Bioequivalence of two tablet formulations of capecitabine and exploration of age, gender, body surface area, and creatinine clearance as factors influencing systemic exposure in cancer patients

Purpose: The objective of the study was to assess the bioequivalence of two tablet formulations of capecitabine and to explore the effect of age, gender, body surface area and creatinine clearance on the systemic exposure to capecitabine and its metabolites. Methods: The study was designed as an open, randomized two-way crossover trial. A single oral dose of 2000 mg capecitabine was administered on two separate days to 25 patients with solid tumors. On one day, the patients received four 500-mg tablets of formulation B (test formulation) and on the other day, four 500-mg tablets of formulation A (reference formulation). The washout period between the two administrations was between 2 and 8 days. After each administration, serial blood and urine samples were collected for up to 12 and 24 h, respectively. Unchanged capecitabine and its metabolites were determined in plasma using LC/MS-MS and in urine by NMRS. Results: Based on the primary pharmacokinetic parameter, AUC(0-∞) of 5'-DFUR, equivalence was concluded for the two formulations, since the 90% confidence interval of the estimate of formulation B relative to formulation A of 97% to 107% was within the acceptance region 80% to 125%. There was no clinically significant difference between the t(max) for the two formulations (median 2.1 versus 2.0 h). The estimate for C(max) was 111% for formulation B compared to formulation A and the 90% confidence interval of 95% to 136% was within the reference region 70% to 143%. Overall, these results suggest no relevant difference between the two formulations regarding the extent to which 5'-DFUR reached the systemic circulation and the rate at which 5'-DFUR appeared in the systemic circulation. The overall urinary excretions were 86.0% and 86.5% of the dose, respectively, and the proportion recovered as each metabolite was similar for the two formulations. The majority of the dose was excreted as FBAL (61.5% and 60.3%), all other chemical species making a minor contribution. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis to explore the influence of age, gender, body surface area and creatinine clearance on the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-∞) and C(max) of capecitabine and its metabolites revealed no clinically significant effects. The only statistically significant results were obtained for AUC(0-∞) and C(max) of intact drug and for C(max) of FBAL, which were higher in females than in males. Conclusion: The bioavailability of 5'-DFUR in the systemic circulation was practically identical after administration of the two tablet formulations. Therefore, the two formulations can be regarded as bioequivalent. The variables investigated (age, gender, body surface area, and creatinine clearance) had no clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine or its metabolites.

Outcomes in gastric and junctional cancer using neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine) and radical surgery

Background The MAGIC/UK Medical Research Council (MRC) trial set the standard of care for treatment of resectable gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma, demonstrating that perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (ECF) confers a survival benefit over surgery alone. The randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (REAL-2) trial showed that, in the metastatic setting, the EOX regimen (epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine) is as effective as ECF, with a favourable toxicity profile. Methods Consecutive patients with resectable gastric or junctional adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative EOX, between 2007 and 2012, were retrospectively analysed. Results Fifty-nine patients (12 female, 47 male), commenced EOX therapy; 47 underwent surgery. A good pathological response was seen in 34 %, (16/47). Disease recurrence occurred in 19 patients (19/47, 40 %). Median overall survival was 22 months, with 4-year survival of 47 %. Chemotoxicities were consistent with those previously reported for this regimen. Conclusion This study in a high-volume centre demonstrates that EOX in resectable gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma is associated with a reasonable safety profile, and efficacy consistent with that reported for ECF.

An EORTC phase I study of capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and epirubicin (cex) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

In breast cancer, chemotherapy regimens that include infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) lead to high response rates, but require central venous access and pumps. To avoid these inconveniences, we substituted infusional 5-FU with capecitabine. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine when given in combination with fixed doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (100 and 600 mg/m(2) day 1 every (q) 3 weeks) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer without distant metastasis. Capecitabine was escalated from 750 mg/m(2) twice a day (bid) to 1250 mg/m(2) bid from day 1 to day 14 in four dose levels. Dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). A total of 23 patients were included and 117 courses were administered. At dose level 4, 2 of 2 patients presented DLTs defining the MTD. A high rate of capecitabine treatment modification was required with capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 3). 19 patients achieved an objective response (83%). In conclusion, we believe that capecitabine 900 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 2) is the recommended dose in combination with epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2). The acceptable toxicity profile and encouraging activity of this regimen warrant further evaluation.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine versus oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: The MRC COIN Trial.

Background:

COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC).


Methods:

Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment.


