Although colorectal cancer is a common malignancy, we have made little progress in its treatment. Several problems contribute to this situation. First, although 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is the single most active drug for colon cancer, its effect on patient survival is marginal. Second, extensive experience has failed to show that any drug combinations are better than 5-FU alone. Third, randomized prospective trials of 5-FU alone and with other agents have not altered the natural history of surgically resected colon cancer, although the drugs are theoretically of maximum effectiveness against minimal disease. Finally, empiric testing of drug development has been a very ineffective way of identifying active new agents for colon cancer .
KeywordsLymphoma Glutathione Oncol Interferon Methotrexate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Lokich J, Ahlgren J, Gullo J et al. (1987) A randomized trial of standard bolus 5-FU vs. protracted infusional 5-FU in advanced colon cancer. Proc ASCO 6: 81Google Scholar
- 5.Hohn D, Stagg R, Friedman M et al. (1987) The NCOG randomized trial of intravenous vs. hepatic arterial FuDR for colon cancer metastatic to the liver. Proc ASCO 6: 85Google Scholar
- 6.Sugarbaker PH, Gianola FJ, Speyer JL et al. (1985) Prospective randomized trial of intravenous vs. intraperitoneal 5-FU in patients with advanced primary colon or rectal cancer. Semin Oncol [Suppl 4] 12: 101–111Google Scholar
- 8.Ortiz JE, Woolley PV (1987) A study of the synergistic effects of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin on colon cancer cells using median effect analysis. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 6: 414Google Scholar
- 9.Glicksman AS, Lee ES, Leite D, Leith JT (1986) Production of increased cytotoxicity in human colon tumor cells after X-irradiation or drug treatment (cis-platinum, bleomycin, 5-fluorouracil) by pre-exposure to the differentiating agent N-methylformamide ( NMF ). Proc ASCO 5: 45Google Scholar
- 10.Dritschilo A, Grant EG, Harter KW et al. (1986) Interstitial radiation therapy for hepatic metastases: sonographic guidance for applicator placement. AJR 146: 275–278Google Scholar