Clinical Cancer Research AACR Conference on Cancer Prevention
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grem, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grem, J. L.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 8, 1045-1050, May 2002
© 2002 American Association for Cancer Research

Clinical Trials

Impact of Two Weekly Schedules of Oral Eniluracil Given with Fluorouracil and Leucovorin on the Duration of Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Inhibition

Bruce Keith, Xiao-Du Guo, Suzanne Zentko, Nancy Harold, Barbara Schuler, Mary Quinn, Jeremy Shapiro and Jean L. Grem1

National Cancer Institute-Navy Medical Oncology, Cancer Therapeutics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland 20889-5105


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose: This study determined the effect of different weekly dosing schedules of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV)/eniluracil on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity and plasma uracil levels.

Methods: Plasma and mononuclear cells were isolated from peripheral blood samples obtained before, during, and at various times after 5-FU/LV/eniluracil therapy. Two schedules were studied: 20 mg of eniluracil p.o. plus 30 mg of LV p.o. on days 1–3 with a single dose of 5-FU given day 2, or 30 mg of LV p.o. on days 1–2 with a single dose of eniluracil and 5-FU on day 2. DPD activity was determined with a radioisotopic enzyme assay; the reaction products were separated by high-performance liquid chromatography. Plasma uracil levels were determined by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy.

Results: During oral therapy, DPD activity was profoundly depressed, and uracil levels were strikingly elevated with both schedules. With the daily-for-3-days schedule, DPD activity was similar to baseline values by 3 weeks after the earlier eniluracil dose, whereas it appeared to recover earlier in patients receiving the single-dose schedule, reaching baseline values by 2 weeks. Although baseline uracil values did not predict DPD activity accurately, plasma uracil levels >0.95 µM were associated with significantly lower DPD activity (median, 18.4 versus 287.6 pmol/min/mg).

Conclusions: When eniluracil is given with 5-FU/LV, DPD inhibition appears to be influenced by schedule, and the time to recovery is much longer than has been observed with eniluracil given alone.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The rate-limiting step of 5-FU2 catabolism is mediated by DPD, which converts 5-FU to dihydrofluorouracil (1) . DPD is widely distributed throughout the body, and uracil and thymine are its natural substrates (2) . Traditionally, 5-FU has not been given by the p.o. route because of incomplete and variable bioavailability. Several strategies have been developed to allow p.o. dosing, including the use of 5-FU prodrugs or inhibitors of DPD. Binding of the uracil analogue EU to DPD results in the formation of a covalent bond and, consequently, DPD inactivation. (3, 4, 5) . Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that EU allows complete bioavailability of orally administered 5-FU and increases the 5-FU plasma half-life to 4.5–5 h (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) .

The effect of EU monotherapy in humans on DPD activity in PBMCs has been examined in patients given a single dose of EU daily for 7 consecutive days at one of three dose levels: 0.74, 3.7, or 18.5 mg/m2 (7) . DPD activity was not detected 1 h after any of the three EU doses; DPD activity 24 h after dosing was 7, 2, and 2.5% of baseline, respectively. Two weeks after the seventh daily EU dose, DPD activity had returned to 60, 70, and 123% of baseline after 0.74, 3.7, and 18.5 mg/m2, respectively. These results suggest that EUs as low as 0.74 mg/m2 daily provide near-complete DPD inactivation for at least 24 h after dosing, and that enzyme activity has largely recovered 14 days after the last dose.

We reported previously the results of a Phase I trial of oral EU/5-FU/LV in which patients received 20 mg of EU and 15 mg of LV twice daily on days 1–3, with a starting dose of either 10 or 15 mg/m2 5-FU given twice daily on day 2 repeated weekly for 3 of 4 weeks (10) . DPD in PBMCs was inactivated completely on day 3 (12 h after the earlier EU dose) in 11 of 12 patients. DPD activity remained depressed at 5, 12, and 19 days after the last EU dose (mean) at 6, 21, and 59 pmol/min/mg, respectively. Baseline plasma uracil levels averaged 0.17 ± 0.05 µM and were markedly elevated during EU therapy (39 µM on day 3), which indirectly reflects DPD inactivation. The uracil levels remained elevated 5 and 12 days after EU therapy at 8.5 and 3.5 µM, respectively.

