Drugs & Aging

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 113–133 | Cite as

Management of Colorectal Cancer in Elderly Patients

Focus on the Cost of Chemotherapy
  • Matthew J. Matasar
  • Vijaya Sundararajan
  • Victor R. Grann
  • Alfred I. Neugut
Review Article

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.

Notes

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).

References

  1. 1.
    Vercelli M, Quaglia A, Casella C, et al. Relative survival in elderly cancer patients in Europe. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 2264–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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: 37–43Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller BA, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, et al., editors. SEER cancer statistics review: 1973–1990. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute, 1993Google Scholar
  4. 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. 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: 2766–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer progress report 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://progressreport.cancer.gov [Accessed 2003 Oct 7]
  7. 7.
    Goldman L, Gordon DJ, Rifkind BM, et al. Cost and health implications of cholesterol lowering. Circulation 1992; 85: 1960–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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: 291–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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: 271–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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: 963–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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: 2176–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fielding LP, Phillips RKS, Hittinger R. Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet 1989; 8638: 595–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newcomb PA, Carbone PP. Cancer treatment and age: patient perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1580–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irvin TT. Prognosis of colorectal cancer in the elderly. Br J Surg 1988; 75: 419–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shankar A, Taylor I. Treatment of colorectal cancer in patients aged over 75. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998; 24: 391–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group. Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a systematic review. Lancet 2000; 356: 968–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: 382–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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: 51–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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: 99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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: 321–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Briunvels DJ, Stiggelbrut AM, Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 174–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lautenbach E, Forde KA, Neugut AI. Benefits of colonoscopic surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 206–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ovaska J, Larvinen H, Kujari H, et al. Follow-up of patients operated on for colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 1990; 159: 593–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Makela J, Laitinen S, Kairaluoma I. Early results of follow-up after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol 1992; 1: 157–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tornqvist A, Ekelund G, Leandoer L. The value of intensive follow-up after curative resection for colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1982; 69: 725–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosen M, Chan L, Beart RW, et al. Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 1116–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Virgo KS, Vernava AM, Longo WE, et al. Cost of patient follow-up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment. JAMA 1995; 273(23): 1837–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Graham RA, Wamg S, Catalano PJ, et al. Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 59–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Castells A, Bessa X, Daniels M, et al. Value of postoperative surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 714–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 28–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Macdonald JS, Astrow AB. Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 30–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stockholm Rectal Cancer Study Group. Preoperative short-term radiation therapy in operable rectal cancer. Cancer 1990; 64: 49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buyse M, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Chalmers TC. Adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer: why we still don’t know. JAMA 1988; 259: 3571–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Improved survival with preoperative radiotherapy in resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 980–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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: 2042–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: 564–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: 11330–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 709–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 40.
    Tannock F. Treatment of cancer with radiation and drugs. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 3156–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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: 737–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolmark N, Fisher B, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or BCG for colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80: 30–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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: 569–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: 1879–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    NIH Consensus Conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 1990; 264: 1444–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stein BN, Petrelli NJ, Douglass HO, et al. Age and sex are independent predictors of 5-fluorouracil toxicity. Cancer 1995; 75: 11–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Forman WB. The role of chemotherapy and adjuvant therapy in the management of colorectal cancer. Cancer 1995; 74: 2151–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Samet J, Hunt WC, Key C, et al. Choice of cancer therapy varies with age of patient. JAMA 1986; 255: 3385–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jessup JM, McGinnis LS, Steele GD, et al. The national cancer database: report on colon cancer. Cancer 1996; 78: 918–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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: 213–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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: 1447–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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: 246–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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: 352–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dubé S, Heyen F, Jeicek M. Adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 35–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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: 3553–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 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: 1588–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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: 896–903Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ragnhammar P, Hafström L, Nygren P, et al. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 282–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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: 118–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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: 808–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 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: 371–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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: 2412–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 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: 1091–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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: 1640–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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: 424–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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: 65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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: 319–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 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: 294–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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: 300–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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: S13–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Graf W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of palliative chemotherapy in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 267–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 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): 1241–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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: 1105–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 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: 252–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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: 790–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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: 9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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: 1128–35Google Scholar
  78. 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: 2910–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 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: 786–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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: 1413–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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: 1407–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 905–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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: 144–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Van Custem E, Douillard JY. Toxicity of irinotecan in patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1351–2Google Scholar
  85. 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: 157–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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: 2977–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 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: 2282–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 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: 60Google Scholar
  89. 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: 2938–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 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: 681–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Blackledge G. New developments in cancer treatment with the novel thymidylate synthase inhibitor raltitrexed (’Tomudex’). Br J Cancer 1998; 77Suppl. 2: 29–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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: 1945–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Cunningam D. Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed (‘Tomudex’). Br J Cancer 1998; 77Suppl. 2: 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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): 1323–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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): 1555–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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): 665–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 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: 128–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Matasar
    • 1
  • Vijaya Sundararajan
    • 2
  • Victor R. Grann
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Alfred I. Neugut
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, New College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive MedicineMonash Medical SchoolMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations