Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Randomized Trial Comparing Oral Uracil and Tegafur and Oral Leucovorin Vs. Intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin

Oral Tegafur-Uracil Combination plus Leucovorin versus Other Fluoropyrimidine Agents in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shikha VermaBackground  Systemic fluoropyrimidines, both oral and intravenous, are an integral part of colorectal cancer (CRC) management. They can be administered either with curative or palliative intent. Objectives  This article examines the literature to analyze the efficacy and safety of the oral fixed-dose combination of uracil and tegafur (UFT)/leucovorin (LV) compared with other fluoropyrimidine agents, with an intention to implement the findings into the current treatment algorithms for CRC. Methods  An exhaustive systematic literature search was performed for prospective studies using PUBMED, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database. Studies which met eligibility criteria were shortlisted and grouped into chemotherapy given for curative or palliative intent. Results  Eight trials were shortlisted involving 4,486 patients for the analysis. There was no difference between UFT/LV and other fluoropyrimidines in the primary endpoints-disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-.15; p  = 0.81) and progression-free survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.66-.66; p  = 0.35) for curative and palliative intent CRC patients, respectively. In secondary analyses, there was no significant difference observed between UFT and other fluoropyrimidines in overall survival in CRC patients with curative intent (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88-1.23; p  = 0.63) and palliative intent (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.97-1.06; p  = 0.42) . In the safety analysis, we found significantly lesser patients on UFT/LV had stomatitis/mucositis (odds ratio [OR] 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.85; p  = 0.03), fever (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.29-0.71; p  < 0.001), infection (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.24-0.74; p  < 0.01), leukopenia (OR 0.04; 95% CI 0.00-0.95; p  = 0.05), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00-0.24; p  = 0.001), and thrombocytopenia (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02-0.79; p  = 0.03) compared with other fluoropyrimidines. Conclusion  Oral UFT/LV is equally efficacious to other fluoropyrimidines, especially intravenous 5-fluorouracil, in the management of early as well as advanced CRC patients. Importantly, UFT/LV has a superior safety profile compared with other fluoropyrimidines in terms of both hematological and nonhematological adverse events.

A multicenter phase II trial of preoperative chemoradiotherapy with S-1 plus oxaliplatin and bevacizumab for locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

We clarified the safety and efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer using a multidrug regimen (S-1 + oxaliplatin + bevacizumab).

METHODS

This multicenter phase II trial involved 47 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. All patients received S-1 orally (80 mg/m²/day on days 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-26) and infusions of oxaliplatin (50 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15). The total radiation dose was 40 Gy delivered in daily fractions of 2 Gy via the four-field technique. The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response rate. The secondary endpoints were safety (incidence of adverse events) and clinical response, relapse-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, R0 resection, downstaging, and treatment completion rates.

RESULTS

All 47 patients received chemoradiotherapy, and 44 patients underwent curative resection. Two patients refused surgery and selected a watch-and-wait strategy. The pathological complete response rate was 18.2% in patients who underwent curative resection. The clinical response rate was 91.3% in 46 patients. Concerning hematotoxicity, there was one grade 4 adverse event (2.1%) and seven grade 3 events (14.9%). Diarrhea was the most frequent non-hematotoxic event, and the grade 3 event rate was 25.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer using the S-1 + oxaliplatin + bevacizumab regimen did not achieve the expected pathological complete response rate, this regimen led to an improved clinical response rate.

Phase I/II Study of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy With TEGAFIRI for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer; however, the optimal chemotherapy sequence to administer simultaneously with radiotherapy remains unclear. We conducted a phase I/II study to test a new regimen, TEGAFIRI (combination tegafur, uracil [UFT], leucovorin [LV], irinotecan), for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 22 patients with locally advanced lower rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the present study. The radiation dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. UFT (300 mg/m²/d) and LV (75 mg/body weight/d) were administered orally 3 times daily. Irinotecan was administered as an intravenous infusion at 3 escalating dose levels. The initial dose was 50 mg/m² (level 1; n = 7), the intermediate was 70 mg/m² (level 2; n = 8), and the maximum was 80 mg/m² (level 3; n = 7). The drug was administered on days 1, 15, 29, and 43.

RESULTS

Dose-limiting toxicity was not observed at any dosing level. The most frequent adverse event was leukopenia (50%), followed by diarrhea (45.5%), anal pain (31.8%), and neutropenia (27.3%). All were well-managed with the appropriate drugs. The total pathologic complete response rate was 22.7%, and the proportion of good responders was 28.6%, 50%, and 71.4% at levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. None of the patients experienced local recurrence. The 5-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 80.4% and 80.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

TEGAFIRI is a promising CRT regimen that results in marked tumor regression and good local control. Moreover, its adverse events are well-tolerated.

Importance of the Circumferential Extent of Tumors and Clinical Lymph Node Status as Prognostic Factors after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Aims and background

To evaluate the clinical factors that influence pathological and clinical outcomes after preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Between 1999 and 2004, 121 patients with cT3-4 or node-positive rectal cancer received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Preoperative radiation therapy with 45 Gy was delivered. Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was administered to most of the patients.

