).

Conclusion Individual FU dose adjustment based on pharmacokinetic monitoring resulted in significantly improved objective response rate, a trend to higher survival rate, and fewer grade 3/4 toxicities. These results support the value of pharmacokinetically guided management of FU dose in the treatment of metastatic colorectal patients.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
The use of drug combinations has transformed metastatic colorectal cancer treatment, with fluorouracil (FU) remaining the cornerstone of this treatment.1-6 Although initial intensification of FU, in combination with other drugs, is the widely used approach from the inception, questions arise as to when these regimens should be introduced, whether initially or as soon as a tumor escape is suspected. Two recent multicenter, randomized clinical trials have compared one versus two drugs in first-line therapy, and showed no substantial difference in overall survival (OS) and treatment duration in the combined group, and more importantly, the combined group showed a higher toxicity than the one-drug group.5-8 Continuous infusion of FU permits a significantly increased dose that is well tolerated and impacts treatment effectiveness.1,9-13 Thus, the use of the simple, well-tolerated, and inexpensive FU plus folinic acid regimen would be justified, provided that first an optimized schedule can be determined, and then modified in case of progressive disease.

A number of studies have reported substantial interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, mainly because of the variability of the activity of the key enzyme, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), in pyrimidine metabolism.11,14 The activity of DPD may vary as a result of genetic polymorphisms and follows a Gaussian distribution.15,16 A relationship has been shown between DPD activity in lymphocytes and FU plasma clearance.17-19 An identical standard dose may result in a therapeutic response with acceptable toxicity in some patients, unacceptable and possibly life-threatening toxicity in other patients, and no response and no toxicity in another group of patients.12,20

Some studies have shown a relationship between systemic plasma levels of FU and treatment toxicity and efficacy, and demonstrated that both can be improved by means of pharmacokinetic dose adjustment.12,21-23 Increased objective responses have been demonstrated when higher FU area under the curve (AUC) values are maintained.12,20-22 In two earlier prospective clinical trials using weekly 8-hour continuous infusion of FU, with FU concentration measured at steady-state, we showed a relationship between individual pharmacokinetic parameters, and both efficacy and toxicity of treatment.12,20 In these studies, we established an AUC0-8 of 20 to 25 mg·h·L–1 as the optimal level, with values greater than 25 mg·h·L–1 causing excessive toxicity, consistent with results reported in other studies of colorectal and head and neck cancers.21-25

Our goal in this study was to demonstrate the value of pharmacokinetically guided, FU dose adjustment in controlling toxicity, and improving efficacy and tolerance. We conducted a large, prospective, multicenter, phase III randomized trial with a weekly regimen of high-dose leucovorin and FU infusion administered during an 8-hour period to patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We compared patients who received a constant dose of FU based on body-surface area (arm A) with those who received an individualized pharmacokinetically guided, dose-intensified, FU-based treatment (arm B).12,20 The primary efficacy end point was tumor response; the secondary end point was treatment tolerance.


    PATIENTS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Patients
Patients from five hospitals that were treated for measurable metastasis of an adenocarcinoma of the colon or the rectum, with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis in first-line therapy, were eligible to participate in the study. All patients had to have measurable metastasis. Of those patients, some could have a local recurrence associated to the metastasis. Any adjuvant chemotherapy had to have been completed at least 6 months before enrollment in the trial. Lesions were measured according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria on a computed tomographic (CT) scan, an ultrasound of a liver lesion, or a CT scan of a pulmonary or other lesion. Lesions could not have been treated with radiotherapy and had to measure ≥ 10 mm (lung) or ≥ 20 mm (liver, soft tissue masses). Ascites and pleural effusions were not considered measurable. Patients were required to have a performance status (PS) ≤ 2 according to the WHO classification, a life expectancy of at least 3 months, and adequate hematopoietic function.

Patients were not eligible if they were pregnant or lactating, were older than 85 years, or had a history of other malignancy except for cured basal cell carcinoma of the skin or in situ cervical carcinoma. Patients were also considered ineligible if they had a neurologic or psychiatric disorder, or a cerebral metastasis of their disease that could interfere with treatment compliance, significant cardiac disease or a myocardial infarction within the previous 12 months, or serious uncontrolled infections. Patients were not enrolled if screening evaluations revealed significant abnormalities in hematopoietic function, such as neutrophils less than 1.5 x 109/L and platelets less than 100 x 109/L. The trial protocol was approved according to French law by the regional ethics committee. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients before they were enrolled onto the study.

Treatment
Treatment consisted of weekly 8-hour (9 AM to 5 PM) continuous infusions of FU in 1 L of serum with 0.9% saline via a battery-operated pump. Bolus leucovorin 200 mg/m2 was administered just before and at hour 4 of the FU infusion, up to a total weekly dose of 400 mg/m2. Leucovorin doses remained constant in the two arms for the remainder of treatment.

The patients were randomly enrolled in one of two arms. In arm A, the FU dose was 1,500 mg/m2/wk, and remained unchanged throughout the whole period except if toxicity necessitated a reduction in dosage. In arm B, the initial FU dose was 1,500 mg/m2 and then was adjusted for each patient before every cycle, beginning with the second cycle. The dose adjustment was calculated based on the results of weekly plasma concentration measurements, following a FU dose-adjustment algorithm (Table 1).12,20,24


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1. FU Dose Adjustment as a Function of FU Plasma Levels Recorded During the Previous Cycle of Treatment

 
FU Dosage Adjustment
In arm B, the FU doses were adjusted weekly until the patients reached the therapeutic plasma range (2.5 to 3 mg/L; AUC 20-24 mg·h·L–1). In two previous studies, patients with FU plasma levels at steady-state lower than 2.5 mg/L (AUC < 20 mg·h·L–1) were underdosed and failed to respond to treatment, whereas patients with plasma concentrations > 3 mg/L (AUC > 24 mg·h·L–1) were at high risk of severe adverse toxic effects.12,20 Therefore, we established a dose-adjustment chart based on pharmacokinetic follow-up with FU concentrations measured at hour 3 and hour 7 of the infusion using a previously published technique (Table 1).26 Duplicate plasma assays were performed to avoid errors and erroneous dose-adjustment recommendations because of FU infusion rate variations. A medical oncologist made the final dose recommendation based on the assessment of the patient's clinical status and treatment tolerance. After target plasma concentration levels were maintained for at least three cycles, plasma measurements could be reduced to once every 3 weeks. Proficiency testing (accuracy and precision) was performed biannually under the quality control test program of the Clinical Pharmacology Group of the French Federation of Anticancer Centers.

Follow-Up
Patients underwent weekly physically examinations. Evaluation of treatment response was performed in patients enrolled in arm A after 15 weekly cycles of treatment, and in patients enrolled in arm B after 12 weekly cycles in which therapeutic target levels had been reached (it generally took three cycles to reach target levels). Treatment efficacy assessment was based on a comparison of tumor measurements before and after 3 months of treatment. Treatment continued until progressive disease, or intolerable toxicity, or the patient declined treatment.

Assessment of Response
Assessment of tumor response, the primary efficacy end point, was performed at 3 months after the initial treatment and then every 2 months. Measurable disease was defined as the presence of a lesion that could be bidimensionally measured by CT scan or echography. Response to treatment was classified according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria. A panel of two independent radiologists reviewed the CT scans of all patients. A complete response required the disappearance of every lesion. A partial response (PR) required at least a 50% reduction in the cross-sectional area of all lesions. Stable disease (SD) required lesion size decrease of less than 50%. Progressive disease (PD) categorization encompassed any situation in which any one lesion increased in cross-sectional size by more than 25% or a new lesion appeared. Duration of treatment and OS were characterized.

Assessment of Tolerability
Patients were assessed before each weekly cycle using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. Hemogram, and urea, and creatinine tests were performed every month. In the event of a significant grade 2 toxicity (principally diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, or mucositis), the dose was reduced by 100 mg/m2. In the case of grade 3 toxicity, treatment was stopped until the toxicity was reduced and then restarted with a 250 mg/m2 decrease in dosage. Treatment was terminated in cases of grade 4 toxicity, and the case was reported to the French Drug Committee.

Statistical Study
Given an objective response rate of approximately 17% with FU plus folinic acid in metastatic colorectal cancer, the estimated percentage of 31% with a pharmacokinetic follow-up, and assuming a 5% type I error rate and 80% power, 95 patients per arm were required. We considered that 10% of patients would not be assessable. Thus the final number of patients required per arm was 104.

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). {chi}2 test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparison of different frequencies. Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank test were employed in univariate analysis of OS and time to treatment.

The Cox regression method was used for toxicity risk multivariate analysis. The same method was used for response to FU-based treatment or OS and progression-free survival multivariate analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to describe the survival curve, and the log-rank test was used to compare curves (Fig 1).


Figure 1
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
 
Fig 1. CONSORT diagram.

 

    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Characteristics
Two hundred eight patients (82 female and 126 male) were enrolled onto the study. Of these, 186 patients—96 and 90 in arms A and B, respectively—were evaluated. Their mean age was 70.9 ± 0.75 years (range, 44.6 to 84.6 years). The patients’ characteristics are summarized in Table 2, and are well balanced between the two arms.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2. Patient Characteristics Before Treatment

 
Of the total patient population, 55% had several metastatic sites (42% and 58% in arms A and B, respectively). The most frequent metastatic sites were liver (77.6%), lung (27.3%), and lymph nodes (14.7%). Additionally, 12 patients had local disease recurrence, and 67 had 10 or more metastatic sites. Twenty-seven patients had prior chemotherapy treatment with FU plus folinic acid, with a mean delay of 14.6 months.

Twenty-two patients were not assessable. Despite the inclusion criteria, 12 patients had nonmeasurable disease (five in arm A and seven in arm B); five patients had a life span of less than 3 months (two in arm A and three in arm B); and two in arm A had cross-over treatments. Three patients were unaccounted for. All patients were included in the intent-to-treat population.

Treatment Characteristics
Ninety-six of the patients enrolled in arm A were fully assessable. The median duration of treatment was 7.5 months (range, 0.4 to 24.3 months). Ninety of the patients enrolled in arm B were assessable. The time-to-treatment evaluation in 68% of the patients in arm B was shorter than in arm A if the patient reached and maintained FU drug levels in the pharmacokinetic therapeutic range for 2 months (eight cycles). Median duration of treatment in arm B was 8.2 months (range, 1.2 to 31.5 months).

Response to Therapy
Results of the response to therapy were evaluated in the intent-to-treat population, and nonassessable patients were systematically classified into PD groups. In arm A, one patient had a complete response, 17 patients had a PR (17.3% objective response), 30 patients had stable disease (28.8%), and 48 had PD (plus nonmeasurable disease, 53.8%). Mean duration of response was 6.3 months in cases of PR, and 5.7 months in cases of SD. Of the 96 patients, 7.6% had an improved PS evaluated according to the WHO classification; 53.8% had a stable PS, and 37.6% had deteriorated PS. Eight patients had surgical resection for secondary liver metastasis (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3. Phase III Randomized Trial: Response to Fixed FU Dose (Arm A) Versus Individual FU Monitoring (Arm B)

 
In arm B, six patients had a complete response (5.8%), 29 patients had a PR (27.8%), 26 patients had SD (25%), and 29 patients had a PD (41.3%). The mean duration of response was 10, 6.8, and 7.6 months for complete response, PR, and SD, respectively. Ten patients (11.1%) had an improved PS (evaluated according to the WHO classification), 61.8% had stable PS, and 26.9% experienced a worsened PS. Eleven patients had a residual-metastasis surgical resection after treatment evaluation.

