Reducing the toxicity of cancer therapy: recognizing needs, taking action.

Our understanding of the biology of cancer and the application of this knowledge to cancer treatment has greatly outpaced what we know of the biology underlying the symptoms and toxic effects that therapies produce. These adverse effects of therapy cause substantial discomfort and distress to patients and their families, limit treatment tolerability and can persist indefinitely in post-treatment survivorship. Despite these concerns, little research effort is targeted at documenting the nature of these effects. Similarly, limited efforts are being made in the drug-development arena to identify or develop treatments that might prevent or reduce toxicities. A panel of clinicians and researchers as well as representatives from advocacy groups, federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry was convened to identify gaps in cancer treatment toxicity research and to provide direction for future action. With an emphasis on coordinating multidisciplinary efforts, this panel has presented a strategy to increase funding for the field and develop a coherent research agenda.

Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Although combination treatment with bevacizumab (humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor) and chemotherapy improves survival of patients with various metastatic carcinomas, an increased risk of arterial thromboembolic events has been observed in some trials. We characterized this risk by performing post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials that evaluated combination treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Low-dose aspirin was permitted in these trials, and its safety was also analyzed. METHODS: Data were pooled from five randomized controlled trials that included a total of 1745 patients with metastatic colorectal, breast, or non-small-cell lung carcinoma. The risk of an arterial or venous thromboembolic event was assessed by simple incidence rates, rates per 100 person-years, and/or hazard ratios (HRs). The association between patient characteristics and risk of an arterial thromboembolic event was investigated primarily by Cox proportional hazards regression. The relationship between low-dose aspirin and bleeding was explored by incidence rates and rates per 100 person-years. RESULTS: Combined treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, was associated with increased risk for an arterial thromboembolic event (HR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 3.75; P = .031) but not for a venous thromboembolic event (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.20; P = .44). The absolute rate of developing an arterial thromboembolism was 5.5 events per 100 person-years for those receiving combination therapy and 3.1 events per 100 person-years for those receiving chemotherapy alone (ratio = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.94 to 3.33; P = .076). Development of an arterial thromboembolic event was associated with a prior arterial thromboembolic event (P<.001) or age of 65 years or older (P = .01). Baseline or on-study aspirin use was associated with modest increases in grade 3 and 4 bleeding events in both treatment groups, from 3.6% to 4.7% for bevacizumab-treated patients and from 1.7% to 2.2% for control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, was associated with an increased risk of arterial thromboembolism but not venous thromboembolism.

Multicenter phase III study of uracil/tegafur and oral leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III study was designed to demonstrate equivalence in survival of oral uracil/tegafur (UFT) and oral leucovorin (LV) to conventional intravenous (IV) fluorouracil (5-FU) and LV in previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Safety was also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred sixteen patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (75 or 90 mg/d) for 28 days every 35 days or IV bolus 5-FU (425 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (20 mg/m(2)/d) for 5 days every 28 days. RESULTS: UFT/LV produced survival comparable to the IV 5-FU/LV regimen. Median survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.2 to 13.6 months) with UFT/LV and 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 15.4 months) with 5-FU/LV (P =.630). The hazard ratio for survival was 0.964 (95.6% CI, 0.826 to 1.125), supporting equivalent survival. The overall response rate did not differ between treatment arms (UFT/LV, 11.7%; 5-FU/LV, 14.5%; P =.232). Median time to progression favored 5-FU/LV (UFT/LV, 3.5 months; 5-FU/LV, 3.8 months; P =.011), but tumor assessment schedules differed between arms. UFT/LV significantly improved safety compared with 5-FU/LV. Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and stomatitis and mucositis were significantly less frequent with UFT/LV, as was myelosuppression. Patients treated with UFT/LV had fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and documented infections (P <.05). Increased bilirubin, without other liver function abnormalities, was observed more often with UFT/LV (P <.001). Concomitant medications were more frequent with 5-FU/LV, including use of antibiotics, growth factors, and antiemetics. CONCLUSION: UFT/LV provided a safer, more convenient oral alternative to a standard bolus IV 5-FU/LV regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer while producing equivalent survival.