Article

Uso terapéutico y perfil de toxicidad del esquema FOLFOX4*

Farmacia Hospitalaria 04/2009; DOI: 10.1016/S1130-6343(09)70993-6
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Introducción: Desde la publicación de los resultados del estudio MOSAIC en 2004, el esquema FOLFOX4 se ha establecido como un tratamiento adyuvante recomendado en los cánceres colorrectales estadio III. El objetivo de este estudio es valorar la utilización de este esquema en nuestro ámbito y describir su toxicidad. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo de los tratamientos con FOLFOX4 prescritos desde abril de 2005 a marzo de 2007. Los datos se obtuvieron del programa Farhos Oncología® y las historias clínicas. Se recogieron las variables siguientes: edad, sexo, diagnóstico, estadio de la enfermedad (clasifi cación TNM) y reacciones adversas, expresando su gravedad según los Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0. Resultados: El esquema FOLFOX4 ha sido prescrito a 39 pacientes (24 varones y 15 mujeres), con una mediana de edad de 59 años. Los diagnósticos fueron: 28 cáncer de colon (4 estadio II, 17 III y 7 IV), 10 cáncer de recto (1 estadio II, 4 III y 5 IV) y 1 cáncer gástrico estadio IV. Las reacciones adversas más frecuentes fueron neuropatía periférica (82 %), neutropenia (56,4 %) y diarrea (53,9 %). Al fi nalizar el estudio 9 pacientes seguían en tratamiento activo con este esquema (media, 6,8 ciclos). De los 30 restantes, sólo 16 completaron los 12 ciclos previstos. En 14 pacientes se suspendió el tratamiento (media, 8,1 ciclos), siendo los motivos: toxicidad en 10 casos, progresión clínica en 3 y fallecimiento en 1. Del total de los 368 ciclos administrados, 68 tuvieron retrasos en la administración y en 22 se redujo la dosis. Conclusión: La utilización del esquema FOLFOX4 se ha ajustado a usos con unas evidencias científi cas sólidas, pero su toxicidad ha limitado el uso y difi cultado la administración de la intensidad de dosis prevista.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: María Sacramento Díaz-Carrasco, Jun 07, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
347 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The systemic management of patients with colorectal cancer continues to center on the use of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In the setting of metastatic disease, parenteral 5-FU has been shown to be superior to oral 5-FU; however, survival duration seems similar regardless of whether parenteral 5-FU is administered in a "loading schedule," weekly, or in a continuous-infusion regimen. The addition of other cytotoxic agents, such as semustine (methyl-CCNU) and/or mitomycin C, to 5-FU does not appear to be beneficial. Recent efforts have been directed toward enhancing the activity of 5-FU by (1) increasing its incorporation into RNA through pretreatment with methotrexate or phosphonoacetyl-L-aspartate (PALA), (2) enhancing DNA synthesis inhibition via the concomitant administration of folinic acid, and (3) an undetermined modulatory action by the addition of alpha-interferon. These pharmacologic approaches are being compared in ongoing cooperative group trials. The results of five randomized trials assessing the value of intra-arterial, hepatic infusions of 5-FU or 5-fluorodeoxyuridine have demonstrated that regional chemotherapy increases the likelihood of a hepatic response when compared with systemic treatment, but has little effect on survival and is associated with significant toxicity. Recent adjuvant chemotherapy trials have indicated both a decrease in recurrence and a prolongation in survival when chemotherapy (5-FU + levamisole) is administered to patients with stage C colon cancer; and combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy is given to patients with stages B2 and C rectal cancer.
    Seminars in Oncology 11/1991; 18(5 Suppl 7):62-6. · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The modulation of fluorouracil (FU) by folinic acid (leucovorin [LV]) has been shown to be effective in terms of tumor response rate in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but a meta-analysis of nine trials previously published by our group failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival difference between FU and FU-LV. We present an update of the meta-analysis, with a longer follow-up and the inclusion of 10 newer trials. Analyses are based on individual data from 3,300 patients randomized in 19 trials on an intent-to-treat basis. Two trials had multiple comparisons, leading to a total of 21 pair-wise comparisons. FU doses were similar in both arms in 10 pair-wise comparisons, 15% to 33% higher in the FU-alone arm in six comparisons, and more than 66% higher in five comparisons. Overall analysis showed a two-fold increase in tumor response rates (11% for FU-LV v 21% for FU-LV v 11% for FU [corrected] alone; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.63; P <.0001) and a small but statistically significant overall survival benefit for FU-LV over FU alone (median survival, 11.7 v 10.5 months, respectively; hazards ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.94; P =.004), which were primarily seen in the first year. We observed a significant interaction between treatment benefit and dose of FU, with tumor response and overall survival advantages of FU-LV over FU-alone being restricted to trials in which a similar dose of FU was prescribed in both arms. This updated analysis demonstrates, on a large data set, that FU-LV improves both response rate and overall survival compared with FU alone and that this benefit is consistent across various prognostic factors.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2004; 22(18):3766-75. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2004.03.104 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the response rate, efficacy parameters, and toxicity profile of oral capecitabine with bolus intravenous (IV) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We prospectively randomized 605 patients to treatment with oral capecitabine for 14 days every 3 weeks or 5-FU/LV by rapid IV injection daily for 5 days in 4-week cycles. The overall objective tumor response rate among all randomized patients was significantly higher in the capecitabine group (24.8%) than in the 5-FU/LV group (15.5%; P =.005). In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, median times to disease progression were 4.3 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.72), median times to treatment failure were 4.1 and 3.1 months (P =.19), and median overall survival times were 12.5 and 13.3 months (P =.974), respectively. Capecitabine, compared with bolus 5-FU/LV treatment, produced a significantly lower incidence (P <.0002) of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia. Patients treated with capecitabine also displayed lower incidences of grade 3/4 stomatitis and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P <.0001) leading to significantly less neutropenic fever/sepsis. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia were the only toxicities more frequently associated with capecitabine than with 5-FU/LV treatment. Oral capecitabine was more active than 5-FU/LV in the induction of objective tumor responses. Time to disease progression and survival were at least equivalent for capecitabine compared with the 5-FU/LV arm. Capecitabine also demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits over bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of tolerability.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2001; 19(8):2282-92. · 18.43 Impact Factor
Show more