A Dynamic Model of Hand-and-Foot Syndrome in Patients Receiving Capecitabine

For the purpose of developing a longitudinal model to predict hand-and-foot syndrome (HFS) dynamics in patients receiving capecitabine, data from two large phase III studies were used. Of 595 patients in the capecitabine arms, 400 patients were randomly selected to build the model, and the other 195 were assigned for model validation. A score for risk of developing HFS was modeled using the proportional odds model, a sigmoidal maximum effect model driven by capecitabine accumulation as estimated through a kinetic-pharmacodynamic model and a Markov process. The lower the calculated creatinine clearance value at inclusion, the higher was the risk of HFS. Model validation was performed by visual and statistical predictive checks. The predictive dynamic model of HFS in patients receiving capecitabine allows the prediction of toxicity risk based on cumulative capecitabine dose and previous HFS grade. This dose-toxicity model will be useful in developing Bayesian individual treatment adaptations and may be of use in the clinic.

A phase I study of the oral platinum agent satraplatin in sequential combination with capecitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced solid malignancies.

Abstract Background. The broad spectrum of antitumor activity of both the oral platinum analogue satraplatin (S) and capecitabine (C), along with the advantage of their oral administration, prompted a clinical study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. Patients and methods. Four dose levels of S (mg/m(2)/day) and C (mg/m(2)/day) were evaluated in adult patients with advanced solid tumors: 60/1650, 80/1650, 60/2000, 70/2000; a course consisted of 28 days with sequential administration of S (days 1-5) and C (days 8-21) followed by one week rest. Results. Thirty-seven patients were treated, 24 in the dose escalation and 13 in the expansion phase; at the MTD, defined at S 70/C 2000, two patients presented dose limiting toxicities: lack of recovery of neutropenia by day 42 and nausea with dose skip of C. Most frequent toxicities were nausea (57%), diarrhea (51%), neutropenia (46%), anorexia, fatigue, vomiting (38% each). Two partial responses were observed in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer and one in prostate cancer. Conclusion. At S 70/C 2000 the combination of sequential S and C is tolerated with manageable toxicities; its evaluation in platinum and fluorouracil sensitive tumor types is worthwhile because of the easier administration and lack of nephro- and neurotoxicity as compared to parent compounds.

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.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Capecitabine maintenance therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine maintenance therapy (CMT) after capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The clinical data of 139 metastatic breast cancer patients treated from March 2008 to May 2012 with capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. When initial disease control was achieved by the combination chemotherapy, we used CMT for 50 patients, while 37 patients were treated with a different (non-CMT) maintenance therapy. We compared time to progression (TTP), objective response rate, disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety of the two groups, and a sub-group analysis was performed according to pathological characteristics. Sixty-four percent of the patients received a median of six cycles of a docetaxel+capecitabine combination chemotherapy regimen (range 1-45); the median TTP (MTTP) for the complete treatment was 9.43 months (95%CI=8.38-10.48 months) for the CMT group and 4.5 months (95%CI=4.22-4.78 months; P=0.004) for the non-CMT group. The MTTPs for the maintenance therapies administered after the initial capecitabine combined chemotherapy were 4.11 months (95%CI=3.34-4.87 months) for the CMT group and 2.0 months (95%CI=1.63-2.38 months) for the non-CMT group. Gastrointestinal side effects, decreased white blood cells and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia were the main adverse reactions experienced with the combination chemotherapies, CMT and non-CMT treatments. No significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions were detected in the CMT and non-CMT patients. After initial disease control was achieved with the capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy, CMT can significantly prolong TTP rates with a favorable safety profile.

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.

Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.