Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Feb;23(2):139-45.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-007-0382-z. Epub 2007 Oct 2.

Capecitabine vs continuous infusion 5-FU in neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer. A retrospective review

M W Saif  1 , Shahrukh Hashmi, Daniel Zelterman, Khaldoun Almhanna, Richard Kim
Affiliations
Review

Capecitabine vs continuous infusion 5-FU in neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer. A retrospective review

M W Saif et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is concurrent neo-adjuvant chemo-radiation using infusional 5-fluorouracil (CIV-5-FU). Capecitabine (CAP) offers a convenient oral replacement for CIV-5-FU. There is no randomized trial comparing infusional 5-FU to capecitabine. We retrospectively compared the safety and efficacy of CAP-based regimens with well-established CIV-5-FU-based regimens in LARC.

Materials and methods: We collected published data on 542 patients treated on either CIV-5-FU (197) or CAP (345) with concurrent radiation (external radiation treatment, XRT) for LARC. This included Phase I or II studies published or available from Pubmed. Safety was assessed by determining proportion of patients who experienced grade III/IV adverse effects. Efficacy was assessed by determining pathological complete response (pCR). Chi-square tests were used to compare the two regimens. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical tests were further corrected for multiplicity using the method of Benjamini and Yekutieli (Ann Stat, 29(4):1165-1188, 2001).

Results: pCR was significantly higher in patients getting CAP vs CIV-5-FU (25 vs 13%; P = 0.008,.P adj = 0.034). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. There was no grade IV toxicity reported. Grade III hand foot syndrome was more common in the CAP group, and grade III diarrhea was more common in the CIV group.

Conclusions: CAP when compared to CIV seems to have superior efficacy with reasonable toxicities. It is reasonable to treat LARC with CAP + XRT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Aug 30;30(1):169-75 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 1;23(7):1350-7 - PubMed
    1. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2000;45(4):291-7 - PubMed
    1. Br J Cancer. 2005 Apr 11;92(7):1215-20 - PubMed
    1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jul 15;44(5):1027-38 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources