Skip Navigation



Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on December 12, 2005
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdj023
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/2/239    most recent
mdj023v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Twelves, C.
Right arrow Articles by Samuel, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Twelves, C.
Right arrow Articles by Samuel, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology
Received May 27, 2005
Revised August 25, 2005
Accepted August 26, 2005

original article

A randomised cross-over trial comparing patient preference for oral capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

C. Twelves 1 *, S. Gollins 2, R. Grieve 3, and L. Samuel 4

1 University of Leeds, Bradford NHS Trust & Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, UK
2 North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Rhyl, UK
3 Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry, UK
4 Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
C. Twelves, E-mail: c.twelves{at}bradford.ac.uk


  Abstract

Background: Traditionally, metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been treated with intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV). The tumour-activated, oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine demonstrates superior activity and favourable safety compared with the Mayo regimen, while potentially avoiding the complications and inconvenience associated with i.v. regimens.

Patients and methods: Ninety-seven patients with previously untreated advanced/MCRC were randomised to receive capecitabine followed by i.v. 5-FU/LV [Mayo Clinic, in-patient de Gramont (IPdG) or out-patient modified de Gramont (OPdG) regimens], or i.v. 5-FU/LV followed by capecitabine.

Results: Before treatment, of those patients for whom a preference was recorded, almost all (95%) preferred oral treatment (consistent across all treatment groups) and the majority retained this preference after treatment (64% overall; 86%, 63% and 50% in the Mayo, IPdG and OPdG groups, respectively). Following treatment, the principal reasons for oral treatment preference were increased convenience, home-based administration and tablet formulation. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher with capecitabine compared with Mayo (P <0.05) and with OPdG compared with capecitabine (P <0.05). Quality of life (QoL) was largely constant across the regimens, although it appeared better with OPdG than capecitabine (P <0.05). Grade 3/4 adverse events were uncommon in all arms.

Conclusions: This study confirmed that the majority of patients with MCRC prefer oral to i.v. therapy, although the OPdG regimen appears to be the most popular i.v. option. Capecitabine clearly represents an effective, well-tolerated oral alternative to i.v. 5-FU/LV.

Keywords: 5-FU/LV; capecitabine; colorectal cancer; patient preference; quality of life; treatment satisfaction.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
A. F. C. Okines, A. R. Norman, P. McCloud, Y.-K. Kang, and D. Cunningham
Meta-analysis of the REAL-2 and ML17032 trials: evaluating capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy and infused 5-fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced oesophago-gastric cancer
Ann. Onc., September 1, 2009; 20(9): 1529 - 1534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
M. Moehler, S. Kanzler, M. Geissler, J. Raedle, M. P. Ebert, S. Daum, D. Flieger, T. Seufferlein, P. R. Galle, T. Hoehler, et al.
A randomized multicenter phase II study comparing capecitabine with irinotecan or cisplatin in metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction
Ann. Onc., July 15, 2009; (2009) mdp269v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CA Cancer J ClinHome page
M. Gallieni, M. Pittiruti, and R. Biffi
Vascular Access in Oncology Patients
CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2008; 58(6): 323 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
I. M. Hennig, J. D. Naik, S. Brown, A. Szubert, D. A. Anthoney, D. P. Jackson, A. M. Melcher, S. M. Crawford, C. Bradley, J. M.B. Brown, et al.
Severe Sequence-Specific Toxicity When Capecitabine Is Given After Fluorouracil and Leucovorin
J. Clin. Oncol., July 10, 2008; 26(20): 3411 - 3417.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
M. Findlay, G. von Minckwitz, and A. Wardley
Effective oral chemotherapy for breast cancer: pillars of strength
Ann. Onc., February 1, 2008; 19(2): 212 - 222.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
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]

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


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.