1Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; 2Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; 3Baptist Regional Cancer Institute, Jacksonville, FL; 4The Medical Center at the University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; 5Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; 6Glaxo Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Received 22 January 2001; revised 17 September 2001; accepted 4 October 2001.
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Conventional systemic chemotherapy currently available for patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma is ineffective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of eniluracil/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of patients with this highly refractory disease.
Patients and methods
This multicenter, open-label study evaluated a 28-day oral regimen of 5-FU (1 mg/m2 twice daily) plus the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitor, eniluracil (10 mg/m2 twice daily), in patients with chemotherapy-naive or anthracycline-refractory inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Results
A total of 36 patients enrolled into the study. No patient showed a confirmed partial or complete tumor response, although nine patients (25%) had a best response of stable disease. The median duration of progression-free survival was 9.6 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.110.6 weeks], and the median duration of overall survival was 32.7 weeks (95% CI 17.471.6 weeks). Eniluracil/5-FU was well tolerated. Diarrhea, the most frequent treatment-related non-hematological toxicity, occurred in 11 patients (31%). Hematological toxicities were infrequent and usually mild.
Conclusions
Eniluracil/5-FU as a 28-day oral outpatient regimen is well tolerated by patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma, although minimal activity was observed when given as monotherapy at the dose used in this study.
Key words: chemotherapy, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, eniluracil, 5-fluorouracil,inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) has minimal activity against hepatocellular carcinoma when given as a bolus agent [7]. Administration of 5-FU by continuous infusion is well tolerated and efficacious in treating patients with other cancers such as colon cancer [8], although continuous infusion regimens require a central line, which is inconvenient, expensive and potentially hazardous.
Eniluracil is an effective inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the principal enzyme in the degradative pathway of 5-FU [9]. Inactivation of DPD by eniluracil improves the oral bioavailability of 5-FU enabling oral dosing, and results in plasma concentrations of 5-FU comparable with those reported in the literature for intravenous infusion of 5-FU [10]. Eniluracil improves the pharmacokinetic profile of 5-FU resulting in more predictable plasma concentrations [10, 11] and increases the plasma half-life of 5-FU [11, 12].
The current study was based on the rationale that high DPD activity in the liver makes this organ the main site of 5-FU catabolism [13, 14], and inhibition of DPD activity by enil-uracil may therefore improve the efficacy of 5-FU in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. In support of this hypothesis, a study in patients with colorectal tumors showed that eniluracil completely inactivated tumoral DPD [15].
The primary objective of this study (Glaxo Wellcome study protocol FUMA2007) was to estimate the objective tumor response rate of a 28-day regimen of oral eniluracil/5-FU in patients with chemotherapy-naive or anthracycline-refractory, inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the duration of response, the duration of progression-free survival, the duration of overall survival and the toxicity profile of eniluracil/5-FU in this population.
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patients were excluded from the study if they had a history of additional malignancy, known central nervous system metastases, or signs or symptoms of encephalopathy. Patients were not allowed to enter the study if they had undergone major surgery in the 4 weeks before the first dose of study medication or received chemotherapy, biological therapy (3 weeks before), flucytosine, interferon, or hormonal therapy with an anti-androgen or anti-estrogen (2 weeks before). Patients were not eligible if they had had previous treatment with continuous infusion 5-FU, a non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen, or a chemotherapy regimen with more than one anthracycline. Additionally, patients were excluded for any of the following: hemoglobin <9 g/dl; granulocyte count <1500/mm3; platelet count <75 000/mm3; estimated creatinine clearance <50 ml/min; total bilirubin >3 times the upper limit of normal; international normalized ratio >2 for patients not receiving anti-coagulation therapy; unstable prothrombin times; or a change in dose of anti-coagulant in the 2 weeks before the first dose of study medication if receiving anti-coagulation therapy.
Study design
This was a multicenter, open-label phase II study conducted at 13 centers in the USA and two centers in Canada. The study started in February 1997 and was terminated early in August 1997. The study was conducted according to the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Internal Review Board/Ethics Committee at each of the institutions approved the study protocol.
Treatment schedules
Patients received 10 mg/m2 eniluracil and 1 mg/m2 5-FU (10:1 ratio of eniluracil/5-FU ) orally twice daily for the first 28 days of a 5-week treatment cycle. Patients continued treatment courses until disease progression or unmanageable toxicity. Glaxo Wellcome supplied study medication.
Dose modifications were made as previously described based on drug-related toxicities and the patients current creatinine clearance [16]. Patients requiring other anti-cancer therapy were not allowed to continue to receive treatment with eniluracil/5-FU. Patients were permitted to receive full supportive care during the study.
Efficacy assessments
The primary measure of efficacy was objective tumor response rate. Response definitions were adapted from criteria established by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) [17]. A complete response was defined as the complete disappearance of all measurable and evaluable disease and no new lesions on at least two consecutive assessments at least 4 weeks apart. All clinical signs and symptoms of cancer that were present at baseline must have disappeared, and there should have been no evidence of non-evaluable disease. A partial response was defined as the following on at least two consecutive assessments at least 4 weeks apart: 50% decrease in the sum of the products of perpendicular diameters of all measurable lesions; no progression of evaluable disease and no new lesions. Stable disease was defined as the absence of a complete response, a partial response, or progression. In this study, the minimum duration of disease stabilization that qualified for stable disease was
10 weeks; this was the time of the first scheduled patient reassessment. Disease progression was defined as any of the following: a 25% increase in the sum of products of all measurable lesions over the smallest sum observed; clear worsening of evaluable disease; reappearance of any lesion that had disappeared; appearance of any new lesion or site of cancer; or failure to return for evaluation due to death or deteriorating condition, unless either was clearly unrelated to cancer. Unknown was assigned if progression was not documented, and one or more measurable or evaluable sites were not assessed. Measurable disease, evaluable disease, and non-evaluable disease were classified according to standard SWOG definitions [17].
Patients were assessed for baseline disease within 2 weeks of starting the first dose of study medication by chest X-ray, abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. All other known areas of disease were assessed by X-ray, endoscopy, photography or physical examination. Patients received a bone scan within 6 weeks of the first dose of study medication. All sites of disease were monitored using the same method of assessment approximately every 10 weeks until disease progression.
The secondary measures of efficacy were durations of response, progression-free survival and overall survival. Serum -fetoprotein (AFP) levels were assessed pre-study and before each course until disease progression. Other efficacy measures included monitoring KPS and clinical signs and symptoms of cancer before each treatment course.
Safety assessments
Adverse events were graded according to SWOG toxicity criteria [17] and assessed by the investigator for their relationship to study medication. Hematology and clinical chemistry parameters were assessed regularly throughout the study. In addition, estimated creatinine clearance, urinalysis, prothrombin time and/or international normalized ratio were assessed.
Statistical analyses
Approximately 60 chemotherapy-naive patients and 43 patients with anthracycline-refractory disease were planned to be enrolled into separate strata. A sample size of 60 chemotherapy-naive patients was sufficient to estimate a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the true response rate with a maximum width of 25%. A sample size of 43 anthracycline-refractory patients was sufficient to estimate a 95% CI of the true response rate with a maximum width of 30%.
A two-stage design was used to determine whether sufficient activity was observed to warrant complete enrollment [18]. If no objective tumor responses among the first 19 evaluable patients in either stratum were observed, the probability of a response rate 15% was <5%, and the study was to be discontinued. Otherwise, enrollment was to continue in both strata to better estimate the response rate.
All patients in the intention-to-treat population were evaluated for safety and efficacy. This population was defined as any patient who received at least one dose of study medication. Response rate was also evaluated in a per-protocol (PP) population, which was defined as patients who received at least 75% of the total prescribed amount of study medication during course 1 (or a total of 21 days on which any amount of study medication was taken) and had a baseline disease assessment and at least one disease assessment at a later time point. Results were summarized for the entire population and for the two strata: chemotherapy-naive and anthracycline-refractory. Time-to-event parameters were analyzed using KaplanMeier product limit estimates.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Patient characteristics
Thirty-six patients were enrolled into this study: 32 patients were chemotherapy-naive, and four were anthracycline-refractory. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in the two strata and are summarized in Table 1. Eighteen patients had chronic liver disease at baseline; 14 had cirrhosis of the liver and four patients had hypersplenism. Previous therapies and surgery reported for hepatocellular carcinoma were liver transplantation (two patients), cryosurgery (two patients), embolization (two patients), surgery (two patients), percutaneous alcohol injection (one patient) and chemoembolization with mitomycin (one patient).
|
The overall best responses in each population and strata were similar. A summary of the overall best responses is shown in Table 2. No complete or partial responses were observed. Of the nine patients who had stable disease, five had a decrease of tumor burden (131%), three had an increase in tumor measurements (1218%) and one had no change in tumor measurements.
|
|
At baseline, 23 patients had signs and symptoms of cancer; the majority of signs and symptoms of cancer were grade 1 or 2 in intensity. During the study, signs and symptoms of cancer remained stable for the majority of patients; three patients had cancer signs and symptoms that worsened compared with baseline.
No patient with a best response of stable disease had a decrease in serum AFP of 50% that lasted >4 weeks.
Toxicity
The most frequently reported adverse events that were considered reasonably attributable to study medication are shown in Table 3. In total, 24 patients (67%) experienced at least one adverse event that was considered reasonably attributable to study medication (a total of 97 adverse events). The most frequently reported of these adverse events were diarrhea, malaise and fatigue, mucositis, nausea and skin rashes (Table 3). Nine patients (25%) had at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event considered reasonably attributable to study medication. Diarrhea was the most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 adverse event (Table 3).
|
|
Dosing results
The 36 patients received 129 courses of study medication. The median number of courses per patient was 2 (range 114). The median duration of treatment was 9.0 weeks (range 0.9 68.6 weeks). The extent of exposure to study medication was similar in the two strata.
Of the 129 courses, 57 (44%) were completed at the patients starting dose, and 76 (59%) were completed at the prescribed dose for that course. Fifty-three courses (41%) had dosing deviations: 11 courses (12%) were delayed, and of these, seven (8%) were delayed due to toxicity. Reasons for dosing deviations included patient non-compliance (7% of courses), diarrhea (3% of courses), granulocytopenia (2% of courses) and intercurrent illness (2% of courses).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
It is difficult to compare the efficacy results from the current trial with those of other studies performed in patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma mainly because of a lack of standardization of tumor response definitions. Some clinicians accept a reduction in serum AFP as evidence of tumor response, while others require a 50% radiographic reduction in tumor size. In the current study, the 28-day oral regimen of eniluracil/5-FU showed minimal activity in the patients using SWOG response criteria. 5-FU alone shows a response rate of only 5% in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma [7], although in combination with leucovorin, response rates of 028% have been reported [2123]. The use of eniluracil to inhibit hepatic DPD, therefore, does not appear to enhance 5-FU anti-tumor activity, suggesting that hepatocellular carcinoma is resistant to 5-FU for reasons other than high DPD activity. For example, resistance could be due to increased expression of thymidylate synthase [24].
During this study, most patients had stable signs and symptoms of cancer, and the KPS of most patients remained unchanged, which implies that the current dose of eniluracil/ 5-FU does not have an effect patients performance status. However, the low observed efficacy combined with the mild safety profile may also indicate that the dose of eniluracil/5-FU used in this study was suboptimal for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, although dose intensity is a less likely reason for lack of efficiency.
The overall median duration of survival of patients in this study was 32.7 weeks, almost twice the 1419 week survival seen in studies of 5-FU in combination with high-dose leucovorin [2123]. The median duration of stable disease of 19.6 weeks was comparable with that seen in other trials of 5-FU-based treatments. For example, the median duration of stable disease was 1224.7 weeks in studies using 5-FU and leucovorin [2123].
The most widely used single agent in patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma is doxorubicin, which produces a median response rate of 17% (range from 0% to 79%) and a median survival of 4 months [25]. Modifications of chemotherapy, including intrahepatic arterial infusion, chemoembolization, lipiodol and isolated hepatic perfusion have led to improved tumor responses but do not affect significantly overall survival [6, 26]. Radioimmunotherapy and conformal radiotherapy have no more than a marginal impact on patient outcome. Surgical innovations such as cryosurgery and percutaneous alcohol injection have not yet been shown to offer any survival advantage [27]. Clearly a need exists for better medical treatments of this highly refractory disease.
As a 28-day oral outpatient regimen, eniluracil/5-FU is well tolerated by patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma, although when given as monotherapy at the dose evaluated in this study, minimal activity was observed.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Okuda K. Early recognition of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1986; 6: 729738.[ISI][Medline]
3. Colombo M, de Franchis R, del Ninno E et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in Italian patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 675680.[Abstract]
4.
Sato Y, Nakata K, Kato Y et al. Early recognition of hepatocellular carcinoma based on altered profiles of alpha-fetoprotein. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 18021806.
5. Liu C-L, Fan S-T. Nonresectional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg 1997; 173: 358365.[ISI][Medline]
6. Mathurin P, Rixe O, Carbonell N et al. Overview of medical treatments in unresectable hepatocellular carcinomaan impossible meta-analysis? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12: 111126.
7. Luporini G, Labianca R, Pancera G. Medical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 1993; 3 (Suppl): 115118.
8. Huan S, Pazdur R, Singhakowinto A et al. Low dose continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil. Cancer 1989; 63: 419422.[ISI][Medline]
9. Spector T, Harrington JA, Porter DJT. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): inactivation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in vivo. Biochem Pharmacol 1993; 46: 22432248.[ISI][Medline]
10.
Baker SD, Diasio RB, OReilly S et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral fluorouracil on a chronic daily schedule in combination with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inactivator eniluracil. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 915926.
11. Schilsky RL, Hohneker J, Ratain MJ et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of eniluracil plus fluorouracil in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 14501457.[Abstract]
12. Baker SD, Khor SP, Adjei AA et al. Pharmacokinetic, oral bioavailability, and safety study of fluorouracil in patients treated with 776C85, an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 30853096.[Abstract]
13. Naguib FNM, el Kouni MH, Cha S. Enzymes of uracil catabolism in normal and neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 1985; 45: 54055412.[Abstract]
14. Ho DH, Townsend L, Luna MA, Bodey GP. Distribution and inhibition of dihydrouracil dehydrogenase activities in human tissues using 5-fluorouracil as a substrate. Anticancer Res 1986; 6: 781784.[ISI][Medline]
15.
Ahmed FY, Johnston SJ, Cassidy J et al. Eniluracil treatment completely inactivates dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 24392445.
16.
Smith IE, Johnston SRD, OBrien MER et al. Low dose oral 5-fluorouracil with eniluracil (776C85) as first-line chemotherapy against advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 23782384.
17. Green S, Weiss GR. Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria. Invest New Drugs 1992; 10: 239253.[ISI][Medline]
18. Gehan EA. The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chronic Dis 1961; 13: 346353.[ISI]
19. Trotti A, Byhardt R, Stetz J et al. Common toxicity criteria: Version 2.0. An improved reference for grading the acute effects of cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 1347.
20. Hansen RM. Clinical science review: 5-fluorouracil by protracted venous infusion: a review of recent clinical studies. Cancer Invest 1991; 9: 637642.[ISI][Medline]
21. van Eeden H, Falkson G, Burger W, Ansell SM. 5-Fluorouracil and leucovorin in hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol 1992; 3: 404405.[ISI][Medline]
22. Zaniboni A, Simoncini E, Marpicati P, Marini G. Phase II study of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and high dose folinic acid (HDFA) in hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 319.[ISI][Medline]
23. Tetef M, Doroshow J, Akman S et al. 5-Fluorouracil and high-dose calcium leucovorin for hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II trial. Cancer Invest 1995; 13: 460463.[ISI][Medline]
24. Peters GJ, van der Wilt CL, van Triest B et al. Thymidylate synthase and drug resistance. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 12991305.
25. Nerenstone SR, Ihde DC, Friedman MA. Clinical trials in primary hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future directions. Cancer Treat Rev 1988; 15: 131.
26. Simonetti RG, Liberati A, Angiolini C, Pagliaro L. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 117136.[Abstract]
27. Venook AP. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: too many options? J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 13231334.[Abstract]