ライフサイエンスコーパス: UFT

1 UFT 100 mg/m2 plus LV 30 mg orally every 8 hours for 28

2 UFT has a more favorable toxicity profile than intraveno

3 UFT has been administered in these trials as a single ag

4 UFT has been extensively studied in Japan and has been i

5 UFT has recently entered extensive investigations in Nor

6 UFT is a fluoropyrimidine active in colorectal cancer.

7 UFT is one of the first second-generation oral 5-FU prod

8 UFT is well tolerated, but such toxic effects as nausea,

9 UFT was administered daily in split doses for periods th

10 UFT+LV achieved similar DFS and OS when compared with an

11 The second-generation oral anticancer agent UFT, a combination of uracil and tegafur (TGF), results

12 In patients with gastric carcinoma, UFT alone has a response rate of approximately 20%.

13 0 patients were randomized to receive either UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) and LV (90 mg/d), administered for 2

14 lthough convenience of care analysis favored UFT+LV.

15 oring FU, and for SDS and SCL, both favoring UFT.

16 rly clinical development of uracil-ftorafur (UFT), an oral fluoropyrimidine, designed in 1978 by addi

17 on who received either oral uracil/ftorafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) or standard intravenous (IV) f

18 The uracil in UFT slows degradation of 5-FU by dihydropyrimidine dehyd

19 In Japan, UFT is part of the standard adjuvant chemotherapy for ga

20 The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of UFT has generally been diarrhea.

21 se (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of UFT plus LV in this setting.

22 owed by four 35-day cycles of fixed doses of UFT and LV (28 days of therapy each cycle).

23 es that have chronicled the establishment of UFT, its mechanism of action, preclinical toxicology, hu

24 The highest dose-intensities of UFT are achieved with 28-day schedules of administration

25 The MTD of UFT with radiation was 350 mg/m(2)/d with 90 mg/d of LV.

26 The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of UFT with this schedule, when administered concomitantly

27 Our goal was to evaluate the safety of UFT plus LV combined with preoperative radiation and det

28 Clinical trials of UFT published in the Western world have included 581 pat

29 95% Confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 3.8) on UFT/LV and 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.7) on 5-FU/LV (P

30 ere randomly assigned to receive either oral UFT+LV or intravenous FU+LV.

31 The activity of oral UFT in large-bowel cancer when administered with oral LV

32 s of this trial support the efficacy of oral UFT/LV in elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

33 The oral UFT/LV regimen failed to achieve improved TTP; however,

34 Preoperative chemoradiation with oral UFT plus LV is feasible and well tolerated and should be

35 and impact of the oral fluorouracil prodrugs UFT, S-1, BOF-A2, and capecitabine as replacements for i

36 of tegafur and uracil in a 1:4 molar ratio (UFT) and leucovorin (LV) to intravenous (IV) fluorouraci

37 d ratio (HR) for OS of patients who received UFT+LV versus that of patients who received FU+LV was 1.

38 In the adjuvant setting, UFT plus mitomycin appears superior to TGF plus mitomyci

39 In phase I pharmacokinetic studies, UFT given orally on a 28-day schedule resulted in blood

40 The literature suggests UFT is well tolerated and has cellular pharmacokinetic s

41 Patients taking UFT reported substantially higher COC.

42 Oral chemotherapy with uracil and tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) may reduce costs and complicat

43 elative efficacy of oral uracil and tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) with the efficacy of weekly in

44 ability and effectiveness of uracil-tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) in the treatment of elderly pa

45 The UFT and LV combination was given 5 days per week concurr

46 In the UFT+LV arm, 38.2% of patients experienced any grade 3 or

47 8 patients, 803 to the FU arm and 805 to the UFT arm.

48 y 25% (range, 17% to 39%) were reported when UFT was administered as a single agent or with lower dos

49 efits were observed in patients treated with UFT/LV.

50 Patients perceive adjuvant treatment with UFT + LV as more convenient than standard IV treatment w