Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Management of Colorectal Cancer in Elderly Patients

Focus on the Cost of Chemotherapy

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The treatment of colorectal cancer has evolved dramatically over the last 15 years. Advances in surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have enabled oncologists to cure more patients and offer improved quality of life to patients not amenable to cure. Specific knowledge of colorectal cancer care of the elderly, while lagging behind the treatment of younger patients, is beginning to emerge. Informed by recent trials, the approach towards elderly patients is shifting towards more aggressive treatment and multimodal therapy. Surgeons are operating on the elderly with greater frequency, less operative mortality and greater success; 5-year survival following potentially curative surgery has risen from 50% to 67%.

Research of adjunctive therapy for colorectal cancer is enrolling more elderly patients, and with this has come an understanding of the role of chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of the elderly, used individually and within multi-drug regimens. This research offers insight into how the elderly respond to chemotherapy, informing clinicians on anticipated benefits and toxicities of treatment. Fluorouracil-based regimens, which have long been the standard adjuvant chemotherapy, have been shown to offer benefits to the elderly compared with those not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (71% versus 64% 5-year survival), and to cause similar toxicities as seen in younger patients. The role of novel chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of elderly patients with colorectal cancer is also emerging, with studies finding that irinotecan, in combination with a fluorouracil-based regimen, can offer a further survival benefit of over 2 months compared with fluorouracil alone. While newer agents such as capecitabine, oxaliplatin, raltitrexed and tegafur/uracil (UFT) have been focused upon by clinical researchers, data on their use in the elderly remain unconvincing.

Not only are we approaching a clearer understanding of the effectiveness of cancer care among the elderly, but research is also beginning to identify the cost effectiveness of both standard and emerging chemotherapeutic agents. Cost effectiveness of fluorouracil-based regimens, depending on delivery strategy, use of modulating agents and stage of cancer vary from $US2000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to $US20 200 per QALY (1992 values). Irinotecan therapy has not been fully investigated from the perspective of cost effectiveness; the figure of $10 000 per QALY (1998 values) for irinotecan monotherapy over fluorouracil regimens is likely an underestimate, while cost analysis of irinotecan and fluorouracil combination therapy has not yet been reported. Our understanding of cost effectiveness of other novel agents has lagged behind; further research on these agents is needed. Nonetheless, as the effects of these novel agents upon both outcomes and costs continue to be defined, both curative and palliative treatment of colorectal cancer in the elderly patient will become more sophisticated and effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table I
Fig. 4
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vercelli M, Quaglia A, Casella C, et al. Relative survival in elderly cancer patients in Europe. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 2264–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Furner SE, Brody JA, Jankowski LM: Epidemiology and aging. In: Cassel CK, Cohen HJ, Larson EB, et al., editors. Geriatric medicine. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Springer, 1997: 37–43

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miller BA, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, et al., editors. SEER cancer statistics review: 1973–1990. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National program of cancer registries: background [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/uscs/report/technical_notes/background.htm [Accessed 2003 Oct 7]

  5. Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1999, featuring implications of age and aging on US cancer burden. Cancer 2002; 94: 2766–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Cancer Institute. Cancer progress report 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://progressreport.cancer.gov [Accessed 2003 Oct 7]

  7. Goldman L, Gordon DJ, Rifkind BM, et al. Cost and health implications of cholesterol lowering. Circulation 1992; 85: 1960–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Violi V, Pietra N, Grattarola M, et al. Curative surgery for colorectal cancer: long-term results and life expectancy in the elderly. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 291–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wingo PA, Gloeckler Ries LA, Parker SL, et al. Long-term cancer patient survival in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998; 7: 271–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Arveux I, Boutron MC, Mrini TE, et al. Colon cancer in the elderly: evidence for major improvements in health care and survival. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 963–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gatta G, Faivre J, Capocaccia R, et al. Survival of colorectal cancer patients in Europe during the period 1978–1989. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 2176–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fielding LP, Phillips RKS, Hittinger R. Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet 1989; 8638: 595–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Newcomb PA, Carbone PP. Cancer treatment and age: patient perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1580–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Irvin TT. Prognosis of colorectal cancer in the elderly. Br J Surg 1988; 75: 419–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shankar A, Taylor I. Treatment of colorectal cancer in patients aged over 75. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998; 24: 391–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group. Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a systematic review. Lancet 2000; 356: 968–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Audisio RA, Cazzaniga M, Robertson C, et al. Elective surgery for colorectal cancer in the aged: a clinical-economical evaluation. Br J Cancer 1997; 78: 382–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson H, Weeks J, Wieand HS. Proposed phase III trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1995; 19: 51–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stead ML, Brown JM, Bodanquet N, et al. Assessing the relative costs of standard open surgery and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer in a randomized controlled trial in the United Kingdom. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2000; 33: 99–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weeks J, Nelson H, Gelber S, et al. Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2002; 287: 321–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Briunvels DJ, Stiggelbrut AM, Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 174–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lautenbach E, Forde KA, Neugut AI. Benefits of colonoscopic surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 206–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ovaska J, Larvinen H, Kujari H, et al. Follow-up of patients operated on for colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 1990; 159: 593–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Makela J, Laitinen S, Kairaluoma I. Early results of follow-up after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol 1992; 1: 157–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tornqvist A, Ekelund G, Leandoer L. The value of intensive follow-up after curative resection for colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1982; 69: 725–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosen M, Chan L, Beart RW, et al. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 1116–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Virgo KS, Vernava AM, Longo WE, et al. Cost of patient follow-up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment. JAMA 1995; 273(23): 1837–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Graham RA, Wamg S, Catalano PJ, et al. Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 59–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Castells A, Bessa X, Daniels M, et al. Value of postoperative surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 714–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ketteniß M, Schütz G, Ulrich B. Costs and efficiency of a tumor follow-up program for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2001; 16: 28–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Macdonald JS, Astrow AB. Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 30–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Stockholm Rectal Cancer Study Group. Preoperative short-term radiation therapy in operable rectal cancer. Cancer 1990; 64: 49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Buyse M, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Chalmers TC. Adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer: why we still don’t know. JAMA 1988; 259: 3571–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Improved survival with preoperative radiotherapy in resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 980–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Treurniet-Donker AD, van Putten WLJ, Wereldsma JCJ, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer: an interim analysis of a preoperative randomized multicenter trial in the Netherlands. Cancer 1991; 67: 2042–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Jansson Frykholm GH, Flimelius B, Påhlman L. Preoperative and postoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of the rectum: final treatment results of a randomized trial and an evaluation of late secondary effects. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 564–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tveit KM, Guldvog I, Hagen S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy and shortterm time-scheduled 5-fluorouracil against surgery alone in the treatment of Dukes B and C rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 11330–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 709–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. National Cancer Institute. Colon cancer (PDQ®): treatment [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/treatment/colon/healthprofessional/ [Accessed 2003 Oct 7]

  40. Tannock F. Treatment of cancer with radiation and drugs. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 3156–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hafstrom L, Domellof L, Rudenstam CM, et al. Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer: results of a prospectively randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 737–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolmark N, Fisher B, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or BCG for colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80: 30–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Windle R, Bell PR, Shaw D. Five year results of a randomized trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and levamisole in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 569–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wolmark N, Rockette H, Fisher B, et al. The benefit of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-03. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1879–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. NIH Consensus Conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 1990; 264: 1444–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stein BN, Petrelli NJ, Douglass HO, et al. Age and sex are independent predictors of 5-fluorouracil toxicity. Cancer 1995; 75: 11–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Forman WB. The role of chemotherapy and adjuvant therapy in the management of colorectal cancer. Cancer 1995; 74: 2151–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Samet J, Hunt WC, Key C, et al. Choice of cancer therapy varies with age of patient. JAMA 1986; 255: 3385–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Jessup JM, McGinnis LS, Steele GD, et al. The national cancer database: report on colon cancer. Cancer 1996; 78: 918–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sundararajan V, Grann VR, Jacobson JS, et al. Variations in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive colorectal cancer in the elderly: a population-based study. Cancer J 2001; 7: 213–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Laurie JA, Moertel CG, Fleming TR, et al. Surgical adjuvant therapy of large-bowel carcinoma: an evaluation of levamisole and the combination of levamisole and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 1447–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Connell MJ, Mailliard JA, Kahn MJ, et al. Controlled trial of fluorouracil and low-dose leucovorin given for 6 months as postoperative adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 246–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Moertel C, Fleming T, Macdonald JS, et al. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 352–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Dubé S, Heyen F, Jeicek M. Adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wolmark N, Rockette H, Mamounas E, et al. Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3553–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. QUASAR Collaborative Group. Comparison of fluorouracil with additional levamisole, higher-dose folinic acid, or both, as adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 1588–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Advanced Colorectal Meta-Analysis Project. Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: evidence in terms of response rate. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 896–903

