Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Irinotecan in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Irinotecan exerts its cytotoxic activity through inhibition of the nuclear enzyme topoisomerase I. It has been approved in most countries worldwide for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Activity is seen in previously untreated patients and in patients refractory to fluorouracil treatment, whether it is given alone or in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. Irinotecan was first developed in patients refractory to fluorouracil. Activity in terms of tumour responses and patient benefit was seen in several phase II trials that used either a weekly or a three-weekly schedule. In two randomised trials (irinotecan vs best supportive care, and irinotecan vs an infused fluorouracil-based regimen), irinotecan prolonged median survival by approximately 2.5 months without any deterioration in quality-of-life. It was later studied in previously untreated patients with advanced CRC in combination with fluorouracil/folinic acid (leucovorin). In three large randomised trials, median time to tumour progression was prolonged by approximately 2.5 months and overall survival by about 2.5 months compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid alone. Tumour responses were also seen more frequently in the irinotecan arm (35–40% vs 20%). Again, quality-of-life scores were not deteriorated by the addition of irinotecan.

Irinotecan has many acute adverse effects. The most prominent and dose limiting being diarrhoea and neutropenia. With irinotecan monotherapy, diarrhoea was seen in 80% of patients and severe grade 3 to 4 diarrhoea occurred in 30–40% of the patients. The severity of diarrhoea can be diminished by preventive actions. Less risk of diarrhoea is generally seen when irinotecan is combined with fluorouracil. Neutropenia is generally short-lived, but may be severe if diarrhoea is also present. This has been noticed particularly when irinotecan has been given in combination with a bolus fluorouracil/folinic acid regimen. Other toxicities include acute cholinergic-like symptoms, nausea and vomiting, and alopecia. In spite of these adverse effects, irinotecan has been accepted as an important first-line treatment for patients with advanced CRC, in combination with, preferably, an infused fluorouracil-based regimen, and has been approved for use as monotherapy in the second-line indication.

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

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang JC. DNA topoisomerases. Annu Rev Biochem 1985; 54: 665–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyle P, Leon ME. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull 2002; 64: 1–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Penna C, Nordlinger B. Surgery and local treatments of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: how to improve results. Scand J Surg 2003; 92(1): 90–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Glimelius B. Palliative treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Scand J Surg 2003; 92: 74–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group. Palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 531–5

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Efficacy of intravenous continuous infusion of fluorouracil compared with bolus administration in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 301–8

    Google Scholar 

  8. Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project. Meta-analysis of randomized trials testing the biochemical modulation of fluorouracil by methotrexate in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 960–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. Advanced Colorectal Cancer 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 

  10. 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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nygren P, Glimelius B. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) report on cancer chemotherapy: project objectives, the working process, key definitions and general aspects on cancer trial methodology and interpretation. Acta Oncol 2001; 40(2-3): 155–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Di Leo A, Buyse M, Bleiberg H. Is overall survival a realistic primary end point in advanced colorectal cancer studies?: a critical assessment based on four clinical trials comparing fluorouracil plus leucovorin with the same treatment combined either with oxaliplatin or with CPT-11. Ann Oncol 2004; 15(4): 545–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grothey A, Sargent D, Goldberg RM, et al. Survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer improves with the availability of fluorouracil-leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in the course of treatment. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(7): 1209–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 1990; 300(6737): 1458–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Consensus Statement. Cytostatic drug treatment in advanced cancer. MFR, Spri, Stockholm 1990

  16. Norges Offentliga Utredningar. Omsorg og kunnskap (care and knowledge) [in Norwegian]. Norsk Kreftplan 1997. NOU 197: 20

  17. Ragnhammar P, Brorsson B, Nygren P, et al. A prospective study of the use of chemotherapy in Sweden and assessment of the use in relation to scientific evidence. Acta Oncol 2001; 40(2-3): 391–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Iveson TJ, Hickish T, Schmitt C, et al. Irinotecan in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: improved survival and cost-effect compared with infusional FU. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35(13): 1796–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Cunningham D, Falk S, Jackson D. Clinical and economic benefits of irinotecan in combination with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid as first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2002; 86(11): 1677–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(2): 157–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Cattel F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2000; 11(7): 899–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nicholls RJ, Cassidy J, Freemantle N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy (oxaliplatin or irinotecan in combination with FU/FA) compared to FU/FA alone. J Med Econ 2001; 4: 115–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karlsson G, Nygren P, Glimelius B. Economic aspects of chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 412–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Scott LC, Twelves-C. Cost-effective strategies in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Cancer 2003; 2: 111–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumour Adjuvant Therapy Group. Expectancy or primary chemotherapy in patients with advanced asymptomatic colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 904–11

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moertel CG. Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. New Engl J Med 1994; 16: 1136–42

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sobrero AF, Aschele C, Bertino JR. Fluorouracil in colorectal cancer: a tale of two drugs. Implications for biochemical modulation. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 368–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Streit M, Jaehde U, Stremetzne S, et al. Five-day continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil and pulsed folinic acid in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: an effective second-line regimen. Ann Oncol 1997; 8(11): 163–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rougier P, Bugat R, Douillard JY, et al. Phase II study of irinotecan in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in chemotherapy-naive patients and patients pretreated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(1): 251–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Conti JA, Kemeny NE, Saltz LB, et al. Irinotecan is an active agent in untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(3): 709–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(8): 2910–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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; 14(4): 1128–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Cutsem E, Cunningham D, Ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. Clinical activity and benefit of irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with colorectal cancer truly resistant to 5-fluorouracil (FU). Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 54–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cunningham D, Pyrhonen S, James RD, 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 

  37. 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 

  38. Glimelius B. Quality of life and methodology in colorectal cancer studies. In: Bleiberg H, Kemeny N, Rougier P, Wilke H-J, editors. Colorectal cancer: a clinical guide to therapy. London: Martin Dunitz Publishers,2002: 673–82

    Google Scholar 

  39. Conroy T, Bleiberg H, Glimelius B. Quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: what has been learnt? Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 287–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lindblad AK, Ring L, Glimelius B, et al. Focus on the individual: quality of life assessments in oncology. Acta Oncol 2002; 41: 507–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rougier P, Lepille D, Bennouna J, et al. Antitumour activity of three second-line treatment combinations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after optimal FU regimen failure: a randomised, multicentre phase II study. Ann Oncol 2002; 13(10): 1558–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fuchs CS, Moore MR, Harker G, et al. Phase III comparison of two irinotecan dosing regimens in second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(5): 807–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tsavaris N, Ziras N, Kosmas C, et al. Two different schedules of irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma relapsing after a 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin combination: a randomized study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2003; 52(6): 514–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Maiello E, Gebbia V, Giuliani F, et al. 5-Fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without CPT-11 in advanced colorectal cancer patients: a multicenter randomised phase II study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 2000; 11(8): 1045–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000; 355(9209): 1041–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(13): 905–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Köhne C-H, Van Cutsem E, Wils JA, et al. Irinotecan improves the activity of the AIO regimen in metastatic colorecal cancer: results of EORTC GI Group study 40986 [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 1018

    Google Scholar 

  48. Comella P, Crucitta E, De Vita F, et al. Addition of either irinotecan or methotrexate to bolus 5-fluorouracil and high-dose folinic acid every 2 weeks in advanced colorectal carcinoma: a randomised study by the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol 2002; 13(6): 866–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(16): 2938–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Giacchetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(1): 136–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(1): 23–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Tournigand C, Andre T, Achille E, et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(2): 229–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Colucci G, Maiello E, Gebbia V, et al. Preliminary results of a randomized multicenter trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale (GOIM) comparing FOLFIRI vs FOLFOX in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) patients [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 1021

