This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Borner, M. Articles by Wilke, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Borner, M. Articles by Wilke, H.

Answering Patients' Needs: Oral Alternatives to Intravenous Therapy

^a University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; ^b Vienna University Medical School, Vienna, Austria; ^c Cancer Research Campaign Department of Medical Oncology, University of Glasgow, and Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, UK; ^d Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Canada; ^e Department of Internal Medicine and Oncology/Hematology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany

Correspondence: Markus Borner, M.D., Institute of Medical Oncology, Inselspital, Berne 3010, Switzerland. Telephone: 41-31-632-2111; Fax: 41-31-382-1237; e-mail: markus.borner{at}insel.ch

Metastatic colorectal cancer has traditionally been treated with i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), with or without leucovorin (LV). 5-FU is administered as either an i.v. bolus or a protracted infusion. Although schedules using the latter method offer efficacy benefits (objective response rate, time to disease progression), protracted infusion schedules are often associated with medical complications, inconvenience, high costs, and poor quality of life. Issues such as quality of life and convenience have influenced treatment decisions, but the availability of oral fluoropyrimidines represents a new development in this domain.

Studies have confirmed that the majority of patients prefer oral to i.v. chemotherapy. Questionnaire-based studies have also demonstrated a preference for home-based rather than hospital-/clinicbased therapy. This preference was one of the driving forces behind the development of the oral fluoropyrimidines capecitabine (Xeloda^®) and uracil plus tegafur (UFT). Oral agents offer patients a more convenient treatment option that can be administered at home, providing patients with a greater sense of control over their therapy, while avoiding the medical complications and psychological distress associated with venous access.

This article highlights some of the problems associated with i.v. therapy and reviews the available data on patient preference, including results of a recent, randomized, phase II study. It also provides a critical evaluation of the efficacy and safety profiles of the only two oral fluoropyrimidines approved for prescription, capecitabine and UFT/LV (UFT/LV not available in Germany and the U.S.), compared with those of two infused, 5-FU-based regimens. Finally, the results of an interactive debate exploring the opinions of approximately 400 oncologists on the issues of oral versus i.v. therapy are presented.

Key Words. Capecitabine • 5-FU • Colorectal cancer • Fluoropyrimidines • UFT • Oral

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Meyerhardt, A. X. Zhu, P. C. Enzinger, D. P. Ryan, J. W. Clark, M. H. Kulke, C. C. Earle, M. Vincitore, A. Michelini, S. Sheehan, et al. Phase II Study of Capecitabine, Oxaliplatin, and Erlotinib in Previously Treated Patients With Metastastic Colorectal Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 20, 2006; 24(12): 1892 - 1897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Fallowfield, L. Atkins, S. Catt, A. Cox, C. Coxon, C. Langridge, R. Morris, and M. Price Patients' preference for administration of endocrine treatments by injection or tablets: results from a study of women with breast cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2006; 17(2): 205 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Rich, R. C. Shepard, and S. T. Mosley Four Decades of Continuing Innovation With Fluorouracil: Current and Future Approaches to Fluorouracil Chemoradiation Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2004; 22(11): 2214 - 2232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]