In terms of therapeutic efficacy, the overall response rate was 18.3% for arm A and 33.6% for arm B (P = .0004). The OS rate after 1 year was 59.5% ± 11 in arm A and 70.5% ± 10 in arm B. After 2 years, the OS rate was 29.6% ± 9 (arm A) and 40.5% ± 10 (arm B; P = .08; Fig 2). Median OS was 16 months in arm A and 22 months in arm B.


Figure 2
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
 
Fig 2. Survival curve comparison: standard arm (arm A) versus pharmacokinetically guided, fluorouracil dose–adjusted arm (arm B).

 
Tolerance
Toxic events are listed in Table 4. Diarrhea and hand-foot syndromes were the most frequent toxic events and occurred mainly during the first 3 months of treatment. Toxicity was significantly more prevalent in arm A compared with arm B, regardless of the time of treatment (P = .003). Treatment in arm A was continued with a decrease in FU dosage in 24 patients, postponed in 30 patients (for a mean of 8 days, and a maximum of 1 month), and discontinued in one patient.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 4. Percentage of Types and Grades of Toxic Events Observed for the First 3 Months and Throughout Treatment

 
Pharmacokinetic Study
In arm B, the FU therapeutic range was reached in 94% of patients, and a mean of four cycles (range, one to 10 cycles) was required to achieve the target concentration. The dosage necessary to achieve the target FU plasma levels differed greatly between populations (Fig 3). In arm B, the mean dosage after 3 months of treatment was 1,790 mg/m2/wk (range, 765 to 3,300 mg/m2). In arm A, a dose of 1,500 mg/m2 was administered to all patients. Plasma levels also were determined in 49 patients in arm A, and only four out of 49 patients had plasma levels in the therapeutic range. One of these four patients was in PR, and three were in SD. A relationship between FU plasma levels and objective response rate was found (P = .004).


Figure 3
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
 
Fig 3. Dosage required to achieve target fluorouracil (FU) plasma levels in arm B versus dosage administered in arm A at 3 months of weekly treatment.

 
A close link was found between acute toxicity (diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome) and FU plasma levels. Plasma levels between 2.5 and 3 mg/L were correlated with grades 1 and 2 diarrhea and grade 1 hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3 diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were significantly linked with FU plasma levels more than 3 mg/L (3.5 and 3.9 mg/L, respectively; P = .02).


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
A significant body of data supports a close relationship between FU concentration in plasma, and tolerance and efficacy. Pharmacokinetically guided, FU dose adjustment has previously been tested to predict dose, avoid severe toxic adverse effects, and allow safe dose-intensification, but with the advent of new drugs it has not been sufficiently investigated in advanced colorectal cancer.12,13,20-25 Some major questions remain. Can we prevent the 20% of grade 3-4 adverse toxic effects usually reported with FU4? Can we still use FU alone, as suggested by two randomized studies? If that is the case, how can we individually optimize the management of this drug in a routine practice?

In a previous large, prospective, multicenter phase II trial in colorectal cancer, we reported that dose intensification by means of pharmacokinetic monitoring resulted in a high 38% response rate.12 The goal of the current phase III study was to demonstrate the value of this approach in terms of efficacy, tolerance, and survival. With a median follow-up of 3 years, we confirmed the concept of individual FU dose management, and demonstrated that it not only increased the efficacy and the safety of chemotherapy, but also was easily applicable in clinical routine practice. A 33% overall objective response was observed in arm B, which was significantly higher than the 18% response with FU monotherapy without dose adjustment. It is noteworthy that the response rate in arm A was equivalent to those previously reported in the literature, regardless of the schedules.4 Likewise, the median OS was 22 months. This efficacy was nearly equivalent to those currently reported with combined regimens, which are associated with considerably more toxicity and financial cost.5,6,27 The incidence of toxicity in the group of patients with dose monitoring was very low. We can assume that FU pharmacokinetic monitoring is an equivalent gain in terms of efficacy as that of an added cytotoxic drug, but without the toxic adverse effects. Furthermore, two recent multicenter randomized clinical trials comparing one versus two drugs in first-line therapy demonstrated no substantial difference in OS and treatment duration in the combined group, and more importantly, the combined group showed a higher toxicity than the one-drug group.7,8 Thus, in first-line therapy, except for selected patients such as those with potentially resectable or curable metastatic disease, patients could benefit from FU plus folinic acid alone, provided that FU administration is optimized. This could spare other drugs for future lines and increase the OS, as hypothesized by Grothey,29 who reported a correlation between the number of lines of chemotherapy and the OS, with a well-tolerated regimen and a low cost.