These results suggest that the duration of DPD inactivation as measured directly in PBMCs or by elevations in plasma uracil in patients receiving EU in combination with 5-FU and LV was much longer than observed in patients receiving EU alone. An important consideration was that life-threatening and fatal toxicities in patients have been reported in other studies when standard doses of fluoropyrimidines were given up to 31 days after the last dose of 5-FU/EU (11) , suggesting that DPD activity may have remained abnormally low in these individuals.

We therefore evaluated two attenuated weekly schedules of EU, either a single daily dose of 20 mg given with LV on days 1–3 and 5-FU on day 2, and subsequently, a single dose of EU given 1–12 h before 5-FU. DPD activity and plasma uracil were monitored before, during, and after completion of EU therapy. The pharmacodynamic effect of these two different dose schedules of EU is reported herein.


   PATIENTS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Eligibility.
Patients were accrued into this amended protocol between October 1998 and July 2000. Patients with solid tumors for whom a 5-FU/LV-based regimen represented a reasonable therapeutic approach or for whom no effective standard therapy was available were eligible provided they had adequate hematological, hepatic, and renal function as reported previously for the twice-daily schedule of EU on days 1–3 (10) . This study had the approval of the local Institutional Review Boards and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute. All patients gave written informed consent.

Treatment Plan.
Tablets of EU (10 mg) and 5-FU (5 and 25 mg) administered p.o. were formulated by Glaxo Wellcome (Research Triangle, NC) and supplied by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Commercial sources were used for the i.v. 5-FU and p.o. LV. During the initial period, 15 mg of LV p.o. was given twice daily on days 1–3. On day 2, 2300 mg/m2 5-FU was given by continuous infusion over a 24-h period. The patient returned 2 weeks later to commence therapy with 20 mg of EU and 30 mg of LV p.o. daily on days 1–3. 5-FU was given p.o. on day 2. The starting dose of 5-FU was 15 mg/m2, with the treatment repeated weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Dose escalation was planned in cohorts of 3 to 6 patients with 25% increments until dose-limiting toxicity was seen in at least 2 patients at a given level. Sixteen patients were enrolled in this portion of the trial (patients 13 to 28) at one of four 5-FU dose levels: 15, 18.8, 23.4, and 29 mg/m2. Ten patients were enrolled subsequently and received 30 mg of LV p.o. on days 1 and 2, with a single dose of 20 mg of EU given at either 12 h (patients 29–33) or 1 h (patients 34–38) before 29 mg/m2 of 5-FU p.o. on day 2.

Pharmacodynamic Sampling Scheme.
Peripheral blood was collected in heparinized tubes at the following times: before therapy; on days 2 and 3 of the first cycle of EU/LV/5-FU (before the daily drug administration); on day 8 (week 2, cycle 1); at the start of cycle 2; and when feasible, every 1–2 weeks after protocol treatment was stopped. The tubes drawn for measurement of plasma uracil levels were placed immediately on ice and centrifuged at 800 x g for 15 min at 4°C; the plasma was then frozen at -70°C until analysis. For patients 23–38, additional samples were obtained on the second day of period 1 before i.v. 5-FU and before period 2, 2 weeks later, to allow assessment of the potential variability of pre-EU DPD and plasma uracil levels.

PBMCs were isolated by Ficoll-Hypaque density centrifugation, and erythrocytes were lysed with a brief hypotonic lysis step. Intact cell pellets were stored at -70°C until analysis. The frozen cell pellet was suspended in 300 µl of DPD assay buffer, and the cellular lysate was isolated as described previously (10 , 12) . Lysate containing 200–300 µg of protein (determined by the Bio-Rad protein assay kit; Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) was incubated in a final volume of 1 ml of DPD assay buffer containing 20 µM [14C]5-FU (final specific activity, 0.009 µCi/nmol; Moravek Biochemicals, Brea, CA) and 250 µM NADPH-reduced form in a 37°C shaking water bath. At 15-min intervals, a 250-µl aliquot was removed and transferred to a 1.5-ml microcentrifuge tube containing an equal volume of 100% ice-cold methanol. After incubation on ice for 15 min, the sample was centrifuged, and the methanol-soluble supernatant was filtered through a 0.2 µm Gelman Acrodisc filter. Donor buffy coats were used as a positive control with each set of reactions. A sample that contained all assay ingredients except a source of protein served as the negative control and permitted correction for any possible degradation of the radiolabeled 5-FU used in the enzymatic reaction (which averaged 1.19 ± 0.46%).

Analytic Methods.
5-FU was separated from its catabolites by an ion-pairing high-performance liquid chromatography method using a Waters (Milford, MA) high-performance liquid chromatography system with an in-line Radiomatic 500TR series Flow Scintillation Analyzer (Packard Instruments, Meriden, CT) as described previously (10 , 12) . DPD activity was defined as the pmol catabolites formed per min per mg protein using the average of all four time points. The amount of protein used in the assays averaged 270 ± 60 µg. The DPD reaction was linear for 60 min; linear regression of the amount of DHFU formed versus time (15–60 min) produced an average r2 value of 0.996 ± 0.005 for 58 peripheral blood samples obtained before EU dosing.

Uracil was determined in 0.2-ml aliquots of plasma by a validated gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method as described previously using [15N2]uracil as the internal standard (13) . Graphical analysis was performed with SigmaPlot 2001 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Characteristics.
Twenty-six patients were treated on the amended clinical protocol. Seventy-three % had colorectal cancer, 11.5% had pancreatic cancer, 7.6% had cholangiocarcinoma, and the remainder had other histologies. The median age was 61.5 years (range, 32–80 years), and two-thirds were male. The percentage of patients receiving 5-FU or irinotecan previously was 88 and 62%, respectively.

Inter- and Intraindividual Variation in Pretreatment DPD Activity.
PBMCs were obtained the morning before receiving period 1 5-FU therapy in 24 patients (samples taken at 9:12 a.m. ± 58 min). DPD activity averaged 309.7 ± 125.3 pmol/min/mg, with a 5.6-fold range among patients (median, 295.0 pmol/min/mg; range, 114–641 pmol/min/mg). The degree of interindividual variation is expected (14 , 15) . Serial blood samples were also obtained in a subset of 15 patients on a median of 3 separate days over a 2-week period to assess the variation in DPD activity before receiving EU therapy. Considerable intrapatient variation in the baseline samples was evident (Fig. 1)Citation , with an average (±SD) CV of 31.4 ± 15.2%. To provide a positive control and a measure of day to day variability in the assay, aliquots of buffy coats isolated from six pooled donor samples were sequentially analyzed on 4–10 separate occasions over 1.6–5.8 months; the CV averaged 13.5 ± 4.2% (data not shown).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Intrasubject variation in DPD activity. PBMCs were isolated from 15 patients on a median of three separate occasions (range, 2–5) over a 2-week period before receiving EU therapy. DPD activity is shown as the means, except in patients 23 and 24, for whom the mean ± 1/2 range is shown (n = 2); bars, SD.

 
The baseline uracil level obtained before the start of the 24-h 5-FU infusion during period 1 averaged 0.30 ± 0.11 µM, and the range was 5-fold (0.09–0.48 µM). Ten patients had several baseline samples obtained on different days; the CV averaged 18.2 ± 10.1% (data not shown).

Effect of EU on DPD Activity.
PBMCs were isolated pretreatment, on days 2 and 3 of the first week of oral therapy before the daily drug dosing, and at various intervals after the previous dose of EU. As shown in Fig. 2Citation , DPD activity in PBMCs was diminished profoundly on days 2 and 3 of the initial week of oral EU/5-FU/LV therapy with both the daily-for-3-days and single-dose schedules. A difference in the extent of DPD recovery (pmol/min/mg) was apparent in the samples taken on day 8, week 2 (median = 21.4 and 137.0 pmol/min/mg, 5 and 6.5–7 days after the last EU dose given at week 1, respectively) and at the start of cycle 2 (median = 51.6 and 143.3 pmol/min/mg, 12 and 13–13.5 days after the last EU dose given at week 3, respectively). These results indicate that a single dose of 20 mg of EU given within 24 h before oral 5-FU provides a profound degree of DPD inactivation. DPD activity appears to recover more quickly (~2 weeks) after a single weekly EU dose given with oral 5-FU/LV compared with the daily-for-3-days schedule (~3 weeks).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Time course of DPD recovery in PBMCs after EU therapy. DPD activity was determined before therapy, twice during the first week of EU therapy, and at various intervals after EU. After the break in the X axis, the days are measured from the last EU dose. The means are shown according to EU schedule: daily for 3 days, n = 15 patients (the initial five time points consist of 13–15 patient samples, whereas the later recovery samples were from 3–5 individual patients); daily for one dose, n = 8 patients (each time point comprised 4–8 patient samples, except for a single patient sample obtained 44 days after EU). Bars, SD.