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ragnhammar P, Hafström L, Nygren P, et al. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 282–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Caudry M, Bonnel C, Floquet A, et al. A randomized study of bolus fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus 21-day fluorouracil infusion alone or in association with cyclophosphamide and mitomycin C in advanced colorectal carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 1995; 18: 118–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. de Gramont A, Bosset JF, Milan C, et al. Randomized trial comparing monthly low-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus with bimonthly high-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus plus continuous infusion for advanced colorectal cancer: French Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 808–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cascinu S, Del Ferro E, Catalano G. Toxicity and therapeutic response to chemotherapy in patients aged 70 years or older with advanced cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1996; 19: 371–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Popescu RA, Norman A, Ross PJ, et al. Adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in patients 70 years or older. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2412–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sargent DJ, Goldberg RM, Jacobson SD, et al. A pooled analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1091–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Daniele B, Simmonds PD, Best LY, et al. Current controversies in cancer: should chemotherapy be used as a treatment of advanced colorectal carcinoma (ACC) in patients over 70 years of age? Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1640–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Brown ML, Nayfield SG, Shibley LM. Adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: economics returns to research and cost-effectiveness of treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 424–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Norum J, Vonen B, Olsen JA, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes’ B and C colorectal carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith RD, Hall J, Gurney H, et al. A cost-utility approach to the use of 5-fluorouracil and levamisole as adjuvant chemotherapy for Dukes’ C colonic carcinoma. Med J Aust 1993; 158: 319–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Lokich JL, Moore CL, Anderson NR. Comparison of costs for infusion versus bolus chemotherapy administration: analysis of five standard chemotherapy regimens in three common tumors: Part I. model projections for cost based on charges. Cancer 1996; 78: 294–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lokich JL, Moore CL, Anderson NR. Comparison of costs for infusion versus bolus chemotherapy administration: Part II. use of charges versus reimbursement for cost basis. Cancer 1996; 78: 300–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Ross P, Heron J, Cunningham D. Cost of treating advanced colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison of treatment regimens. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32ASuppl. 5: S13–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Graf W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of palliative chemotherapy in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 267–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Scheele J, Stangl R, Altendorf-Hofmann A. Hepatic metastasis from colorectal carcinoma: impact of surgical resection on the natural history. Br J Surg 1990; 77(11): 1241–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Steele G, Bleday R, Mayer RJ, et al. A prospective evaluation of hepatic resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1105–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Reappraisal of hepatic arterial infusion in the treatment of nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 252–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Durand-Zaleski I, Roche B, Buyse M, et al. Economic implications of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in treatment of nonresectable colorectal liver metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 790–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Anderson H, Palmer MK. Measuring quality of life: impact of chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: experience from two recent large phase III trials. Br J Cancer 1998; 77Suppl. 2: 9–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Rothenberg ML, Eckardt JR, Kuhn JG, et al. Phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with progressive or rapidly recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 13: 1128–35

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pitot HC, Wender DB, O’Connell MJ, et al. Phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2910–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Rothenberg ML, Cox JV, DeVore RF, et al. A multicenter, phase II trial of weekly irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with previously treated colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 85: 786–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Cunningham D, Pyrhönen S, James R, et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 1413–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998; 352: 1407–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 905–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sargent DJ, Niedzwiecki D, O’Connell MJ, et al. Recommendation for caution with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 144–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Van Custem E, Douillard JY. Toxicity of irinotecan in patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1351–2

    Google Scholar 

  85. Levy-Piedbois C, Durand-Zaleski I, Juhel H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment with irinotecan or infusional 5-fluorouracil in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 157–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Mackean M, Planting A, Twelves C, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of intermittent twice-daily oral therapy with capecitabine in patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2977–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Hoff PM, Ansari R, Batist G, et al. Comparison of oral capecitabine versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment in 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 2282–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Hoff PM. Capecitabine as first-line treatment for colorectal cancer: integrated results of 1207 patients from 2 randomized, phase III studies [abstract 263PD]. On behalf of the Capecitabine CRC Study Group. Ann Oncol 2000; 11Suppl. 4: 60

    Google Scholar 

  89. de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al. Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2938–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Levi F, Zidani R, Misset JL. Randomised multicentre trial of chronotherapy with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and folinic acid in metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1997; 350: 681–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Blackledge G. New developments in cancer treatment with the novel thymidylate synthase inhibitor raltitrexed (’Tomudex’). Br J Cancer 1998; 77Suppl. 2: 29–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Cunningham D, Zalcberg JR, Rath U, et al. ‘Tomudex’ (ZD1694): results of a randomised trial in advanced colorectal cancer demonstrate efficacy and reduced mucositis and leucopenia. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1945–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Cunningam D. Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed (‘Tomudex’). Br J Cancer 1998; 77Suppl. 2: 15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Cornelia P, De Vita F, Mancarella S, et al. Biweekly irinotecan or raltitrexed plus 6S-leucovorin and bolus 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal carcinoma: a Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group phase II–III randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2000; 11(10): 1323–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Maughan TS, James RD, Kerr DJ, et al. Comparison of survival, palliation, and quality of life with three chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359(9317): 1555–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Kim DJ, Kim TI, Suh JH, et al. Oral tegafur-uracil plus folinic acid versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid as adjuvant chemotherapy of colon cancer. Yonsei Med J 2003; 44(4): 665–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Murad A, de Andrade CA, Delfino C, et al. A pharmacoeconomic comparison of UFT and 5-FU chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in South America. Oncology (Huntingt) 1997; 11Suppl. 10: 128–35

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was supported in part by funding from the American Cancer Society (RSGHP - 01 - 024 - 01 - CCE). Dr Neugut is the recipient of a K05 award from the National Cancer Institute (CA89155).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, New College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, USA

    Matthew J. Matasar, Victor R. Grann &  Alfred I. Neugut

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash Medical School, Melbourne, Australia

    Vijaya Sundararajan

  3. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, USA

    Victor R. Grann &  Alfred I. Neugut

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA

    Victor R. Grann &  Alfred I. Neugut

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Matasar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijaya Sundararajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor R. Grann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alfred I. Neugut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfred I. Neugut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matasar, M.J., Sundararajan, V., Grann, V.R. et al. Management of Colorectal Cancer in Elderly Patients. Drugs Aging 21, 113–133 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200421020-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200421020-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation