↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Capecitabine in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
The Role of Capecitabine in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Treatment
Published in
Drugs, December 2012
DOI 10.2165/11633870-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Fernández-Martos, Miquel Nogué, Paloma Cejas, Víctor Moreno-García, Ana Hernández Machancoses, Jaime Feliu

Abstract

Preoperative infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and concurrent radiation therapy (RT) followed by total mesorectal surgery is the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LAR). When compared with postoperative 5-FU-based chemoradiation, this strategy is associated with significantly lower rates of local relapse, lower toxicity and better compliance. Capecitabine is a rationally designed oral prodrug that is converted into 5-FU by intracellular thymidine phosphorylase. Substitution of infusional 5-FU with capecitabine is an attractive option that provides a more convenient administration schedule and, possibly, increased efficacy. Indeed, incorporation of capecitabine in combined modality neoadjuvant therapy for LAR has been under intense investigation during the last 10 years. Phase I and II clinical trials showed that a regimen consisting of capecitabine 825mg/m(2) twice daily for 7 days/week continuous oral administration in combination with RT is an active and well tolerated regimen, thereby being the preferred concurrent regimen. The definitive demonstration that efficacy of capecitabine/RT is similar to 5-FU/RT has been provided by the NSABP-R-04 and the German Margit trials. One approach to improve outcomes in rectal cancer is to deliver a second RT-sensitizing drug with effective systemic activity. Oxaliplatin and irinotecan are therefore good candidates. However, two phase III trials demonstrated that incorporation of oxaliplatin to capecitabine with RT did not improve early outcomes and, by contrast, increased toxicity. Capecitabine has also been combined with irinotecan. This regimen showed encouraging results in phase I and II clinical trials, which led to an ongoing phase III clinical trial. New strategies with induction chemotherapy with or without chemoradiation prior to surgery are currently under investigation. Whether or not capecitabine has a role in this setting is being investigated in ongoing trials. Incorporation of agents directed towards new targets, such as anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies or antiangiogenic agents, in combination preoperative regimens, is being hampered by results of early trials in which efficacy outcomes with cetuximab were poor and an excessive rate of surgical complications with bevacizumab was observed. The lack of improvements in efficacy with the addition of cetuximab or bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer led to concerns about further development of these agents in rectal cancer. The role of capecitabine in the postoperative adjuvant setting is the aim of the ongoing Dutch SCRIPT trial. The prediction of response associated with capecitabine has been based on expression of thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, as well as on gene expression arrays. All these procedures require further validation and should be considered as investigational. In conclusion, capecitabine can safely and effectively replace intravenous continuous infusion of 5-FU in the preoperative chemoradiation setting for rectal cancer management. The addition of other new antineoplastic agents to a fluoropyrimidine-based regimen remains investigational.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2014.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,511
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,664
of 286,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#194
of 617 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 617 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.