4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A single institution experience with concurrent capecitabine and radiation therapy in weak and/or elderly patients with urothelial cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.01.004

Keywords

capecitabine; radiation therapy; urothelial cancer; elderly; radiosensitization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe a single institution experience in delivering concurrent capecitabine and radiation in elderly patients with urothelial cancer. Methods and Materials: The records of patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with capecitabine and radiation at Wayne State University were reviewed. Capecitabine was administered at a median dose of 1600 mg/m(2)/day (range, 1200-1800 mg/m(2)). Concurrent radiation therapy (RT) of 40-45 Gy was delivered to a small pelvic field with a four-field technique, with additional boost to tumor area (total, 54-68.4 Gy). Results: Fourteen patients who were not candidates for cystectomy or cisplatin-based therapy were treated with capecitabine and concurrent radiation therapy. Median age was 80 years (range, 46 - 88 years). Five patients had a performance status of 3. Nine patients had localized disease, and 5 patients had advanced disease. The most common overall toxicities were fatigue (43%), diarrhea (Grade 2, 14% and Grade 3, 29%), and dehydration (43%), with no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Of 14 patients, 3 (20%) required hospitalization for management of toxicities. Seven patients required dose modification, and the therapy was relatively well tolerated. Clinical complete response was seen in 11 of 13 evaluable patients (77%). At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, only 3 of 11 responders had relapsed. Conclusion: Concurrent capecitabine and radiation therapy is well-tolerated and demonstrates promising efficacy in urothelial carcinoma, thus offering a tolerable therapeutic option in elderly patients or those with impaired performance status. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available