Infusões prolongadas de 5-fluorouracil são mais seguras e potencialmente mais efetivas no tratamento do câncer de cólon metastático do que infusões rápidas da mesma medicação. No entanto, infusões prolongadas requerem a disponibilidade de um acesso venoso central, bem como de bombas de infusão dispendiosas. O desenvolvimento de fluoropirimidinas orais permitiu que pacientes fossem expostos ao 5-fluorouracil por longo tempo, com maior conveniência. UFT e leucovorin administrados três vezes ao dia demonstraram previamente uma eficácia equivalente, com menor toxicidade, quando comparados a um regime convencional de infusão rápida de 5- fluorouracil e leucovorin. Este estudo com 98 pacientes foi desenhado e conduzido com objetivo de demonstrar equivalência no tempo de progressão com o uso de UFT e leucovorin administrados duas vezes ao dia, com o uso da mesma combinação administrada três vezes ao dia. Objetivos secundários incluíram análise de toxicidade, resposta objetiva e sobrevida global. O tempo mediano de progressão foi de 3,8 meses, comparado com 3,5 meses observados com o uso da medicação três vezes ao dia e a taxa de resposta foi de 11%, com uma sobrevida mediana de 12,8 meses, sendo comparável aos resultados de 12% e 12,4 meses obtidas com o uso da combinação três vezes ao dia. A incidência de diarréia com graus 3 e 4 foi de 30% no regime de administração duas vezes ao dia, e 21% no de três vezes ao dia. Esses resultados sugerem que o uso de UFT e leucovorin duas vezes ao dia tem eficácia e toxicidade similares àquelas obtidas com o uso da mesma medicação três vezes ao dia. / Prolonged infusions have been shown to be safer and potentially more effective than bolus regimens of 5- fluorouracil as treatment for advanced colorectal cancer. However, infusional 5- fluorouracil requires central venous access and costly infusion pumps. Development of oral fluoropyrimidines has allowed longer exposures to 5-fluorouracil with increased convenience. UFT and leucovorin given thrice daily showed improved safety and no significant difference in survival or response rate compared with bolus 5- fluorouracil and leucovorin. This study with 98 patients was conducted to evaluate whether UFT and leucovorin given twice daily provided comparable time to progression (TTP) to the same combination administered three times a day. Secondary objectives included evaluation of toxicity, overall tumor response rate, and survival. Median time to progression was 3.8 months, compared with 3.5 months observed with the thrice-daily regimen. The twice-daily regimen had a response rate of 11% and median survival of 12.8 months, comparable to the 12% and 12.4 months seen with the thrice-daily regimen. The incidence of grade 3-4 drug-related diarrhea was 30% on the twice-daily and 21% on the thrice-daily schedule. Results suggest that the twice-daily schedule has similar safety and efficacy to the thrice-daily schedule.

Introdução: A ressecão hepática é considerada um tratamento potencialmente curativo para metástases hepáticas de câncer colorretal (MHCCR), mas os benefícios a longo prazo oferecidos pela complementação do tratamento com quimioterapia sistêmica não foram completamente comprovados. Existe ganho já bem estabelecido para sobrevida livre de doença com o uso de quimioterapia perioperatória, mas não existe ganho de sobrevida global demonstrado em ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR). Objetivo: Comparar sobrevida global e livre de doença em pacientes com MHCCR submetidos apenas ao tratamento cirúrgico com intenção curativa com aqueles que além da cirurgia também receberam tratamento complementar com quimioterapia sistêmica, independentemente do regime utilizado. Métodos: Construção de revisão sistemática com meta-análise avaliando estudos publicados entre 1991 e 2013 e que compararam o tratamento cirúrgico isolado ao associado à quimioterapia sistêmica para o tratamento de MHCCR ressecáveis. Os ECR foram avaliados através da ferramenta Cochrane para detecção de viéses, e os estudos observacionais comparativos (EOC) de boa qualidade foram incluídos no processo meta-analítico após terem sido selecionados seguindo a metodologia MINORS (índice metodológico para análise de ensaios clinicos não randomizados). Sobrevidas global e livre de doença foram comparadas utilizando modelos fixos e randômicos de efeitos de tratamento e razão de riscos (RR). Resultados: Na avaliação de sobrevida global foram incluídos 5 estudos (3 ECR e 2 EOC), compreendendo 2475 pacientes, com 1024 pacientes recebendo quimioterapia complementar e apresentando ganho relativo de sobrevida global de 23 % quando comparados com cirurgia isolada (RR 0.77, 95% IC. 0.67 - 0.88, p < 0.001). Quatro estudos reportaram