Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Metastatic colorectal cancer has traditionally been treated with i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), with or without leucovorin (LV). 5-FU is administered as either an i.v. bolus or a protracted infusion. Although schedules using the latter method offer efficacy benefits (objective response rate, time to disease progression), protracted infusion schedules are often associated with medical complications, inconvenience, high costs, and poor quality of life. Issues such as quality of life and convenience have influenced treatment decisions, but the availability of oral fluoropyrimidines represents a new development in this domain. Studies have confirmed that the majority of patients prefer oral to i.v. chemotherapy. Questionnaire-based studies have also demonstrated a preference for home-based rather than hospital-/clinic-based therapy. This preference was one of the driving forces behind the development of the oral fluoropyrimidines capecitabine (Xeloda) and uracil plus tegafur (UFT). Oral agents offer patients a more convenient treatment option that can be administered at home, providing patients with a greater sense of control over their therapy, while avoiding the medical complications and psychological distress associated with venous access. This article highlights some of the problems associated with i.v. therapy and reviews the available data on patient preference, including results of a recent, randomized, phase II study. It also provides a critical evaluation of the efficacy and safety profiles of the only two oral fluoropyrimidines approved for prescription, capecitabine and UFT/LV (UFT/LV not available in Germany and the U.S.), compared with those of two infused, 5-FU-based regimens. Finally, the results of an interactive debate exploring the opinions of approximately 400 oncologists on the issues of oral versus i.v. therapy are presented.
Borner et al. (Wed,) studied this question.