scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Johannes Schüller

Bio: Johannes Schüller is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Capecitabine & Induction chemotherapy. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 12 publications receiving 2583 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

1,117 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Capecitabine is a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate rationally designed to generate 5-fluorouracil preferentially in tumors, which is explained to a great extent by the activity of TP in colorectal tumor tissue, (the enzyme responsible for the conversion of 5′-DFUR to 5-FU), which is approximately four times that in adjacent healthy tissue.
Abstract: Purpose: Capecitabine (Xeloda) is a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate rationally designed to generate 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) preferentially in tumors. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the preferential activation of capecitabine, after oral administration, in tumor in colorectal cancer patients, by the comparison of 5-FU concentrations in tumor tissues, healthy tissues and plasma. Methods: Nineteen patients requiring surgical resection of primary tumor and/or liver metastases received 1,255 mg/m2 of capecitabine twice daily p.o. for 5–7 days prior to surgery. On the day of surgery, samples of tumor tissue, adjacent healthy tissue and blood samples were collected simultaneously from each patient, 2 to 12 h after the last dose of capecitabine had been administered. Concentrations of 5-FU in various tissues and plasma were determined by HPLC. The activities of the enzymes (CD, TP and DPD) involved in the formation and catabolism of 5-FU were measured in tissue homogenates, by catabolic assays. Results: The ratio of 5-FU concentrations in tumor to adjacent healthy tissue (T/H) was used as the primary marker for the preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor. In primary colorectal tumors, the concentration of 5-FU was on average 3.2 times higher than in adjacent healthy tissue (P=0.002). The mean liver metastasis/healthy tissue 5-FU concentration ratio was 1.4 (P=0.49, not statistically different). The mean tissue/plasma 5-FU concentration ratios exceeded 20 for colorectal tumor and ranged from 8 to 10 for other tissues. Conclusions: The results demonstrated the preferential activation of capecitabine to 5-FU in colorectal tumor, after oral administration to patients. This is explained to a great extent by the activity of TP in colorectal tumor tissue, (the enzyme responsible for the conversion of 5′-DFUR to 5-FU), which is approximately four times that in adjacent healthy tissue. In the liver, TP activity is approximately equal in metastatic and healthy tissue, which explains the lack of preferential activation of capecitabine in these tissues.

647 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status and failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment.
Abstract: Purpose This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. Results A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 mon...

563 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction had no clinically significant influence on the pharmacokinetic parameters of capecitabine and its metabolites, and there is no need for, a priori, adjustment of the dose.
Abstract: Capecitabine (Xeloda) is a rationally designed oral, tumor-selective fluoropyrimidine carbamate aimed at preferential conversion to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) within the tumor. Because capecitabine is extensively metabolized by the liver, it is important to establish whether liver dysfunction altered the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites. This was investigated in 14 cancer patients with normal liver function and in 13 with mild to moderate disturbance of liver biochemistry due to liver metastases. They received a single oral dose of capecitabine (1255 mg capecitabine/m2) with serial blood and urine samples collected up to 72 h after administration. Concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites were determined in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography or liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry and in urine by 19F-nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Although plasma concentrations of capecitabine, 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine, 5-FU, dihydro-5-FU, and α-fluoro-β-alanine were, in general, higher in patients with liver dysfunction, the opposite was found for 5′-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine. These effects were not clinically significant. Total urinary recovery of capecitabine and its metabolites was 71% of the administered dose in patients with normal hepatic function and 77% in patients with hepatic impairment. The absolute bioavailability of 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine was estimated as 42% in patients with normal hepatic function and 62% in patients with impaired hepatic function. In summary, mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction had no clinically significant influence on the pharmacokinetic parameters of capecitabine and its metabolites. Although caution should be exercised when capecitabine is administered to patients with mildly to moderately impaired hepatic function, there is no need for, a priori, adjustment of the dose.

146 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem, and QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy.
Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancrea ...