 
Comparable increases in plasma uracil were seen during days 1–3 of the first week of oral EU/5-FU/LV therapy on both schedules (Fig. 3)Citation . With the daily-for-3-days schedule, the uracil levels in the plasma samples obtained on day 3 (24 h after the oral 5-FU dose, 24 h after two daily doses of EU) were consistently higher (2.0 ± 0.5-fold) than that measured before p.o. 5-FU dosing. Although the uracil levels declined thereafter, the plasma levels remained elevated by 16.9 ± 11.2-fold and 5.9 ± 3.6-fold compared with the pretherapy sample 5 and 12 days after the last EU dose, respectively. Uracil levels were similar to baseline values by 19 days after EU.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Time course of uracil recovery in plasma after EU therapy. Uracil levels in plasma were determined before therapy, on at least two occasions during the first week of EU therapy, and at various intervals after EU. After the break in the X axis, the days are measured from the last EU dose. The means are shown according to EU schedule: daily for 3 days, n = 15 patients (each time point comprised 3–15 patient samples); daily for 1 day, n = 8 patients (each time point comprised 5–8 patient samples, except for the sample obtained in one patient 23 days after EU). Bars, SD.

 
A similar increase in uracil was evident in the samples obtained 12 and 36 h after the single EU dose (12 h before and 24 h after the oral 5-FU dose). The plasma uracil levels remained elevated over baseline by 13.3 ± 14.2-fold and 3.6 ± 3.2-fold 6–6.5 and 13 days after EU, respectively. Because there were few data beyond day 13 after EU, it is not possible to precisely estimate when the plasma uracil levels returned to baseline on this single weekly-dose schedule.

Although pretreatment uracil levels did not accurately predict for DPD activity in PBMCs (data not shown), when all paired samples for uracil and DPD activity were analyzed, patients with uracil values lower than the median of 0.95 µM had significantly higher DPD activity than patients whose uracil values were above the median (Fig. 4)Citation .



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. DPD activity according to plasma uracil values. DPD activity was compared with plasma uracil values in 132 paired samples obtained either baseline, or during, or after EU therapy. Plasma uracil values were stratified above or below the median value of 0.95; DPD activity corresponding to these uracil stratifications is shown in box-plot format. P (rank sum test) is shown. Bars, SD.

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Studies evaluating the impact of EU monotherapy on DPD activity have demonstrated that the enzyme is inactivated rapidly and remains so for at least 24 h after dosing, and that enzyme recovery occurs by 7–14 days after therapy (7 , 16) . Because EU does not have single agent antitumor activity, its clinical development has involved its use as a modulator of 5-FU catabolism (17) . Only a few studies have evaluated the impact of EU on DPD activity and uracil levels when given in combination with 5-FU/LV (10 , 18) . A 20-mg dose of EU given twice daily for 7 days in combination with oral 5-FU at doses ranging from 2.5 to 5 mg/m2 and radiation therapy in patients with head and neck cancer led to complete or near-complete DPD inactivation during therapy, but the time to enzyme recovery was not assessed (18) . In our initial study that evaluated weekly 20-mg EU p.o. given with 15 mg of LV twice daily on days 1–3 and 5-FU given twice daily on day 2, we found that DPD activity in PBMCs remained inhibited to an average of 24% of the baseline value 19 days after the prior EU dose (10) . A highly sensitive gas chromatography-mass spectrometry assay (limit of quantitation, 0.025 µM) allowed us to measure accurately the baseline samples in all patients. In several patients in whom serial plasma samples were available after EU therapy, uracil values were projected to require 4–5 weeks to reach baseline levels, which was consistent with the delay in DPD recovery in PBMCs.

These unexpected results led us to evaluate in turn two attenuated schedules of weekly EU given as a single daily dose for either 3 days or 1 day along with LV (once on days 1–3 or days 1–2) and 5-FU (once on day 2) and to determine the effect on DPD inhibition. We found that DPD inactivation during the first 3 days of oral therapy was comparable with both schedules, but recovery of DPD activity in PBMCs appeared to occur more quickly with the single weekly dose schedule compared with the three-consecutive-days schedule (~2 weeks versus 3 weeks).