Results:

In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(±cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (±cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(±cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50–80?ml?min-1 on OxCap(±cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function.


Conclusions:

Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50–80?ml?min-1 on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

A Phase I Trial of Bortezomib in Combination with Epirubicin, Carboplatin and Capecitabine (VECarboX) in Advanced Gastric and Gastro-oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE:
The protease inhibitor bortezomib attenuates the action of NF-κB and has shown preclinical activity alone and in combination with chemotherapy.

DESIGN:
A Phase I dose-escalation study was performed administering bortezomib (0.7, 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 8 from cycle 2 onwards) in combination with Epirubicin 50 mg m(-2) intravenously on day 1, Carboplatin AUC 5 day 1 and Capecitabine 625 mg m(-2) BD days 1-21 every 21 days (VECarboX regimen), in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. The primary objective was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Bortezomib when combined with ECarboX.

RESULTS:
18 patients received bortezomib 0.7 (n = 6), 1.0 (n = 3), 1.3 (n = 6) and 1.6 mg m(-2) (n = 3) and a protocol amendment reducing the capecitabine dose to 500 mg m(-2) BD was enacted due to myelotoxicity. Common treatment-related non-haematological adverse events of any grade were fatigue (83.3 %), anorexia (55.6 %), constipation (55.6 %) and nausea (55.6 %). Common Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were neutropenia (77.8 %) and thrombocytopenia (44.4 %). Objective responses were achieved in 6 patients (33.3 %) and a further 5 patients (27.8 %) had stable disease for >8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS:
The addition of Bortezomib to ECarboX is well tolerated and response rates are comparable with standard chemotherapy.

The Cyclin D1 (CCND1) A870G polymorphism predicts clinical outcome to lapatinib and capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib plus capecitabine emerged as an efficacious therapy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We aimed to identify germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in capecitabine catabolism and human epidermal receptor signaling that were associated with clinical outcome to assist in selecting patients likely to benefit from this combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: DNA was extracted from 240 of 399 patients enrolled in EGF100151 clinical trial (NCT00078572; clinicaltrials.gov) and SNPs were successfully evaluated in 234 patients. The associations between SNPs and clinical outcome were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, likelihood ratio test within logistic or Cox regression model, as appropriate.

RESULTS: There were significant interactions between CCND1 A870G and clinical outcome. Patients carrying the A-allele were more likely to benefit from lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine when compared with patients harboring G/G (P = 0.022, 0.024 and 0.04, respectively). In patients with the A-allele, the response rate (RR) was significantly higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine (35%) compared with capecitabine (11%; P = 0.001) but not between treatments in patients with G/G (RR = 24% and 32%, respectively; P = 0.85). Time to tumor progression (TTP) was longer in patients with the A-allele treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine (median TTP = 7.9 and 3.4 months; P < 0.001), but not in patients with G/G (median TTP = 6.1 and 6.6 months; P = 0.92).

CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CCND1A870G may be useful in predicting clinical outcome in HER2-positive mBC patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine.

Oral cancer treatments and adherence: medication event monitoring system assessment for capecitabine

Background: Oncological treatments are traditionally administered via intravenous injection by qualified personnel. Oral formulas which are developing rapidly are preferred by patients and facilitate administration however they may increase non-adherence. In this study 4 common oral chemotherapeutics are given to 50 patients, who are still in the process of inclusion, divided into 4 groups. The aim is to evaluate adherence and offer these patients interdisciplinary support with the joint help of doctors and pharmacists. We present here the results for capecitabine. Materials and Methods: The final goal is to evaluate adhesion in 50 patients split into 4 groups according to oral treatments (letrozole/exemestane, imatinib/sunitinib, capecitabine and temozolomide) using persistence and quality of execution as parameters. These parameters are evaluated using a medication event monitoring system (MEMS®) in addition to routine oncological visits and semi-structured interviews. Patients were monitored for the entire duration of treatment up to a maximum of 1 year. Patient satisfaction was assessed at the end of the monitoring period using a standardized questionary. Results: Capecitabine group included 2 women and 8 men with a median age of 55 years (range: 36−77 years) monitored for an average duration of 100 days (range: 5-210 days). Persistence was 98% and quality of execution 95%. 5 patients underwent cyclic treatment (2 out of 3 weeks) and 5 patients continuous treatment. Toxicities higher than grade 1 were grade 2−3 hand-foot syndrome in 1 patient and grade 3 acute coronary syndrome in 1 patient both without impact on adherence. Patients were satisfied with the interviews undergone during the study (57% useful, 28% very useful, 15% useless) and successfully integrated the MEMS® in their daily lives (57% very easily, 43% easily) according to the results obtained by questionary at the end of the monitoring period. Conclusion: Persistence and quality of execution observed in our Capecitabine group of patients were excellent and better than expected compared to previously published studies. The interdisciplinary approach allowed us to better identify and help patients with toxicities to maintain adherence. Overall patients were satisfied with the global interdisciplinary follow-up. With longer follow up better evaluation of our method and its impact will be possible. Interpretation of the results of patients in the other groups of this ongoing trial will provide us information for a more detailed analysis.

