Search

Trifluridine/tipiracil is available on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. This article reviews trifluridine/tipiracil clinical data and presents practical information on its use in the management of refractory mCRC in Australia. Whereas the primary mechanism of action of fluoropyrimidines such as fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine is enzyme inhibition of nucleotide synthesis, trifluridine/tipiracil primarily acts by incorporation into DNA, resulting in DNA dysfunction. Trifluridine/tipiracil has activity in patients with 5-FU-resistant tumors and can be considered in patients with prior intolerance or toxicity to 5-FU. In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial evaluating trifluridine/tipiracil in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, efficacy benefits were observed across all a priori prognostic subgroups including those defined by age (≥65 and ≥75 years), geographical origin, primary tumor site or KRAS status. Trifluridine/tipiracil therapy benefits appropriately selected patients who have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, with no more than mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-moderate renal impairment, and who are capable of adhering to oral therapy safely. Appropriate dosing, monitoring for adverse events and effective management of side effects are essential.

BACKGROUND Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) is a highly aggressive malignancy, with a 5-year overall survival of

Aim While first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1) improves survival and quality of life in advanced biliary cancer (ABC), there is no randomized evidence to support second-line chemotherapy (CT2) in ABC. We aim to explore to role of CT2 in ABC. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who received one or more lines of chemotherapy for ABC at four Australian cancer centers between 2008 and 2011. A Cox proportional hazard model was developed to determine the impact of clinicopathologic variables on overall survival (OS) from time of progression on CT1. Results We identified 73 patients who received palliative chemotherapy for ABC. Twenty-five patients (34%) received two or more lines of chemotherapy. Patients with a preserved performance status on progression on first-line chemotherapy (CT1) were more likely to receive second-line chemotherapy (CT2) (P < 0.001). Disease control rate with CT2 was 36%, and mean progression-free survival was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.9 months). The following variables were significant in the univariate analysis of OS from time of progression on CT1: lines of chemotherapy (P = 0.0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at progression on CT1 (P < 0.0001) and disease control with CT1 (P = 0.027). Lines of chemotherapy received and performance status remained significant in the multivariate analysis for OS from progression on CT1. Conclusion Second-line chemotherapy is feasible in a subset of patients with ABC. Even after accounting for confounding variables, CT2 appears to increase OS in ABC, although we are unable to exclude other unmeasured factors such as tumor biology. These findings warrant further evaluation with prospective trials.