EU pharmacokinetics do not appear to be affected by concomitant 5-FU at doses ranging from 1.0 to 1.8 mg/m2 twice daily, and the duration of DPD inactivation clearly exceeds the projected plasma exposure to EU (9 , 11) . The addition of EU to 5-FU ± LV is intended to result in greater cytotoxicity by prolonging the plasma half-life of 5-FU and preventing its catabolism. DPD inhibition lasts much longer than can be accounted for by the prolonged half-life of 5-FU given with EU, but the increased plasma exposure to 5-FU leads to increased intracellular formation of active metabolites (19, 20, 21, 22) .

An analogous situation has been reported with the antiviral agent sorivudine, which has been evaluated as therapy for herpes infections (23, 24, 25, 26) . Sorivudine is metabolized by enteric bacteria to 5-bromovinyl-uracil, which is an irreversible, mechanism-based inhibitor of DPD. Nakamura et al. (23) reported that concurrent exposure to sorivudine and tegafur, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, was associated with a 5- and 7-fold increase in the 5-FU plasma half-life and area under the plasma concentration time curve. The effect of sorivudine monotherapy on DPD activity determined in 19 human subjects indicated that enzyme activity had returned to baseline in 18 subjects by 2 weeks, and by 3 weeks in all subjects (24) . Within the first 2 months after the commercial release of sorivudine in Japan, however, several life-threatening toxicities and fatalities were reported in patients who received fluoropyrimidines several weeks after sorivudine therapy (25) . This tragic experience supports our observation that the time to DPD recovery appears to be longer when an irreversible enzyme inhibitor is given with fluoropyrimidines.

It remains to be seen whether DPD recovery might occur more quickly in tissues with a high rate of proliferation. Elevation in plasma uracil levels most likely reflects hepatic DPD inactivation, because this organ has the greatest content of DPD in the body. In the absence of a pronounced stimulus, the liver and PBMCs are not generally considered to be actively proliferating tissues. Because of the enormous contribution of the liver to 5-FU clearance, however, the duration of DPD inactivation in this organ by any irreversible inhibitor of DPD including EU and sorivudine likely dictates the proper safe interval at which conventional doses of 5-FU or analogues can be introduced.

The wide interpatient variability in baseline DPD activity (14 , 15 , 27 , 28) , as well as the intrapatient variation in DPD activity in PBMCs, is consistent with earlier reports (29) . In contrast, we found much less variation in the results obtained from sequential analysis of aliquots from given donor samples over a period of months and in plasma uracil levels determined over a 2-week period. A crucial question is what constitutes a "safe" DPD activity level that will allow full-dose administration of fluoropyrimidines. Some investigators have suggested a cut point of 100 pmol/min/mg (27 , 28) , but this cut point may vary depending on the patient population, gender, method used to isolate the mononuclear cells, and the laboratory. Our analysis of paired uracil plasma samples and DPD activity suggests that patients with a plasma uracil level >0.9 µM have significantly lower DPD activity in PBMCs than subjects with lower uracil levels. Although this type of retrospective correlation is not sufficient to prospectively identify patients who should not receive standard doses of fluoropyrimidines, it provides a hypothesis that could be tested prospectively in future clinical trials. A confounding factor is the difference in the limits of quantitation in published uracil assays, which vary from 0.025 to 8.9 µM, depending on the methodology (13 , 18 , 30) . Assays that use mass spectrometric detection have much greater sensitivity than detection by UV absorption, and the use of [15Ni2]uracil as the internal standard obviates potential interference from endogenous plasma uracil.

On the basis of the disappointing results of two randomized trials comparing the worth of the 28 of 35 days schedule of oral EU/5-FU (10 and 1 mg/m2 twice daily) to a standard monthly schedule of bolus 5-FU modulated by LV in advanced colorectal cancer, the pharmaceutical sponsor has suspended evaluation of EU (31 , 32) . Our pharmacodynamic data suggest that the doses of EU used in these pivotal studies may greatly exceed the dose needed for enzyme inactivation. Other DPD-inhibitory strategies are being evaluated in the clinic currently, including the combination of uracil with ftorafur, S-1, and BOF-A2. Our findings suggest that greater attention should perhaps be paid to defining the proper modulatory dose of DPD inhibitors that are given with fluoropyrimidines early during clinical evaluation.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at National Cancer Institute-Navy Oncology, National Naval Medical Center, Building 8, Room 5101, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889-5105. Phone: (301) 435-5382; Fax: (301) 480-1683; E-mail: gremj{at}mail.nih.gov Back

