Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Capecitabine: have we got the dose right?

Abstract

In the past 5–10 years there has been a growing trend for substituting conventional 5-fluorouracil with the oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, in chemotherapy regimens. This regimen change is based on evidence of the efficacy equivalence of these two drugs and the lack of an increase in overall toxic effects when capecitabine is used. Many investigators in different parts of the world have determined their own starting dose for capecitabine, usually based on their experience of toxic events within the population of patients they treat. This starting dose is usually between 1,000–1,250 mg/m2, which is generally administered twice daily for 14 days followed by 7 days rest. This Review summarizes why there may indeed not be a universally applicable starting dose for capecitabine because of interpatient differences in basic physiology, pharmacogenomics and diet. This article also explores which of these factors contribute to the observed inter-regional geographical variation in capecitabine toxicity, and explains why even within a region various factors should prompt a clinician to modify the starting dose.

Key Points

  • Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine prodrug that is selectively converted within cancer cells to the active drug 5-fluorouracil

  • Clinical trials have indicated that capecitabine is a safe and useful alternative to 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of solid tumors, especially when there is a desire to avoid the use of indwelling venous catheters

  • The starting dose of capecitabine varies in different regions of the world

  • Individual patient exposure to capecitabine and its active metabolites will depend upon a number of factors including age, sex, body weight, hepatorenal function, concomitant drug exposure, pharmacogenetic imprinting, and dietary folate intake

  • Individual clinicians should attempt to consider as many of these factors as possible before selecting an appropriate dose of capecitabine for their patients

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Schematic showing the stages in the metabolism of capecitabine.
Figure 2: Trials analyzed to assess the toxic effects of capecitabine.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoff PM et al. (2001) Comparison of oral capecitabine versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first line treatment in 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomised phase III study. J Clin Oncol 19: 2282–2292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cassidy J et al. (2007) XELOX vs. FOLFOX4: efficacy results from XELOX-1/NO16966, a randomized phase III trial in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) [abstract #270]. In Proceedings of the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium: 2007 January 19–21; Orlando, FL

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scheithauer W et al. (2003) Oral capecitabine as an alternative to i.v. 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: safety results of a randomized, phase III trial. Ann Oncol 14: 1735–1743

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Maughan TS et al. (2002) Comparison of survival, palliation and quality of life with three chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359: 1555–1563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. European Medicines Agency (online 31 March 2005) Scientific discussion [http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Xeloda/282200en6.pdf] (accessed 21 February 2008)

  6. Gieschke R et al. (2002) Population pharmacokinetic analysis of the major metabolites of capecitabine. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 29: 25–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gieschke R et al. (2003) Population pharmacokinetics and concentration-effect relationships of capecitabine metabolites in colorectal cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 55: 252–263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Twelves C et al. (2005) Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med 352: 2696–2704

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chan R and Kerr DJ (2004) Can we individualize chemotherapy for colorectal cancer? Ann Oncol 15: 996–999

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gross E et al. (2003) High-throughput genotyping by DHPLC of the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene implicated in (fluoro)pyrimidine catabolism. Int J Oncol 22: 325–332

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hattori K et al. (2003) Design and synthesis of the tumour-activated prodrug of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) inhibitor, RO00948889 for combination therapy with capecitabine. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 13: 867–872

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Largillier R et al. (2005) Pharmacogenetics of capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 12: 5496–5502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haller DG et al. (2006) Tolerability of fluoropyrimidines appears to differ by region. J Clin Oncol 24 (Suppl): 3514

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schmoll H-J et al. (2007) Phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer: a planned safety analysis in 1864 patients. J Clin Oncol 25: 102–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shirao K et al. (2004) Comparison of the efficacy, toxicity and pharmacokinetics of Uracil/Tegafur (UFT) plus oral leucovorin (LV) regimen between Japanese and American patients with advanced colorectal cancer: Joint United States and Japan study UFT/LV. J Clin Oncol 22: 3466–3474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Choumenkovitch SF et al. (2002) Folic acid intake from fortification in United States exceeds predictions. J Nutr 132: 2792–2798

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. De Bree A et al. (1997) Folate intake in Europe: recommended, actual and desired intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 51: 643–660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Branda RF et al. (1998) Nutritional folate status influences the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy in rats. Blood 92: 2471–2476

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Branda RF et al. (2002) Diet modulates the toxicity of cancer chemotherapy in rats. J Lab Clin Med 140: 353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ho C et al. (2005) Outcomes in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with capecitabine: a population-based analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 5: 279–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma R et al. (2006) A phase II study of fixed-dose capecitabine and assessment of predictors of toxicity in patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 94: 964–968

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lokich J (2004) Capecitabine: fixed daily dose and continuous (non-cyclic) dosing schedule. Cancer Invest 22: 713–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham D et al. (2002) Efficacy, tolerability and management of raltitrexed (Tomudex) monotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, a review of phase II/III trials. Eur J Cancer 38: 478–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. van Laarhoven HW et al. (2003) In vivo monitoring of capecitabine metabolism in human liver by 19fluorine magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 1.5 and 3 Tesla field strength. Cancer Res 63: 7609–7612

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Midgley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Midgley, R., Kerr, D. Capecitabine: have we got the dose right?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6, 17–24 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1240

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1240

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing