91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Irinotecan plus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

      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

          The combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin has until recently been standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with colorectal cancer that is refractory to treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin. In a multicenter trial, we compared a combination of irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin with bolus doses of fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. A third group of patients received irinotecan alone. Patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously), fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus), and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) weekly for four weeks every six weeks; fluorouracil (425 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) daily for five consecutive days every four weeks; or irinotecan alone (125 mg per square meter intravenously) weekly for four weeks every six weeks. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival. Of 683 patients, 231 were assigned to receive irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin; 226 to receive fluorouracil and leucovorin; and 226 to receive irinotecan alone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 7.0 vs. 4.3 months; P=0.004), a higher rate of confirmed response (39 percent vs. 21 percent, P<0.001), and longer overall survival (median, 14.8 vs. 12.6 months; P=0.04). Results for irinotecan alone were similar to those for fluorouracil and leucovorin. Grade 3 (severe) diarrhea was more common during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin than during treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, but the incidence of grade 4 (life-threatening) diarrhea was similar in the two groups (<8 percent). Grade 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin. Adding irinotecan to the regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin did not compromise the quality of life. Weekly treatment with irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin is superior to a widely used regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer statistics, 2000

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

              In phase II studies, irinotecan is active in metastatic colorectal cancer, but the overall benefit has not been assessed in a randomised clinical trial. Patients with proven metastatic colorectal cancer, which had progressed within 6 months of treatment with fluorouracil, were randomly assigned either 300-350 mg/m2 irinotecan every 3 weeks with supportive care or supportive care alone, in a 2:1 ratio. 189 patients were allocated irinotecan and supportive care and 90 supportive care alone. The mean age of the participants was 58.8 years; 181 (65%) were men and 98 (35%) were women. WHO performance status was 0 in 79 (42%) patients, 1 in 77 (41%) patients, and 2 in 32 (17%) patients. Tumour-related symptoms were present in 134 (71%) patients and weight loss of more than 5% was seen in 15 (8%) patients. With a median follow-up of 13 months, the overall survival was significantly better in the irinotecan group (p=0.0001), with 36.2% 1-year survival in the irinotecan group versus 13.8% in the supportive-care group. The survival benefit, adjusted for prognostic factors in a multivariate analysis, remained significant (p=0.001). Survival without performance-status deterioration (p=0.0001), without weight loss of more than 5% (p=0.018), and pain-free survival (p=0.003) were significantly better in the patients given irinotecan. In a quality-of-life analysis, all significant differences, except on diarrhoea score, were in favour of the irinotecan group. Our study shows that despite the side-effects of treatment, patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer, and for whom fluorouracil has failed, have a longer survival, fewer tumour-related symptoms, and a better quality of life when treated with irinotecan than with supportive care alone.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                September 28 2000
                September 28 2000
                : 343
                : 13
                : 905-914
                Article
                10.1056/NEJM200009283431302
                11006366
                da955f95-8ee8-4528-b5af-1087fa73ffb3
                © 2000
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article