sobrevida livre de doença e foram incluídos nesta análise (3 ECR e 1 EOC) totalizando 1592 pacientes e nestes, o uso de quimioterapia (702 pacientes) também reduziu o risco de recidiva em 29% (RR 0.71, 95% IC 0.61 - 0.83, p < 0.001). Conclusões: Esta revisão sistemática com meta-análise demonstrou que o uso de quimioterapia para pacientes submetidos à hepatectomia com intenção curativa como tratamento de MHCCR é uma estratégia terapêutica que propicia ganho de sobrevida global e livre de doença / Introduction: Hepatic resection is considered a potentially curative treatment for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The benefits of the use systemic chemotherapy in these patients have not been proven. It is likely to improve recurrence free-survival (RFS); however, no differences in overall survival (OS) have been demonstrated yet. Objective: Comparison between surgery plus systemic chemotherapy, regardless of the timing of administration, with surgery alone looking for long term outcomes in patients with CRLM who underwent curative-intent liver resection. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from January 1991 to December 2013 that compared surgery alone and surgery plus chemotherapy for patients with CRLM who underwent curative-intent liver resection. Randomized clinical trials (RCT\'s) were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Selection of high-quality observational comparative studies (OCS) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies - MINORS). RFS and OS were compared using fixed and random effects model and Hazard Ratio (HR). Results: Concerning OS, 5 studies (3 RCT and 2 OCS), comprising 2475 patients were analyzed and chemotherapy (750 patients) relatively improved OS rates in 23% when compared to surgery alone (HR of 0.77, 95% C.I. 0.67 - 0.88, p < 0.001). Four studies described RFS (3 RCT and 1 OCS), totalizing 1592 patients, and chemotherapy (702 patients) also decreased the risk of recurrence in 29% (HR 0.71, 95% C.I 0.61 - 0.83, p < 0.001). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis has demonstrated that the use of chemotherapy for patients with CRLM who underwent curative-intent resection is a worthwhile strategy to improve both RFS and OS

Ng, Po Yan. / Thesis submitted in: November 2006. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 109-120). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Acknowledgement --- p.i / Abstract --- p.ii / 摘要 --- p.iii / Table of Contents --- p.iv / List of Figures --- p.viii / List of Tables --- p.xi / List of Abbreviation --- p.xii / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction / Chapter 1.1 --- A General Introduction to the Development and Clinical Activities of Platinum Drugs --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1.1 --- Platinum Drugs used in a Clinical Setting --- p.4 / Chapter 1.1.2 --- Platinum Drugs under Clinical Trials --- p.5 / Chapter 1.1.3 --- Platinum Compounds with Dual Mechanisms --- p.7 / Chapter 1.2 --- Platinum Drug Antitumor Mechanism --- p.9 / Chapter 1.3 --- Limitations of Platinum Drugs --- p.12 / Chapter 1.3.1 --- Toxicity --- p.12 / Chapter 1.3.2 --- Drug Resistance or Cross Resistance --- p.15 / Chapter 1.3.2.1 --- Reduced Drug Accumulation or Increased Drug Efflux --- p.16 / Chapter 1.3.2.2 --- Drug Inactivation --- p.18 / Chapter 1.3.2.3 --- Enhanced DNA Repair --- p.19 / Chapter 1.4 --- Why Combinational Therapy? --- p.21 / Chapter 1.4.1 --- Antimetabolites --- p.20 / Chapter 1.4.2 --- Topoisomerase Inhibitors --- p.22 / Chapter 1.4.3 --- Tubulin-Active Antimitotic Agents --- p.24 / Chapter 1.4.4 --- Demethylcantharidin as a potential candidate for drug combination --- p.28 / Chapter 1.5 --- Study Objectives --- p.31 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Materials and Methods / Chapter 2.1 --- Cell Lines --- p.33 / Chapter 2.2 --- Cancer Cell Preparation / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Chemicals and Reagents --- p.33 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Cell Culture Practice --- p.34 / Chapter 2.2.2.1 --- Subcultures --- p.35 / Chapter 2.2.2.2 --- Cryopreservation --- p.37 / Chapter 2.2.2.3 --- Thawing Cryopreservated Cells --- p.38 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- Development of Drug-Resistant Cell Lines --- p.39 / Chapter 2.3 --- Growth Inhibition Assay / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Evaluation of Cytotoxicity in vitro --- p.40 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- Drug Pretreatment --- p.43 / Chapter 2.3.3 --- Drug Pre-sensitization with Concurrent Treatment --- p.44 / Chapter 2.4 --- Calculations for Drug Combinations --- p.46 / Chapter 2.5 --- Statistical Analysis --- p.49 