-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Camptothecin; Capecitabine; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Floxuridine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Irinotecan; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Organoplatinum Compounds; Palliative Care; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tegafur; Uracil
PubMed: 28752564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008398.pub2 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Oct 2000Over the past decade, increasing data have emphasized both the importance of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the initial, rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolism... (Review)
Review
Over the past decade, increasing data have emphasized both the importance of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the initial, rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolism of fluorouracil (5-FU), and its role as a control step in 5-FU metabolism, regulating the availability of 5-FU for anabolism. It is now clear that DPD also accounts for much of the variability observed with therapeutic use of 5-FU, including variabilities in 5-FU levels over a 24-hour infusion, interindividual pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, toxicity, and drug response (resistance). This variability makes effective dosing of 5-FU and related drugs difficult. In order to lessen this variability, and potentially improve 5-FU pharmacology, the pharmaceutical industry has made an effort to develop DPD inhibitors to modulate 5-FU metabolism, which has resulted in the creation of a new subclass of orally administered fluoropyrimidines, known as DPD-inhibiting fluoropyrimidines (DIF). Four drugs--uracil and tegafur (UFT) or the combination of UFT and leucovorin, ethynyluracil (eniluracil), S-1, and BOF-A2--have recently undergone clinical evaluation in the United States. The biochemical basis for using these drugs is reviewed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biological Availability; Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP); Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Oxidoreductases; Oxonic Acid; Pyridines; Tegafur; Uracil
PubMed: 11098485
DOI: No ID Found -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2021Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common forms of cancer, with an estimated 1.36 million new cases and almost 700,000 deaths annually. Approximately 21% of... (Review)
Review
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common forms of cancer, with an estimated 1.36 million new cases and almost 700,000 deaths annually. Approximately 21% of patients with CRC have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective of this article is to review the literature on the efficacy and safety of oral drugs available for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several such drugs have been developed, and fluoropyrimidines are the backbone of chemotherapy in this indication. They exert their antitumour activity by disrupting the synthesis and function of DNA and RNA. Oral fluoropyrimidines include prodrugs capecitabine, tegafur, eniluracil/5-fluorouracil, tegafur/uracil, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI). Oral drugs offer several advantages over injectable formulations, including convenience, flexibility, avoidance of injection-related adverse events (AEs) and, in some circumstances, lower costs. However, oral drugs may not be suitable for patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or malabsorption, they may result in reduced treatment adherence and should not be co-administered with drugs that interfere with absorption or hepatic metabolism. Oral fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine, as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan or bevacizumab, are as effective as intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in first-line treatment of mCRC. Other oral fluoropyrimidines, such as FTD/TPI, are effective in patients with mCRC who are refractory, intolerant or ineligible for 5-FU. In addition, oral fluoropyrimidines are used in adjuvant treatment of mCRC. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor used in patients in whom several previous lines of therapy have failed. Frequent AEs associated with oral drugs used in the treatment of CRC include hand-foot syndrome and gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities.
PubMed: 33995592
DOI: 10.1177/17588359211009001 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Oct 2000This study was performed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, bioequivalence, and feasibility of a combined oral formulation of 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and eniluracil (Glaxo... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of a combined oral formulation of eniluracil, an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced solid malignancies.