2 The abbreviations used are: 5-FU, fluorouracil; DPD, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase; LV, calcium leucovorin; EU, eniluracil; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cell; CV, coefficient of variation. Back

Received 10/26/01; revised 1/31/02; accepted 2/ 4/02.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Grem J. L. 5-Fluorinated pyrimidines Chabner B. A. Longo D. L. eds. . Cancer Chemotherapy and Biotherapy: Principles and Practice, : 149-210, Lippincott-Raven Publishers Philadelphia 1996.
  2. Naguib F. N. M., el Kouni M. H., Cha S. Enzymes of uracil catabolism in normal and neoplastic human tissues. Cancer Res., 45: 5405-5412, 1985.[Medline]
  3. Porter D. J., Chestnut W. G., Merrill B. M., Spector T. Mechanism-based inactivation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase by 5-ethynyluracil. J. Biol. Chem., 267: 5236-5242, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Baccanari D. P., Davis S. T., Knick V. C., Baccanari D. P., Davis S. T., Knick V. C., Spector T. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): a potent modulator of the pharmacokinetics and antitumor efficacy of 5-fluorouracil. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90: 11064-11068, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Spector T., Harrington J. A., Porter D. J. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): inactivation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in vivo. Biochem. Pharmacol., 46: 2243-2248, 1993.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Baker S. D., Khor S.P., Adjei A. A., Doucette M., Spector T., Donehower R. C., Grochow L. B., Sartorius S. E., Noe D. A., Hohneker J. A., Rowinsky E. K. Pharmacokinetic, oral bioavailability, and safety study of fluorouracil in patients treated with 776C85, an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. J. Clin. Oncol., 14: 3085-3096, 1996.[Abstract]
  7. Schilsky R. L., Hohneker J., Ratain M. J., Janisch L., Smetzer L., Lucas V. S., Khor S.P., Diasio R., Von Hoff D. D., Burris H. A. Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of eniluracil plus fluorouracil in patients with advanced cancer. J. Clin. Oncol., 16: 1450-1457 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Ochoa L., Hurwitz H. I., Wilding G., Cohen D., Thomas J. P., Schwartz G., Monroe P., Petros W. P., Ertel V. P., Hsieh A., Hoffman C., Drengler R., Magnum S., Rowinsky E. K. Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of a combined oral formulation of eniluracil, an inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Ann. Oncol., 11: 1313-1322, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Baker S. D., Diasio R. B., O’Reilly S., Lucas V. S., Khor S. P., Sartorius S. E., Donehower R. C., Grochow L. B., Spector T., Hohneker J. A., Rowinsky E. K. Phase I and pharmacologic study of oral fluorouracil on a chronic daily schedule in combination with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inactivator eniluracil. J. Clin. Oncol., 18: 915-926, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Grem J. L., Harold N., Shapiro J., Bi D., Quinn M. G., Zentko S., Keith B., Hamilton J. M., Monahan B. P., Donavan S., Grollman F., Morrison G., Takimoto C. H. Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of weekly oral fluorouracil given with eniluracil and low-dose leucovorin to patients with solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol., 18: 3952-3963, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. . Investigator’s Brochure: 776C85 Tablets and 5-Fluorouracil Tablets, June 1999 Glaxo Wellcome Clinical Oncology Group Research Triangle Park, NC
  12. Yee L. K., Allegra C. J., Steinberg S. M., Grem J. L. Decreased catabolism of fluorouracil in peripheral blood mononuclear cells during combination therapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon {alpha}-2a. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 84: 1820-1825, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Bi D., Anderson L. W., Shapiro J., Shapiro A., Grem J. L., Takimoto C. H. Measurement of plasma uracil using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in normal individuals and in patients receiving inhibitors of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl., 738: 249-258, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Fleming R. A., Milano G. A., Gaspard M. H., Bargnoux P. J., Thyss A., Plagne R., Renee N., Schneider M., Demard F. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer, 29A: 740-744, 1993.[CrossRef]
  15. Lu Z., Zhang R., Diasio R. B. Population characteristics of hepatic dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, a key metabolic enzyme in 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 58: 512-522, 1995.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Heslin M. J., Yan J., Shao L., Weingarten J., Mangum S. G., Ertel P. J., Lucas V. S., Diasio R. B. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase rapidly regenerates after inactivation by eniluracil (776C85) in primary and metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol., 19: 682 2000.
