The increasing complexity of cancer chemotherapy now requires that pharmacists be familiar with these highly toxic agents. This column will review various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of cancer chemotherapy, and review various agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MartinM., VillarA., Sole-CalvoA.. Doxorubicin in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (i.v. FAC regimen, day 1, 21) versus methotrexate in combination with fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide (i.v. CMF regimen, day 1,21) as adjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: a study by the GEICAM group. Ann Oncol.2003; 14(6): 833–842.
2.
AcklandS.P., AntonA., BreitbachG.P.. Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimen in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multinational study. J Clin Oncol.2001; 19(4): 943–953.
3.
[No authors listed]. Phase III randomized study of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide v fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in advanced breast cancer: an Italian multicentre trial.Italian Multi-centre Breast Study with Epirubicin. J Clin Oncol.1988; 6(6): 976–982.
4.
[No authors listed]. A prospective randomized phase III trial comparing combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and either doxorubicin or epirubicin.French Epirubicin Study Group. J Clin Oncol.1988; 6(4): 679–688.
5.
FumoleauP., DevauxY., Vo VanM.L.. Premenopausal patients with node-positive resectable breast cancer. Preliminary results of a randomised trial comparing 3 adjuvant regimens: FEC 50 × 6 cycles vs FEC 50 × 3 cycles vs FEC 75 × 3 cycles. The French Adjuvant Study Group. Drugs.1993; 45(Suppl 2): 38–45.
6.
The French Adjuvant Study Group. Benefit of a high-dose epirubicin regimen in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients with poor prognostic factors: 5-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 05 Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol.2001; 19(3): 602–611.
7.
FumoleauP., KerbratP., RomestaingP.. Randomized trial comparing six versus three cycles of epirubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal, node-positive breast cancer patients: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol.2003; 21(2): 298–305.
8.
BonneterreJ., RochéH., KerbratP.. Long-term cardiac follow-up in relapse-free patients after six courses of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, with either 50 or 100 mg of epirubicin, as adjuvant therapy for node-positive breast cancer: French Adjuvant Study Group. J Clin Oncol.2004; 22(15): 3070–3079.
9.
BonneterreJ., RochéH., KerbratP.. Epirubicin Increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Group 05 Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol.2005; 23(12): 2686–2693.
10.
NamerM., FargeotP., RochéH.. Improved disease-free survival with epirubicin-based chemoendocrine adjuvant therapy compared with tamoxifen alone in one to three node-positive, estrogen-receptor-positive, postmenopausal breast cancer patients: results of French Adjuvant Study Group 02 and 07 trials. Ann Oncol.2006; 17(1): 65–73.
11.
RochéH., KerbratP., BonneterreJ.. Complete hormonal blockade versus epirubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal, one to three node-positive, and hormone-receptor positive, early breast cancer patients: 7-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 06 randomised trial. Ann Oncol.2006; 17(8): 1221–1227.
12.
HéryM., BonneterreJ., RochéH.. Epirubicin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for poor prognosis, node-negative breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 03 trial. Bull Cancer.2006; 93(10): E109–E114.
13.
WilsJ., CoombesR.C., MartyM., BlissJ., WoodsE.Design and rationale of a randomised comparison of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil vs fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in node-positive premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. A trial of the International Collaborative Cancer Group (ICCG). Drugs.1993; 45(Suppl 2): 46–50.
14.
The French Epirubicin Study Group.A prospective randomized trial comparing epirubicin monotherapy to two fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, and epirubicin regimens differing in epirubicin dose in advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol.1991; 9(2); 305–312.
15.
PeritiP., PannutiF., Della CunaG.R.. Combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and either epirubicin or mitoxantrone: a comparative randomized multicenter study in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Invest.1991; 9(3): 249–255.
16.
FocanC., AndrienJ.M., ClosonM.T.. Dose-response relationship of epirubicin-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol.1993; 11(7): 1253–1263.
17.
GérardJ.P., HéryM., GedouinD.. Postmenopausal patients with node-positive resectable breast cancer. Tamoxifen vs FEC 50 (6 cycles) vs FEC 50 (6 cycles) plus tamoxifen vs control—preliminary results of a 4-arm randomised trial. The French Adjuvant Study Group. Drugs.1993; 45(Suppl 2): 60–67.
18.
HebbarM., BonneterreJ., FournierC.. Randomized trial comparing conventional intravenous bolus FEC and FEC with high-dose infusional 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Infus Chemother.1995; 5(4): 201–205.
19.
BrufmanB., ColajoriE., GhilezanN.. Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates. An international randomized phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Annals of Oncology.1997; 8(2): 155–162.
20.
ZamagniC., MartoniA., ErcolinoL., BaroniM., TannebergerS., PannutiF.5-Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC combination) in advanced breast cancer. J Chemother.1991; 3(2): 126–129.
21.
LevineM.N., BramwellV., PritchardK.. A pilot study of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil in patients with axillary node positive or locally advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer.1992; 29A(1): 37–43.
22.
LevineM.N., BramwellV., PritchardK.. The Canadian experience with intensive fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in patients with early stage breast cancer. Drugs.1993; 45(Suppl 2): 51–59.
BonneterreJ., BercezC., BonneterreM.E., LenneX., DervauxB.Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer adjuvant treatment: FEC 50 versus FEC 100 (FASG05 study). Ann Oncol.2005; 16(6): 915–922.
25.
HeskethP.J., KrisM.G., GrunbergS.M.. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol.1997; 15(1): 103–109.
26.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines - Antiemesis. V.3.2008.http://www.nccn.org/default.asp. Accessed March 20, 2008.
27.
KrisM.G., HeskethP.J., SomerfieldM.R.. American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for Antiemetics in Oncology: update 2006. J Clin Oncol.2006;24(18): 2932–2947.
MartinM.The severity and pattern of emesis following different cytotoxic agents. Oncology.1996; 53(Suppl 1): 26–31.
30.
BeckT.M.The pattern of emesis following high-dose cyclophosphamide and the anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron. Anticancer Drugs.1995; 6(2): 237–242.
31.
GelingO., EichlerH.G.Should 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists be administered beyond 24 hours after chemotherapy to prevent delayed emesis? Systematic re-evaluation of clinical evidence and drug cost implications. J Clin Oncol.2005; 23(6): 1289–1294.
32.
TerreyJ.P., AaproM.S.The activity of granisetron in patients who had previously failed ondansetron antiemetic therapy. Eur J Clin Res.1996; 8: 281–288.
33.
CarmichaelJ., KeizerH.J., CupissolD., MilliezJ., ScheidelP., SchindlerA.E.Use of granisetron in patients refractory to previous treatment with antiemetics. Anticancer Drugs.1998; 9(5): 381–385.
34.
de WitR., de BoerA.C., vd LindenG.H., StoterG., SparreboomA., VerweijJ.Effective cross-over to granisetron after failure to ondansetron, a randomized double blind study in patients failing ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Br J Cancer.2001; 19: 85(8): 1099–1101.
35.
SmithI.E.A dose-finding study of granisetron, a novel antiemetic, in patients receiving cytostatic chemotherapy. The Granisetron Study Group. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol.1993; 119(6): 350–354.
36.
SoukopM.A dose-finding study of granisetron, a novel antiemetic, in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Granisetron Study Group. Support Care Cancer.1994; 2(3): 177–183.
37.
StillwellT.J., BensonR.C.Jr. Cyclophosphamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis. A review of 100 patients. Cancer.1988; 61(3): 451–457.
ZanottiK.M., MarkmamM.Prevention and management of antineoplastic-induced hypersensitivity reactions. Drug Saf.2001; 24(10): 767–779.
40.
SmithT.J., KhatcheressianJ., LymanG.H.. 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol.2006;24(19): 3187–3205.
41.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology – Myeloid Growth Factors. V.1.2008. http://www.nccn.org/default.asp. Accessed March 20, 2008.
42.
LarsonD.L.Treatment of tissue extravasation by antitumor agents. Cancer.1982; 49(9): 1796–1799.
43.
LarsonD.L.What is the appropriate management of tissue extravasation by antitumor agents?Plast Reconstr Surgery.1985; 75(3): 397–405.
44.
MullinS., BeckwithM.C., TylerL.S.Prevention and management of antineoplastic extravasation injury. Hosp Pharm.2000; 35(1): 57–74.
45.
BensonAB3rd, AjaniJ.A., CatalanoR.B.. Recommended guidelines for the treatment of cancer treatment-induced diarrhea. J Clin Oncol2004; 22(14): 2918–2926.
46.
AronoffG.R., BennettW.M., BernsJ.S.. Drug Prescribing in Renal Failure.5th ed.Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians; 2007.
47.
KintzelP.E., DorrR.T.Anticancer drug renal toxicity and elimination: dosing guidelines for altered renal function. Cancer Treat Rev.1995; 21(1): 33–64.
48.
FloydJ., MirzaI., Sachs, PerryM.C.Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy. Semin Oncol.2006; 33(1): 50–67.
49.
KingP.D., PerryM.C.Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy. Oncologist.2001; 6(2): 162–176.
50.
DobbsN.A., TwelvesC.J., GregoryW., CruickshankaC., RichardsM.A., RubensR.D.Epirubicin in patients with liver dysfunction: development and evaluation of a novel dose modification scheme. Eur J Cancer.2003; 39(5): 580–586.
