25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Randomized comparative study of tegafur/uracil and oral leucovorin versus parenteral fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

      Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
      Administration, Oral, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, adverse effects, therapeutic use, Colorectal Neoplasms, drug therapy, mortality, pathology, Disease-Free Survival, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Europe, epidemiology, Female, Fluorouracil, administration & dosage, Humans, Infusions, Parenteral, Leucovorin, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Quality of Life, Survival Rate, Tegafur, Uracil

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This phase III study compared the time to progression (TTP) of an oral regimen of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine composed of a fixed combination of tegafur and uracil in a 1:4 molar ratio (UFT) and leucovorin (LV) to intravenous (IV) fluorouracil (5-FU) and LV in previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients. Secondary end points were survival, tumor response, safety, and quality of life. Between May 1996 and July 1997, 380 patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (90 mg/d), administered for 28 days every 35 days, or 5-FU (425 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (20 mg/m(2)/d), given IV for 5 days every 35 days. No statistically significant difference in TTP was observed between treatments. With 320 events assessed, the median TTP was 3.4 months (95% Confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 3.8) on UFT/LV and 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.7) on 5-FU/LV (P =.591, stratified log-rank test). There were no statistically significant differences in survival, tumor response, duration of response, and time to response. Substantial safety benefits were observed in patients treated with UFT/LV. They experienced significantly less stomatitis/mucositis (P <.001) and myelosuppression, resulting in fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and less documented infection (P =.04). Concomitant medication usage was significantly greater on 5-FU/LV (P =.010). With respect to quality of life, after correcting for baseline imbalances, there were no significant differences between treatments for any scale, except diarrhea. The oral UFT/LV regimen failed to achieve improved TTP; however, the study confirms significant safety improvements compared with bolus IV 5-FU/LV for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article