99 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: FOLFIRINOX was associated with a survival advantage and had increased toxicity as compared with gemcitabine, and is an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and good performance status.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Data are lacking on the efficacy and safety of a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) as compared with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned 342 patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of illness) to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg per square meter of body-surface area; irinotecan, 180 mg per square meter; leucovorin, 400 mg per square meter; and fluorouracil, 400 mg per square meter given as a bolus followed by 2400 mg per square meter given as a 46-hour continuous infusion, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Six months of chemotherapy were recommended in both groups in patients who had a response. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the FOLFIRINOX group as compared with 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.73; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the FOLFIRINOX group and 3.3 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.59; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 31.6% in the FOLFIRINOX group versus 9.4% in the gemcitabine group (P<0.001). More adverse events were noted in the FOLFIRINOX group; 5.4% of patients in this group had febrile neutropenia. At 6 months, 31% of the patients in the FOLFIRINOX group had a definitive degradation of the quality of life versus 66% in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX was associated with a survival advantage and had increased toxicity. FOLFIRINOX is an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and good performance status. (Funded by the French government and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00112658.).

5,840 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work has shown that novel genes identified in DNA microarray profiling have the potential to identify novel genes that are involved in mediating resistance to 5-FU, and these genes might prove to be therapeutically valuable as new targets for chemotherapy, or as predictive biomarkers of response to5-FU-based chemotherapy.
Abstract: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is widely used in the treatment of cancer. Over the past 20 years, increased understanding of the mechanism of action of 5-FU has led to the development of strategies that increase its anticancer activity. Despite these advances, drug resistance remains a significant limitation to the clinical use of 5-FU. Emerging technologies, such as DNA microarray profiling, have the potential to identify novel genes that are involved in mediating resistance to 5-FU. Such target genes might prove to be therapeutically valuable as new targets for chemotherapy, or as predictive biomarkers of response to 5-FU-based chemotherapy.

4,177 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer, in a two-by-two design.
Abstract: For the capecitabine–fluorouracil comparison, the hazard ratio for death in the capecitabine group was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99); for the oxaliplatin–cisplatin comparison, the hazard ratio for the oxaliplatin group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10). The upper limit of the confidence intervals for both hazard ratios excluded the predefined noninferiority margin of 1.23. Median survival times in the ECF, ECX, EOF, and EOX groups were 9.9 months, 9.9 months, 9.3 months, and 11.2 months, respectively; survival rates at 1 year were 37.7%, 40.8%, 40.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. In the secondary analysis, overall survival was longer with EOX than with ECF, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.80 in the EOX group (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = 0.02). Progression-free survival and response rates did not differ significantly among the regimens. Toxic effects of capecitabine and fluorouracil were similar. As compared with cisplatin, oxaliplatin was associated with lower incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, alopecia, renal toxicity, and thromboembolism but with slightly higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and neuropathy. Conclusions Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51678883.)

1,987 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The English version of the JSCCR Guidelines 2016 is presented, which can be used as a tool for treating colorectal cancer in actual clinical practice settings and as a guide to obtaining informed consent from patients and choosing the method of treatment for each patient.
Abstract: Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in Japan, where it accounts for the largest number of deaths from malignant neoplasms in women and the third largest number in men. Many new treatment methods have been developed over the last few decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR Guidelines 2010) have been prepared to show standard treatment strategies for colorectal cancer, to eliminate disparities among institutions in terms of treatment, to eliminate unnecessary treatment and insufficient treatment, and to deepen mutual understanding between health-care professionals and patients by making these Guidelines available to the general public. These Guidelines have been prepared by consensuses reached by the JSCCR Guideline Committee, based on a careful review of the evidence retrieved by literature searches and in view of the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice settings in Japan. Therefore, these Guidelines can be used as a tool for treating colorectal cancer in actual clinical practice settings. More specifically, they can be used as a guide to obtaining informed consent from patients and choosing the method of treatment for each patient. As a result of the discussions held by the Guideline Committee, controversial issues were selected as Clinical Questions, and recommendations were made. Each recommendation is accompanied by a classification of the evidence and a classification of recommendation categories based on the consensus reached by the Guideline Committee members. Here we present the English version of the JSCCR Guidelines 2010.

1,709 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

1,545 citations