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, bioequivalence, and feasibility of a combined oral formulation of 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and eniluracil (Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). The rationale for developing a combined eniluracil/5-FU formulation oral dosing form is to simplify treatment with these agents, which has been performed using separate dosing forms, and decrease the probability of severe toxicity and/or suboptimal therapeutic results caused by inadvertently high or conversely insufficient 5-FU dosing.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The trial was a randomized, three-way crossover bioequivalence study of three oral dosing forms of eniluracil/5-FU tablets in adults with solid malignancies. Each period consisted of two days of treatment and a five- to seven-day washout phase. Eniluracil at a dose of 20 mg, which results in maximal DPD inactivation, was administered twice daily on the first day and in the evening on the second day of each of the three treatments. On the morning of the second day, all patients received a total eniluracil dose of 20 mg orally and a total 5-FU dose of 2 mg orally as either separate tablets (treatment A) or combined eniluracil/5-FU tablets in two different strengths (2 tablets of eniluracil/5-FU at a strength (mg/mg) of 10/1 (treatment B) or 8 tablets at a strength of 2.5/0.25 (treatment C)). The pharmacokinetics of plasma 5-FU, eniluracil, and uracil, and the urinary excretion of eniluracil, 5-FU, uracil, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL), were studied. To determine the bioequivalence of the combined eniluracil/5-FU dosing forms compared to the separate tablets, an analysis of variance on pharmacokinetic parameters reflecting eniluracil and 5-FU exposure was performed.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine patients with advanced solid malignancies had complete pharmacokinetic studies performed during treatments A, B, and C. The pharmacokinetics of eniluracil and 5-FU were similar among the three types of treatment. Both strengths of the combined eniluracil/5-FU dosing form and the separate dosing forms were bioequivalent. Mean values for terminal half-life, systemic clearance, and apparent volume of distribution for oral 5-FU during treatments A/B/C were 5.5/5.6/5.6 hours, 6.6/6.6/6.5 liters/hour, and 50.7/51.5/50.0 liters, respectively. The intersubject coefficient of variation for pharmacokinetic variables reflecting 5-FU exposure and clearance in treatments ranged from 23% to 33%. The urinary excretion of unchanged 5-FU over 24 hours following treatments A, B, and C averaged 52.2%, 56.1%, and 50.8'%, of the administered dose of 5-FU, respectively. Parameters reflecting DPD inhibition, including plasma uracil and urinary FBAL excretion following treatments A, B, and C were similar. Toxicity was generally mild and similar following all three types of treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU and eniluracil were similar and met bioequivalence criteria following treatment with the separate oral formulations of 5-FU and eniluracil and two strengths of the combined formulation. The availability of a combined eniluracil/5-FU oral dosing form will likely simplify dosing and decrease the probability of severe toxicity or suboptimal therapeutic results caused by an inadvertent 5-FU overdose or insufficient 5-FU dosing in the case of separate oral formulations, thereby enhancing the overall feasibility and 0therapeutic index of oral 5-FU therapy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cross-Over Studies; Dihydrouracil Dehydrogenase (NADP); Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms; Oxidoreductases; Therapeutic Equivalency; Uracil
PubMed: 11106122
DOI: 10.1023/a:1008379802642 -
Journal of Nuclear Medicine : Official... Oct 2000Noninvasive methods for measuring the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic drugs such as 5-fluorouracil (FU) are needed for individualized optimization of treatment...
UNLABELLED
Noninvasive methods for measuring the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic drugs such as 5-fluorouracil (FU) are needed for individualized optimization of treatment regimens. PET imaging of [18F]FU (PET/[18F]FU) is potentially useful in this context, but PET/[18F]FU is severely hampered by low tumor uptake of radiolabel and rapid catabolism of FU in vivo. Pretreatment with eniluracil (5-ethynyluracil) prevents catabolism of FU. Hypothesizing that suppression of catabolism would enhance PET/[18F]FU, we examined the effects of eniluracil on the short-term pharmacokinetics of the radiotracer.
METHODS
Anesthetized rats bearing a subcutaneous rat colorectal tumor were given eniluracil or placebo and injected intravenously 1 h later with [18F]FU or [3H]FU. In the 18F studies, dynamic PET image sequences were obtained 0-2 h after injection. Tumors were excised and frozen at 2 h and then analyzed for labeled metabolites by high-performance liquid chromatography. Biodistribution of radiolabel was determined by direct tissue assay.
RESULTS
Eniluracil improved tumor visualization in PET images. With eniluracil, tumor standardized uptake values ([activity/g]/[injected activity/g body weight]) increased from 0.72 +/- 0.06 (mean +/- SEM; n = 6) to 1.57 +/- 0.20 (n = 12; P < 0.01), and tumor uptake increased by factors of 2 or more relative to plasma (P < 0.05) and bone, liver, and kidney (P < 0.01). Without eniluracil (n = 5), 57% +/- 4% of recovered radiolabel in tumor at 2 h was on catabolites, with the rest divided among FU (2% +/- 1%), anabolites of FU (38% +/- 7%), and unidentified peaks (4% +/- 2%). With eniluracil (n = 8), catabolites, FU, and anabolites comprised 2% +/- 1%, 41% +/- 5%, and 57% +/- 4%, respectively, of the recovered radiolabel in tumors.