  17. Levin J., Hohneker J. Clinical development of eniluracil/fluorouracil: an oral treatment for patients with solid tumors. Invest. New Drugs, 18: 383-390, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Humerickhouse R. A., Dolan M. E., Haraf D. J., Brockstein B., Stenson K., Kies M., Sulzen L., Ratain M. J., Vokes E. E. Phase I study of eniluracil, a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inactivator, and oral 5-fluorouracil with radiation therapy in patients with recurrent or advanced head and neck cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., 5: 291-298, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Adams E. R., Leffert J. J., Craig D. J., Spector T., Pizzorno G. In vivo effect of 5-ethynyluracil on 5-fluorouracil metabolism determined by 19F nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Cancer Res., 59: 122-127, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Bading J. R., Shahinian A. H., Paff M. T., Yoo P. B., Hsia D. W. Validation of fluorouracil metabolite analysis in excised tumor. Lability of anabolites. Biochem. Pharmacol., 60: 963-967, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Aboagye E. O., Saleem A., Cunningham V. J., Osman S., Price P. M. Extraction of 5-fluorouracil by tumor and liver: a noninvasive positron emission tomography study of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer Res., 61: 4937-4941, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Saleem A., Yap J., Osman S., Brady F., Suttle B., Lucas S. V., Jones T., Price P. M., Aboagye E. O. Modulation of fluorouracil tissue pharmacokinetics by eniluracil: in vivo imaging of drug action. Lancet, 355: 2125-2131, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Nakamura H., Omori S., Kitada K., Mochida A. Prevention of drug interactions and its countermeasures. J. Toxicol. Sci., 19: 89-93, 1994.[Medline]
  24. Yan J., Tyring S. K., McCrary M. M., Lee P. C., Haworth S., Raymond R., Olsen S. J., Diasio R. B. The effect of sorivudine on dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in patients with acute herpes zoster. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 61: 563-573, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Okuda H., Ogura K., Kato A., Takubo H., Watabe T. A possible mechanism of eighteen patient deaths caused by interactions of sorivudine, a new antiviral drug, with oral 5-fluorouracil prodrugs. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 287: 791-799, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Diasio R. B. Sorivudine and 5-fluorouracil: a clinically significant drug-drug interaction due to inhibition of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 46: 1-4, 1998.[Medline]
  27. Lu Z., Zhang R., Carpenter J. T., Diasio R. B. Decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in a population of patients with breast cancer: implication for 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res., 4: 325-329, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Milano G., Etienne M. C., Pierrefite V., Barberi-Heyob M., Deporte-Fety R., Renee N. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency and fluorouracil-related toxicity. Br. J. Cancer, 79: 627-630, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Grem J. L., Yee L. K., Venzon D. J., Takimoto C. H., Allegra C. J. Inter- and intraindividual variation in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 40: 117-125, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Ahmed F. Y., Johnston S. J., Cassidy J., O’Kelly T., Binnie N., Murray G. I., van Gennip A. H., Abeling N. G. G. M., Knight S., McLeod H. L. Eniluracil treatment completely inactivates dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in colorectal tumors. J. Clin. Oncol., 17: 2439-2445, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Van Cutsem E., Sorensen J., Cassidy J., Daniel F., Harper P., Bailey N., Peachey M., Somerville M. International Phase III study of oral eniluracil plus 5-fluorouracil versus intravenous 5-FU plus leucovorin in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol., 20: 522 2001.
  32. Levin J., Schilsky R., Burris H., Wong A., Colwell B., Thirlwell M., Ansari R., Bell W., White R., McGuirt P., Hohneker J., Pazdur R. North American Phase III study of oral eniluracil plus oral 5-fluorouracil versus intravenous 5-FU plus leucovorin in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol., 20: 523 2001.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. L. Grem
Screening for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Deficiency
Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2005; 11(14): 5067 - 5068.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. E. Bellibas, I. Patel, E. Chamorey, B. Brivet, E. D. Bush, C. Kircher, S. Nave, L. Banken, N. Renee, and G. Milano
Single Ascending Dose Tolerability, Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Study of Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Inhibitor Ro 09-4889
Clin. Cancer Res., April 1, 2004; 10(7): 2327 - 2335.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grem, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keith, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grem, J. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online