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bouzid K, Khalfallah S, Tujakowski J, et al. A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan in combination with infusional or two different bolus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid regimens as first-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(7): 1106–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Glimelius B, Ristamaki R, Kjaer M, et al. Irinotecan combined with bolus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid Nordic schedule as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2002; 13(12): 1868–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Falcone A, Di Paolo A, Masi G, et al. Sequence effect of irinotecan and fluorouracil treatment on pharmacokinetics and toxicity in chemotherapy-naive metastatic colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(15): 3456–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Grothey A, Jordan K, Kellner O, et al. Randomized phase II trial of capecitabine plus irinotecan (CapIri) vs capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapOx) as first-line therapy of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22: 255, 1022

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bajetta E, Di Bartolomeo M, Mariani L, et al. Randomized multicenter Phase II trial of two different schedules of irinotecan combined with capecitabine as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100(2): 279–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Patt YZ, Leibmann J, Diamandidis D, et al. Capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) in first line metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): update on a phase II trial [abstract]. Eur J Cancer Suppl ECCO 12 2003; 1(5): 304

    Google Scholar 

  60. Petrioli R, Sabatino M, Fiaschi AI, et al. UFT/leucovorin and oxaliplatin alternated with UFT/leucovorin and irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2004; 90(2): 306–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Aranda E, Carrato A, Cervantes A, et al. Phase I/II trial of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil (TTD regimen) as first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2004; 15(4): 559–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kalofonos HP, Skarlos D, Bafaloukos D, et al. A phase II study with CPT-11 plus leucovorin and bolus IV 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Invest 2003; 21(6): 855–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rothenberg ML, Oza AM, Bigelow RH, et al. Superiority of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil-leucovorin compared with either therapy alone in patients with progressive colorectal cancer after irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin: interim results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(11): 2059–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Satoh R, Hosokawa M, Atsumi R, et al. Metabolic activation of CPT-11, 7-ethyl-10-[4- (1-piperidino]carbonyloxycamptothecin, an novel antitumor agent, by carboxylesterase. Biol Pharm Bull 1994; 17: 662–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Iyer L, Hall D, Das S, et al. Phenotype-genotype correlation of in vitro SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan) and bilirubin glucuronidation in human liver tissue with UGT1A1 promoter polymorphism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 65(5): 576–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sugiyama Y, Kato Y, Chu X. Multiplicity of biliary excretion mechanisms for the camptothecin derivative irinotecan (CPT-11), its metabolite SN-38, and its glucuronide: role of canalicular multispecific organic anion transporter and P-glycoprotein. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1998; 42Suppl.: S44–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Chu XY, Kato Y, Ueda K, et al. Biliary excretion mechanism of CPT-11 and its metabolites in humans: involvement of primary active transporters. Cancer Res 1998; 58(22): 5137–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Ahmed F, Vyas V, Cornfield A, et al. In vitro activation of irinotecan to SN-38 by human liver and intestine. Anticancer Res 1999; 19(3A): 2067–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Guichard S, Terret C, Hennebelle I, et al. CPT-11 converting carboxylesterase and topoisomerase activities in tumour and normal colon and liver tissues. Br J Cancer 1999; 80(3-4): 364–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kehrer DF, Yamamoto W, Verweij J, et al. Factors involved in prolongation of the terminal disposition phase of SN-38: clinical and experimental studies. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6(9): 3451–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Gupta E, Lestingi TM, Mick R, et al. Metabolic fate of irinotecan in humans: correlation of glucuronidation with diarrhea. Cancer Res 1994; 54(14): 3723–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Foxwell BM, Mackie A, Ling V, et al. Identification of the multidrug resistance-related P-glycoprotein as a cyclosporine binding protein. Mol Pharmacol 1989; 36(4): 543–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Gupta E, Safa AR, Wang X, et al. Pharmacokinetic modulation of irinotecan and metabolites by cyclosporin A. Cancer Res 1996; 56(6): 1309–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Freyer G, Rougier P, Bugat R, et al. Prognostic factors for tumour response, progression-free survival and toxicity in metastatic colorectal cancer patients given irinotecan (CPT-11) as second-line chemotherapy after 5FU failure. CPT-11 F205, F220, F221 and V222 Study Groups. Br J Cancer 2000; 83(4): 431–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Meyerhardt JA, Kwok A, Ratain MJ, et al. Relationship of baseline serum bilirubin to efficacy and toxicity of single-agent irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(8): 1439–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Ando Y, Saka H, Ando M, et al. Polymorphisms of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase gene and irinotecan toxicity: a pharmacogenetic analysis. Cancer Res 2000; 60(24): 6921–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Iyer L, Das S, Janisch L, et al. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism as a determinant of irinotecan disposition and toxicity. Pharmacogenomics J 2002; 2(1): 43–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Innocenti F, Undevia SD, Iyer L, et al. Genetic variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 gene predict the risk of severe neutropenia of irinotecan. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(8): 1382–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Negoro S, Fukuoka M, Masuda N, et al. Phase I study of weekly intravenous infusions of CPT-11, a new derivative of camptothecin, in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83(16): 1164–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Rothenberg ML, Kuhn JG, Burris III HA, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of weekly CPT-11. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(11): 2194–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Abigerges D, Chabot GG, Armand JP, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic studies of the camptothecin analog irinotecan administered every 3 weeks in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13(1): 210–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Merrouche Y, Extra JM, Abigerges D, et al. High dose-intensity of irinotecan administered every 3 weeks in advanced cancer patients: a feasibility study. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(3): 1080–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Ychou M, Raoul JL, Desseigne F, et al. High-dose, single-agent irinotecan as first-line therapy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2002; 50(5): 383–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Vieitez JM, Carrasco J, Esteban E, et al. Irinotecan in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in patients pretreated with Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy: a study to determine recommendable therapeutic dosage. Am J Clin Oncol 2003; 26(2): 107–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. van Cutsem E, Dirix L, Van Laethem J, et al. A randomized phase II trial of three different regimens of irnotecan (CPT-11): a fixed dose of 350 mg/m2 (A), or an individual dose optimisation (B), or a risk factor optimisation (C) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) previously treated with FU [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 244

    Google Scholar 

  86. Vanhoefer U, Harstrick A, Kohne CH, et al. Phase I study of a weekly schedule of irinotecan, high-dose leucovorin, and infusional fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(3): 907–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Gandia D, Abigerges D, Armand JP, et al. CPT-11-induced cholinergic effects in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(1): 196–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Wiseman LR, Markham A. Irinotecan: a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Drugs 1996; 52(4): 606–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Rothenberg ML, Meropol NJ, Poplin EA, et al. Mortality associated with irinotecan plus bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin: summary findings of an independent panel. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(18): 3801–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Kosmidis P, Skarlos D, Kouroussis C, et al. Benefit of Granocyte ® (lenogatrim) in patients treated with Campto® (CPT-11) in 1st or 2nd line metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): preliminary results of a phase III multicenter trial [abstract]. Proc Eur Soc Med Oncol 1998: 162

    Google Scholar 

  91. Stupp R, Focan C, Sessa C, et al. Prophylactic use of antibiotics during treatment with CPT-11 (Campto®) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): a randomized multicenter trial [abstract]. Proc Eur Soc Med Oncol 1998, 163

    Google Scholar 

  92. McLeod HL, Watters JW. Irinotecan pharmacogenetics: is it time to intervene? J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(8): 1356–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Van Cutsem E, Douillard JY, Kohne CH. Toxicity of irinotecan in patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(18): 1351–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Garcea G, Sharma RA, Dennison A, et al. Molecular biomarkers of colorectal carcinogenesis and their role in surveillance and early intervention. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39(8): 1041–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Van Cutsem E, Twelves C, Cassidy J, et al. Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a large phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 4097–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer Sr PJ, et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(7): 1201–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(4): 337–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(23): 2335–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Stockholm Cancer Foundation. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Uppsala University Hospital, SE-751 85, Uppsala, Sweden

    Bengt Glimelius

  2. Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Bengt Glimelius

Authors
  1. Bengt Glimelius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt Glimelius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glimelius, B. Benefit-Risk Assessment of Irinotecan in Advanced Colorectal Cancer. Drug-Safety 28, 417–433 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528050-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528050-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation