Randomized phase III trial of S-1 versus capecitabine in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: SALTO study by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

Kwakman, Johannes J.M.; Simkens, Lieke H.J.; Rooijen, Johan M. van; Wouw, Agnès J. van de; Tije, Albert J. ten; Creemers, Geert-Jan; Hendriks, Mathijs P.; Los, Maartje; Alphen, Robbert J. van; Polée, Marco B.; Müller, E; Velden, Ankie M.T. van der; Voorthuizen, Theo van; Koopman, Miriam; Mol, Linda; Werkhoven, Erik van; Punt, Cornelis J.A.

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx122

Cited by 66 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative treatment option could be S1, which is an oral fluoropyrimidine only registered for use in a palliative setting that includes three different agents: tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil. S1 is associated with a significantly lower incidence of hand-foot syndrome compared with capecitabine, with comparable efficacy [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capecitabine-Associated Terminal Ileitis

Hellemond

Thijs

Creemers³

2018

Case Rep Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine used as adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer. Diarrhea is a well-known side effect of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil agents. We present a case with terminal ileitis as a rare adverse event of capecitabine treatment. Capecitabine-induced terminal ileitis is likely to be underreported. It should be considered more often as a cause of severe and atypical complaints of diarrhea during treatment with capecitabine or other 5-fluorouracil agents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capecitabine-Associated Terminal Ileitis

Hellemond

Thijs

Creemers³

2018

Case Rep Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies showed that bevacizumab was not administered in 41% to 49% of Dutch patients as part of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. 12,13 Therefore, the aim of our provider-based study was to compare the reported use of adjuvant and metastatic colorectal treatment regimens with the recommendations in the most recent Dutch colorectal cancer guideline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Guideline Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Treatment in The Netherlands: A Survey Among Medical Oncologists by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

Keikes

Oijen

Lemmens

et al. 2018

Clinical Colorectal Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, S-1 treatment was associated with lower rates of some important adverse events including fewer catheter-related complications, grade 3–4 mucositis, stomatitis, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, and toxicity-related deaths than 5-FU, and fewer cases of grade 3–4 neutropenia and grade 1–2 HFS compared with capecitabine [ 9 ]. Similarly, in a recent phase III study that compared the incidence of HFS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with oral capecitabine vs. S-1, efficacy was similar but rates of HFS were significantly lower for patients who received S-1 compared with capecitabine (45% vs. 73%; p = 0.0005) [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

S-1 in Patients with Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Results from the Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) Study

Venerito

2019

Drugs R D

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives S-1-based regimens have been shown to be as effective as other fluoropyrimidine-based regimens with a better safety profile in patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. However, real-world data on S-1 in European patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma are lacking. The Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) study evaluated safety and relative dose intensities for patients treated with S-1-based regimens for advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma as part of daily practice. Methods Overall, data for 125 patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were collected at 21 centers in five countries in Europe. Demographics, treatment, and adverse-event data were recorded over a planned treatment of six cycles. Results Most patients (87%) received combination treatment of S-1 plus a platinum compound. Adverse events related to S-1 treatment were mostly grade 1 or 2 while reported grade 3–4 serious adverse events related to S-1 occurred in 12 patients and were most often grade 3 neutropenia ( n = 4, 3.2%) or diarrhea ( n = 5, 4%). The most common adverse events of any grade that were attributable to S-1 treatment included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. No patients experienced mucositis, dehydration, or febrile neutropenia, whereas 2% (3/125) of patients experienced hand-foot syndrome. Conclusion The overall relative dose intensity was 70%. In a real-world setting, patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma tolerated S-1 treatment well with high compliance rates. The SCOOP study provides valuable information on S-1 relative dose intensity that can be used for treatment decision making.

show abstract

Randomized phase III trial of S-1 versus capecitabine in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: SALTO study by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

Abstract: NCT01918852.

Cited by 66 publications

References 20 publications

Capecitabine-Associated Terminal Ileitis

Capecitabine-Associated Terminal Ileitis

Evaluation of Guideline Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Treatment in The Netherlands: A Survey Among Medical Oncologists by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

S-1 in Patients with Advanced Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Results from the Safety Compliance Observatory on Oral fluoroPyrimidines (SCOOP) Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About