CONCLUSION
Eniluracil increased tumor accumulation of 18F relative to host tissues and fundamentally changed the biochemical significance of that accumulation. With catabolism suppressed, tumor radioactivity reflected the therapeutically relevant aspect of FU pharmacokinetics--namely, uptake and anabolic activation of the drug. With this approach, it may be feasible to measure the transport and anabolism of [18F]FU in tumors by kinetic modeling and PET. Such information may be useful in predicting and increasing tumor response to FU.
Topics: Animals; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Fluorine Radioisotopes; Fluorouracil; Radiopharmaceuticals; Rats; Rats, Inbred F344; Tomography, Emission-Computed; Uracil
PubMed: 11038003
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Oct 2002Eniluracil is a potent, irreversible inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the major catabolic enzyme for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Pretreatment with eniluracil... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
BACKGROUND
Eniluracil is a potent, irreversible inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the major catabolic enzyme for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Pretreatment with eniluracil significantly increases plasma half-life, plasma concentration and oral bioavailability of 5-FU. This multicenter phase II trial was designed to estimate the 6-month survival rate in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas treated with 5-FU and eniluracil.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
One hundred and sixteen patients (61 with no prior chemotherapy and 55 with prior chemotherapy) were registered for treatment with eniluracil 50 mg (total dose) p.o. on days 1-7 and 5-FU 20 mg/m(2)/day p.o. on days 2-6 of a 28-day treatment cycle.
RESULTS
In 106 patients evaluable for survival, the 6-month survival rate was 34% [95% confidence interval (CI) 22% to 47%, median survival 3.6 months] for patients who had not been treated previously with chemotherapy and 29% (95% CI 16% to 42%, median survival 3.4 months) for those who had received prior chemotherapy. For those patients with measurable disease, the confirmed response rates were 8% and 2%, respectively. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (29% of patients) and diarrhea (12% of patients). Overall, 69% of patients experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event during treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the combination of a 7-day course of eniluracil and a 5-day course of oral 5-FU has limited activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, and is associated with a high frequency of clinically significant adverse events.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Diarrhea; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neutropenia; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Survival; Treatment Outcome; Uracil
PubMed: 12377645
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdf274 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Oct 1998Three oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or are in development for the treatment of patients with breast... (Review)
Review
Three oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or are in development for the treatment of patients with breast cancer: capecitabine, UFT, and 5-FU/eniluracil. Capecitabine has been approved for breast cancer patients whose disease is paclitaxel-resistant, and either anthracycline-resistant or for whom further anthracycline use is not indicated. A response rate of 20% was observed in an open-label phase II trial of capecitabine in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. Diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were the most frequently reported toxicities. In a randomized phase II study of capecitabine vs paclitaxel in breast cancer patients who had failed anthracyclines, response rates were 36% for capecitabine vs 21% for paclitaxel. Several phase II trials of 5-FU/eniluracil in breast cancer are ongoing. Preliminary response data from one of these trials on 31 patients with anthracycline- and taxane-resistant advanced breast cancer showed a 16% partial response rate. Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities included diarrhea (8%), nausea (3%), and granulocytopenia (3%). In Japan, UFT is widely used for the treatment of breast cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, though studies in the United States are just getting under way. A phase II trial conducted in Madrid, Spain evaluated the combination of UFT, methotrexate, and leucovorin as salvage therapy for breast cancer patients. The overall response rate was 38% among 21 patients, and diarrhea was the most common toxicity. Many questions remain unanswered about the optimal use of oral 5-FU agents in breast cancer. There seems little question that these agents have substantial activity and will find a place in the therapeutic armamentarium.