Capecitabine and oral cyclophosphamide : a novel oral treatment combination for advanced cancer

Background: This dose escalation study assessed feasibility of a totally oral chemotherapy regimen using cyclophosphamide and capecitabine. The rationale for this combination was based on the observation that preclinical models of cyclophosphamide up-regulated tumor thymidine phosphorylase and increased the activation of capecitabine. Methods: Eligible patients with advanced cancer were treated with oral cyclophosphamide and capecitabine on a 28-day cycle. If no dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were encountered during the first two treatment cycles, the next patient group was assigned to the next highest dose level until the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) was determined. Results: Twenty-seven patients entered treatment. The majority of non-DLT were grades 1 and 2. DLT experienced in the first 8-week observation period were grade 3 diarrhea (one patient, level III) and grade 3 emesis (two patients, level V). MTD was observed at level 5, 1331 mg/m2/day capecitabine days 1–28 with 125 mg/m2/day cyclophosphamide days 1–14 of the 28-day cycle. The recommended phase II dose is therefore 1331 mg/m2/day capecitabine with 100 mg/m2/day cyclophosphamide. The best response evaluation showed four partial responses (breast, colon, ovary and pancreas). Conclusion: Cyclophosphamide and capecitabine can be combined at their full oral single agent dose with promising tolerability and activity.

Sorafenib in Combination With Capecitabine: An Oral Regimen for Patients With HER2-Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIB trial assessed sorafenib with capecitabine for locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative breast cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to first-or second-line capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice a day for days 1 to 14 of every 21-day cycle with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results In total, 229 patients were enrolled. The addition of sorafenib to capecitabine resulted in a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo (median, 6.4 v 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P = .001) with sorafenib favored across subgroups, including first-line (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82) and second-line (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.04) treatment. There was no significant improvement for overall survival (median, 22.2 v 20.9 months; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.23; P = .42) and overall response (38% v 31%; P = .25). Toxicities (sorafenib v placebo) of any grade included rash (22% v 8%), diarrhea (58% v 30%), mucosal inflammation (33% v 21%), neutropenia (13% v 4%), hypertension (18% v 12%), and hand-foot skin reaction/hand-foot syndrome (HFSR/HFS; 90% v 66%); grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between treatment arms except HFSR/HFS (44% v 14%). Reasons for discontinuation in the sorafenib and placebo arms included disease progression (63% v 82%, respectively), adverse events (20% v 9%, respectively), and death (0% v 1%, respectively). Conclusion Addition of sorafenib to capecitabine improved PFS in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The dose of sorafenib used in this trial resulted in unacceptable toxicity for many patients. A phase III confirmatory trial has been initiated with a reduced sorafenib dose.

Efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine with weekly paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer: a phase II report of the SAKK

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and capecitabine have proven activity in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Paclitaxel increases the expression of thymidine phosphorylase, the enzyme that activates capecitabine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine in combination with weekly paclitaxel largely as first-line therapy in patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2002 to September 2004, 19 patients with MBC received oral capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) plus i.v. paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15) in a 21-day cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 19.3 months the overall response rate was 63% with 1 complete response (5%) and 11 partial responses (58%). Disease was stabilized in 1 patient (5%) and 3 patients had progressive disease (16%). Three patients were unable to be assessed for response to treatment. Median time to progression was 3.3 months, median time to treatment failure 3.0 months and median overall survival 13.8 months. A substantial number of patients experienced major side effects. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (53%; grade 3: 37%), alopecia (42%; grade 3: 26%), diarrhea (32%; grade 3: 11%) and neurotoxicity (32%; grade 3: 16%). Hematologic toxicities were uncommon. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine and paclitaxel appears to be active in MBC but the safety profile with the dosages used in this trial was unacceptably high and led to a short time to treatment failure. However, based on the efficacy data alternative schedules deserve further evaluation.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.