Adjuvant portal-vein infusion of fluorouracil and heparin in colorectal cancer: A randomised trial

Background. There is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of regional adjuvant chemotherapy, via portal-vein infusion (PVI), after resection of colorectal cancer. We undertook a randomised controlled multicentre trial to investigate the efficacy of PVI (500 mg/m2 fluorouracil plus 5000 IU heparin daily for 7 days). Methods. 1235 of about 1500 potentially eligible patients were randomly assigned surgery plus PVI or surgery alone (control). The patients were followed up for a median of 63 months, with yearly screening for recurrent disease. The primary endpoint was survival; analyses were by intention to treat. Findings. 619 patients in the control group and 616 in the PVI group met eligibility criteria. 164 (26%) control-group patients and 173 (28%) PVI-group patients died. 5-year survival did not differ significantly between the groups (73 vs 72%; 95% CI for difference -6 to 4). The control and PVI groups were also similar in terms of disease-free survival at 5 years (67 vs 65%) and the number of patients with liver metastases (79 vs 77%). Interpretation. PVI of fluorouracil, at a dose of 500 mg/m2 for 7 days, cannot be recommended as the sole adjuvant treatment for high-risk colorectal cancer after complete surgical excision. However, these results cannot eliminate a small benefit when PVI is used at a higher dosage or in combination with mitomycin.

Doxifluridine and leucovorin: an oral treatment combination in advanced colorectal cancer

Purpose: This study was designed to test the activity and feasibility of an all-oral regimen of levo-leucovorin and doxifluridine (dFUR) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and to establish whether the pharmacokinetics of dFUR and fluorouracil (FU) are affected by demographic and/or biologic parameters. Materials and Methods: One hundred eight patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer received orally administered levo-leucovorin 25 mg followed 2 hours later by dFUR 1,200 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5, with the cycle being repeated every 10 days. Results: Among 62 previously untreated patients, two complete responses (CRs) and 18 partial responses (PRs) were observed (overall response rate, 32%; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 45%). The median response duration was 4 months (range, 2 to 13) and the median survival time, 14 months. Among 46 pretreated patients, there were three CRs and three PRs (response rate, 13%; 95% confidence interval, 5% to 26%). In this group of patients, the median response duration was 4 months (range, 1 to 12) and the median survival time, 12 months. No toxic deaths were observed. The only World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 side effect was diarrhea (32 patients). Conclusion: This regimen is active in previously untreated colorectal cancer patients and combines good compliance with safety. Limited but definite efficacy was also detected in the patients previously treated with FU, which suggests incomplete cross- resistance between the two drugs. The pharmacokinetic results suggest that the conversion rate of dFUR to FU increases between days 1 and 5, but that FU levels remain low in comparison to those measured after classical FU therapy. Under the experimental conditions used in this study, the interpatient variability of pharmacokinetic parameters remains largely unexplained by the tested variables.

ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the most frequently fatal cancer, with poor survival once the disease is advanced. Annual low-dose computed tomography has shown a survival benefit in screening individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Based on the available evidence, the European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening in comprehensive, quality-assured, longitudinal programmes within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. Minimum requirements include: standardised operating procedures for low-dose image acquisition, computer-assisted nodule evaluation, and positive screening results and their management; inclusion/exclusion criteria; expectation management; and smoking cessation programmes. Further refinements are recommended to increase quality, outcome and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: inclusion of risk models, reduction of effective radiation dose, computer-assisted volumetric measurements and assessment of comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vascular calcification). All these requirements should be adjusted to the regional infrastructure and healthcare system, in order to exactly define eligibility using a risk model, nodule management and a quality assurance plan. The establishment of a central registry, including a biobank and an image bank, and preferably on a European level, is strongly encouraged. Key points: • Lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography reduces mortality. • Leading US medical societies recommend large scale screening for high-risk individuals. • There are no lung cancer screening recommendations or reimbursed screening programmes in Europe as of yet. • The European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. • High risk, eligible individuals should be enrolled in comprehensive, quality-controlled longitudinal programmes.