We also found a wide pharmacokinetic variability and a large distribution of the optimal dose to achieve the same therapeutic plasma range. Five patients were found to be in the toxic range after the first dose, warranting a quick and marked reduction of the next dose to less than 1,000 mg/m2. With no dose adjustment, these patients—with an obvious dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency—would have been at high risk for toxicity under a conventional regimen.15,16,28 However, for some patients the dose necessary to maintain optimal plasma levels changed throughout the treatment period.

We have demonstrated in practice that we can manage FU administration to optimize therapy on an individual basis. Plasma-level measurement of FU with a single point at steady-state concentration is the optimal means for ensuring appropriate dose-intensity for improved outcomes while minimizing toxicity, and can be done more effectively and safely than by clinical dose adjustment. It can be easily integrated into routine clinical practice, regardless of the regimen, whether given alone (eg, leucovorin and fluorouracil), or combined (eg, infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan; data not shown).4-6


    AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.


    AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Conception and design: Erick Gamelin, Remy Delva, Jacques Jacob, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Administrative support: Erick Gamelin, Alain Morel, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Provision of study materials or patients: Erick Gamelin, Remy Delva, Jacques Jacob, Yacine Merrouche, Jean Luc Raoul, Denis Pezet, Etienne Dorval, Gilles Piot, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Collection and assembly of data: Erick Gamelin, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Data analysis and interpretation: Erick Gamelin, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Manuscript writing: Erick Gamelin, Michele Boisdron-Celle

Final approval of manuscript: Erick Gamelin, Remy Delva, Jacques Jacob, Yacine Merrouche, Jean Luc Raoul, Denis Pezet, Etienne Dorval, Gilles Piot, Alain Morel, Michele Boisdron-Celle


    NOTES
 
Supported by the Comité Départemental du Maine et Loire de la Ligue Contre Le Cancer.

Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF...
 AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
 REFERENCES
 
1. Poon MA, O'Connell MJ, Wieand HS, et al: Biochemical modulation of fluorouracil with leucovorin: Confirmatory evidence of improved efficacy in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 9:1967-1972, 1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Pinedo HM, Peters GFJ: Fluorouracil: Biochemistry and pharmacology. J Clin Oncol 6:1653-1664, 1988[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Arbuck SG: Overview of clinical trials using 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for treatment of colorectal cancer. Cancer 63:1036-1044, 1989[CrossRef][Medline]

4. 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]

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

6. 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]

7. Seymour MT: Fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and CPT11 use and sequencing (MRC FOCUS): A 2135-patient randomizede trial in advanced colorectal cancer—The UK NCRI Colorectal Clinical Studies Group. J Clin Oncol 23:250s, 2005 (suppl; abstr 3518)

8. Bouché O, Castaing M, Etienne PL, et al: Randomized strategical trial of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): Preliminary results. J Clin Oncol 25:180s, 2007 (suppl; abstr 4069)[CrossRef]

9. Lokich JJ, Ahlgren JD, 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]

10. Diaz-Rubio E, Aranda E, Martin M, et al: Weekly high-dose infusion of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 26:727-729, 1990[Medline]

11. Ardalan B, Chua L, Tiang E, et al: A phase II study of weekly 24-hour infusion with high-dose fluorouracil with leucovorin in colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 9:625-630, 1991[Abstract]

12. Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Delva R, et al: Long-term weekly treatment of colorectal metastatic cancer with fluorouracil and leucovorin: Results of a multicentric prospective trial of fluorouracil dosage optimization by pharmacokinetic monitoring in 152 patients. J Clin Oncol 16:1470-1478, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Yoshida T, Araki E, Ligo M, et al: Clinical significance of monitoring serum levels of 5-fluorouracil by continuous infusion in patients with advanced colonic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 26:352-354, 1990[CrossRef][Medline]

