Cancer Pill With Fewer Side Effects Can Be Taken At Home


The Herald

May 28, 2003

A new pill for advanced breast and bowel cancer which causes fewer side effects
than conventional chemotherapy will be recommended for NHS patients by the UK
drug appraisal bodies today.

Capecitabine, marketed under the brand name Xeloda, can be taken by patients at
home, avoiding the need for them to come into hospital for lengthy sessions
hooked to an intravenous drip.

Freeing up space and staff time will also help to offset the cost of the drug,
which is estimated to be (pounds) 1100 for a typical course of treatment for
breast cancer.

All health authorities will be expected to adopt the advice being issued today
by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) - and its Scottish
counterpart, the Health Technology Board for Scotland (HTBS).

Xeloda is based on an existing chemotherapy agent called 5FU, but is activated
by an enzyme found in higher levels only in cancer cells. This means it can
side-step healthy tissue, avoiding the collateral damage associated with
traditional chemotherapy drugs, including nausea and hair loss.

Far fewer side effects have been reported by patients using capecitabine, the
most common being tingling sensations in the hands and feet.

For advanced breast cancer, Nice and HTBS have recommended capecitabine for use
as both a single agent treatment and in combination with another drug, Taxotere.

The combination treatment is the first to demonstrate better rates of tumour
response and overall survival than Taxotere alone.

In the case of advanced colon cancer, capecitabine is recommended as a first
line treatment, alongside other drugs.

Chris Twelves, a former consultant medical oncologist at the Beatson Oncology
Centre, Glasgow, - and now a professor at the Tom Connors Cancer Research Centre
at Bradford University - said: "As a clinician treating people with advanced
cancer, it is clear that Xeloda can make a real difference to patients with
breast and bowel cancer."

Nice pointed out that, although the drug would not be cheaper to administer than
other therapies, it would save the NHS money in the long run by reducing the
work load of specialist staff.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]