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Results and Discussions / Chapter 3.1 --- In vitro Cytotoxicity and Evaluation of Drug Resistance --- p.50 / Chapter 3.2 --- Role of Leaving Ligand in a Platinum Complex --- p.58 / Chapter 3.3 --- Priority in Selecting the Most Effective Drug Combination --- p.66 / Chapter 3.4 --- Drug Combination Studies / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Drug Combination Prescreening --- p.68 / Chapter 3.4.1.1 --- Comparison of the effectiveness of the three Drug Combinations --- p.72 / Chapter 3.4.1.2 --- Rationale for Drug Combination Studies presented in Section 3.4.2 & 3.4.3 --- p.73 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Drug Pre-sensitization Studies in Colorectal Cancer Cell Lines --- p.74 / Chapter 3.4.2.1 --- Comparison of Drug Pre-sensitization Treatment in Sensitive Colorectal Cancer Cell Lines --- p.84 / Chapter 3.4.2.2 --- Comparison of Drug Pre-sensitization Treatment in Sensitive and Oxaliplatin Resistant HCT116 Colorectal Cancer Cell Lines --- p.87 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- Drug Pre-sensitization Studies in Liver Cancer Cell Lines --- p.89 / Chapter 3.4.3.1 --- Comparison of Drug Pre-sensitization Treatment in Sensitive Liver Cancer Cell Lines --- p.99 / Chapter 3.4.3.2 --- Comparison of Drug Pre-sensitization Treatment in Sensitive and Cisplatin Resistant SK-Hepl Liver Cancer Cell Line --- p.101 / Chapter 3.5 --- Possible Explanation to the Observed Drug Combination Effect --- p.103 / Chapter 3.6 --- General Protocols for Drug Combinations --- p.105 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Conclusions / Reference --- p.109 / Appendices --- p.121 / Chapter I a. --- "Raw Data of Pre-screening for HCT116 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.122 / Chapter I b. --- "Raw Data of Pre-screening for HCT116 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.123 / Chapter II a. --- "Raw Data of Pre-screening for SK-Hepl (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.124 / Chapter II b. --- "Raw Data of Pre-screening for SK-Hepl ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.125 / Chapter III a. i) --- "Isobolograms for HCT116 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.126 / Chapter III a. ii) --- "Raw Data for HCT116 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.127 / Chapter III b. i) --- "Isobolograms for HCT116 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.128 / Chapter III b. ii) --- "Raw Data for HCT116 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.129 / Chapter IV a. i) --- "Isobolograms for HCT1160xaR (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.130 / Chapter IV a. ii) --- "Raw Data for HCT1160xaR (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.131 / Chapter IV b. i) --- "Isobolograms for HCT1160xaR ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.132 / Chapter IV b. ii) --- "Raw Data for HCT1160xaR ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.133 / Chapter V a. i) --- "Isobolograms for HT29 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.134 / Chapter V a. ii) --- "Raw Data for HT29 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.135 / Chapter V b. i) --- "Isobolograms for HT29 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.136 / Chapter V b. ii) --- "Raw Data for HT29 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.137 / Chapter VI a. i) --- Isobolograms for Hep G2 (Cisplatin and [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2]) --- p.138 / Chapter VI a. ii) --- Raw Data for Hep G2 (Cisplatin and [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2]) --- p.139 / Chapter VI b. i) --- "Isobolograms for Hep G2 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.140 / Chapter VI b. ii) --- "Raw Data for Hep G2 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.141 / Chapter VII a. i) --- "isobolograms for SK Hep 1 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.142 / Chapter VII a. ii) --- "Raw Data for SK Hep 1 (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.143 / Chapter VII b.i) --- "Isobolograms for SK Hep 1 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.144 / Chapter VII b. ii) --- "Raw Data for SK Hep 1 ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.145 / Chapter VIII a. i) --- "Isobolograms for SK Hep ICisR (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.146 / Chapter VIII a. ii) --- "Raw Data for SK Hep ICisR (Cisplatin, [Pt(DMC)(NH3)2] and Pt(DMC)(NH2CH3)2])" --- p.147 / Chapter VIII b. i) --- "Isobolograms for SK Hep ICisR ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.148 / Chapter VIII b. ii) --- "Raw Data for SK Hep ICisR ([Pt(DMC)(R,R-DACH)] and Oxaliplatin)" --- p.149