Topics: Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Tegafur; Uracil
PubMed: 9830624
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancer May 2002The authors conducted a single-institution Phase I clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated doses and to define the toxic effects of oral eniluracil and oral... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
PURPOSE
The authors conducted a single-institution Phase I clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated doses and to define the toxic effects of oral eniluracil and oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) combined with docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients with metastatic breast carcinoma were eligible if they had disease progression after anthracycline-based therapy and had never been exposed to taxanes. The starting doses of oral eniluracil and oral 5-FU were 11.5 mg/m(2) and 1.15 mg/m(2), respectively, twice daily on Days 1-14. Docetaxel was given intravenously at a starting dose of 50 mg/m(2) on Day 1 only. The dose of docetaxel was escalated among cohorts until a maximum tolerated dose was reached. Courses were repeated every 21 days.
RESULTS
The authors treated 19 patients with Stage IV breast carcinoma, of whom 5 had received prior chemotherapy for their metastatic disease. Fifty-three percent had a performance status of 1, and 53% had bone or soft tissue involvement as the dominant site of disease. All patients had received prior therapy with doxorubicin. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenic fever. No episodes of sepsis were observed. Significant antitumor activity was observed with a total of two complete and nine partial responses. The recommended doses for Phase II studies are 72 mg/m(2) docetaxel on Day 1 and 10.0/1.0 mg/m(2) oral eniluracil/5-FU twice daily for a total of 14 days, with courses being repeated every 21 days.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of oral eniluracil/5-FU and intravenous docetaxel is a safe and well tolerated regimen. Significant antitumor activity is associated with this combination.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Drug Administration Schedule; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Paclitaxel; Taxoids; Uracil
PubMed: 12015755
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10488 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Dec 2000Fluorouracil (5-FU) has remained the standard therapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer for over 40 years. Unfortunately, only a minority of patients... (Review)
Review
Fluorouracil (5-FU) has remained the standard therapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer for over 40 years. Unfortunately, only a minority of patients experience objective clinical response. Discussed herein are attempts to improve on the activity of 5-FU by biochemically modulating its action. In addition, novel agents for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) are discussed. Oral fluoropyrimidines (UFT plus leucovorin, capecitabine, eniluracil plus oral 5-FU) provide the convenience of oral delivery with a marked reduction in febrile neutropenia and mucositis. Recent randomized trials with these agents have demonstrated therapeutic activity that is comparable with intravenous schedules of 5-FU plus leucovorin. Compared to 5-FU, both oxaliplatin and irinotecan have uniquely different mechanisms of action and have demonstrated clinical activity in patients whose disease has progressed with 5-FU treatment. Combinations of either irinotecan or oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/leucovorin have demonstrated that the addition of these agents to 5-FU/leucovorin improves response rates and time to progression compared to 5-FU/leucovorin alone. Combination chemotherapy regimens with these novel agents are rapidly being introduced into the adjuvant setting.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Capecitabine; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tegafur; Treatment Outcome; Uracil
PubMed: 11200148
DOI: No ID Found -
Methods (San Diego, Calif.) Feb 2019Many open questions in RNA biology relate to the kinetics of gene expression and the impact of RNA binding regulatory factors on processing or decay rates of particular... (Review)
Review
Many open questions in RNA biology relate to the kinetics of gene expression and the impact of RNA binding regulatory factors on processing or decay rates of particular transcripts. Steady state measurements of RNA abundance obtained from RNA-seq approaches are not able to separate the effects of transcription from those of RNA decay in the overall abundance of any given transcript, instead only giving information on the (presumed steady-state) abundances of transcripts. Through the combination of metabolic labeling and high-throughput sequencing, several groups have been able to measure both transcription rates and decay rates of the entire transcriptome of an organism in a single experiment. This review focuses on the methodology used to specifically measure RNA decay at a global level. By comparing and contrasting approaches and describing the experimental protocols in a modular manner, we intend to provide both experienced and new researchers to the field the ability to combine aspects of various protocols to fit the unique needs of biological questions not addressed by current methods.
Topics: Animals; Biotin; Bromouracil; Cell Line; Click Chemistry; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; Humans; RNA Stability; RNA, Messenger; Staining and Labeling; Thiouracil; Thiouridine; Transcriptome; Uracil; Uridine
PubMed: 30529548
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2018.12.001