14. Diasio RB, Johnson MR: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase: Its role in 5-Fluorouracil clinical toxicity and tumor resistance. Clin Cancer Res 5:2672-2673, 1999[Free Full Text]

15. Diasio RB, Beavers TL, Carpenter JT: Familial deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (biochemical basis for familial pyrimidinemia and severe 5-fluorouracil -induced toxicity). J Clin Invest 81:47-51, 1988[Medline]

16. van Kuilenburg AB, De Abreu RA, van Gennip AH: Pharmacogenetic and clinical aspects of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency. Ann Clin Biochem 40:41-45, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. Etienne MC, Lagrange JL, Dassonville O, et al: Population study of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 12:2248-2253, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Fleming R, Milano G, Thyss A, et al: Correlation between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in peripheral mononuclear cells and systemic clearance of fluorouracil in cancer patients. Cancer Res 52:2899-2902, 1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19. Lu Z, Zhang R, Diasio RB: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and liver: Population characteristics, newly identified deficient patients, and clinical implication in 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Cancer Res 53:5433-5438, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. Gamelin E, Danquechin-Dorval E, Dumesnil Y, et al: Relationship between 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) dose intensity and therapeutic response in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving infusional therapy containing 5-FU. Cancer 77:441-451, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]

21. Milano G, Roman P, Khater P, et al: Dose versus pharmacokinetics for predicting tolerance to 5-day continuous infusion of 5-FU. Int J Cancer 41:537-541, 1988[Medline]

22. Milano G, Etienne MC, Renee N, et al: Relationship between fluorouracil systemic exposure and tumor response and patient survival. J Clin Oncol 12:1291-1295, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23. Schneider M, Etienne MC, Milano G, et al: Phase II trial of cisplatin, fluorouracil and pure folinic acid for locally advanced head and neck cancer a pharmacokinetic and clinical survey. J Clin Oncol 13:1656-1662, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M: Dose monitoring of 5-fluorouracil in patients with colorectal or head and neck cancer: Status of the art. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 30:71-79, 1999[Medline]

25. Vokes EE, Mick R, Kies MS, et al: Pharmacodynamics of fluorouracil-based induction chemotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:1663-1671, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26. Gamelin E, Boisdron-Celle M, Turcant A, et al: Rapid and sensitive HPLC analysis of halogenopyrimidines in plasma. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 695:409-416, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]

27. Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al: A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:23-30, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28. Morel A, Boisdron-Celle M, Fey L, et al: Clinical relevance of different dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) upon 5-fluorouracil tolerance in a prospective clinical study in a French Caucasian population. Mol Cancer Ther 5:2895-2904, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29. Grothey A: Is there a third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer? Semin Oncol 33:S36–S38, 2006 (suppl 11)[Medline]

Submitted July 16, 2007; accepted November 6, 2007.


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

Related Editorial

  • Will We Ever Be Ready for Blood Level–Guided Therapy?
    Christine M. Walko and Howard L. McLeod
    JCO 2008 26: 2078-2079 [Full Text]


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. W. Saif, A. Choma, S. J. Salamone, and E. Chu
Pharmacokinetically Guided Dose Adjustment of 5-Fluorouracil: A Rational Approach to Improving Therapeutic Outcomes
J Natl Cancer Inst, November 18, 2009; 101(22): 1543 - 1552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
C. H. Chau, O. Rixe, H. McLeod, and W. D. Figg
Validation of Analytic Methods for Biomarkers Used in Drug Development
Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 2008; 14(19): 5967 - 5976.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
C. M. Walko and H. L. McLeod
Will We Ever Be Ready for Blood Level-Guided Therapy?
J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2078 - 2079.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gamelin, E.
Right arrow Articles by Boisdron-Celle, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gamelin, E.
Right arrow Articles by Boisdron-Celle, M.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Editorial
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online