Results

Pathological complete remission was 14.3% after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. More than 60% tumor circumferential extent was an independent adverse factor for complete remission (P = 0.011, HR 4.643, 95% CI 1.415–15.231). Local recurrence developed in 9.9% of the cases. Serum CEA level ≥5 ng/ml (P = 0.057, HR 3.022, 95% CI 0.967–9.441) and >60% circumferential extent of tumor (P = 0.064, HR 4.232, 95% CI 0.918–19.531) were marginal adverse factors for local recurrence. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 72.2% and 86.6%, respectively. Disease-free survival was poor for patients with the lymph nodes ≥1 cm in diameter (P = 0.028), cN2 stage disease (P = 0.047) and >60% circumferential extent of tumor (P = 0.058). Multivariate analysis for disease-free survival showed that the lymph node size ≥1 cm was an adverse factor (P = 0.019, HR 2.380, 95% CI 1.115–4.906). Patients with >60% circumferential extent of tumor and cN2 stage had a more unfavorable survival than the other patients (disease-free survival, P = 0.018; overall survival, P = 0.015). Patients with >60% circumferential extent of tumor and/or lymph node ≥1 cm also had an unfavorable survival (disease-free survival, P = 0.016; overall survival, P = 0.049).

Conclusions

In rectal cancer, circumferential extent of tumor and clinical lymph node status were important factors for preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery. A further prospective study is needed to confirm and expand these findings.

The role of chemotherapy in localized and locally advanced rectal cancer: A systematic revision

Curative treatment of rectal cancer depends on an optimal surgical resection, with the addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) with or without concomitant chemotherapy (ChT) in more advanced tumors. The role of adjuvant ChT is controversial and a more intensified neoadjuvant approach with the addition of ChT before or after RT, or even as single modality, is currently being explored in trials. A systematic review selecting randomised phase II and III trials on the role of ChT in localized rectal cancer was performed. Data show that neoadjuvant ChRT improves locoregional control in resected rectal cancer. Short-course RT (SCRT) could give similar outcomes to ChRT. The addition of oxaliplatin to neoadjuvant ChRT marginally increases the pathological complete remission rate without improving survival and increasing toxicity. A more intensified approach remains investigational as trials to date have not shown significant advantages. Adjuvant ChT trials after preoperative ChRT are contentious, although the addition of oxaliplatin in high risk patients may benefit outcomes. Despite a wide heterogeneity in the target population, different staging procedures and diverse treatment approaches among different trials, this systematic review confirms the role of ChT in combination with neoadjuvant long-course RT. Adjuvant ChT could be of value in selected patients with high-risk features, mainly if they do not respond to neoadjuvant RT. Further investigation is warranted on more intensified neoadjuvant regimens including ChT for MRI-defined high-risk patients.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

A phase II study of preoperative chemoradiation with tegafur-uracil plus leucovorin for locally advanced rectal cancer with pharmacogenetic analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a high dose of oral tegafur-uracil (400 mg/m²) plus leucovorin with preoperative chemoradiation of locally advanced rectal cancer and to explore the impact of polymorphisms of cytochrome P 2A6 (CYP2A6), uridine monophosphate synthetase (UMPS), and ATP-binding cassette B1 (ABCB1) on clinical outcome.

METHODS

Patients with cT3 or cT4 rectal cancer were enrolled and were given tegafur-uracil 400 mg/m²/day and leucovorin 90 mg/m²/day for 7 days a week during preoperative chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions) in this phase II trial. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response rate, and the secondary endpoint was to explore the association between clinical outcomes and genetic polymorphisms CYP2A6 (*4, *7, *9 and *10), UMPS G638C, and three ABCB1 genotypes (C1236T, C3435T, and G2677T).

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were given study treatment, and 90 underwent surgery. Pathologic complete response was noted in 10 patients (11.1%). There was no grade 4 or 5 toxicity; 20 (22.0%) experienced grade 3 toxicities, including diarrhea (10, 11.0%), abdominal pain (2, 2.2%), and anemia (2, 2.2%). Relapse-free survival and overall survival at 5 years were 88.6% and 94.2%, respectively. Patients with the UMPS 638 CC genotype experienced significantly more frequent grade 2 or 3 diarrhea (p for trend = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative chemoradiation with tegafur-uracil 400 mg/m²/day with leucovorin was feasible, but did not meet the expected pathologic complete response rate. The UMPS 638 CC genotype might be a candidate biomarker predicting toxicity in patients receiving tegafur-uracil/leucovorin-based preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN11812525 , registered on 25 July 2016. Retrospectively registered.

High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for distal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection is the standard treatment for patients with distal T2 or T3 rectal cancers; however, the procedure is extensive and mutilating, and alternative treatment strategies are being investigated. We did a prospective observational trial to assess whether high-dose radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy followed by observation (watchful waiting) was successful for non-surgical management of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with primary, resectable, T2 or T3, N0-N1 adenocarcinoma in the lower 6 cm of the rectum were given chemoradiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions to tumour, 50 Gy in 30 fractions to elective lymph node volumes, 5 Gy endorectal brachytherapy boost, and oral tegafur-uracil 300 mg/m(2)) every weekday for 6 weeks. Endoscopies and biopsies of the tumour were done at baseline, throughout the course of treatment (weeks 2, 4, and 6), and 6 weeks after the end of treatment. We allocated patients with complete clinical tumour regression, negative tumour site biopsies, and no nodal or distant metastases on CT and MRI 6 weeks after treatment to the observation group (watchful waiting). We referred all other patients to standard surgery. Patients under observation were followed up closely with endoscopies and selected-site biopsies, with surgical resection given for local recurrence. The primary endpoint was local tumour recurrence 1 year after allocation to the observation group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00952926. Enrolment is closed, but follow-up continues for secondary endpoints.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 20, 2009, and Dec 23, 2013, we enrolled 55 patients. Patients were recruited from three surgical units throughout Denmark and treated in one tertiary cancer centre (Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark). Of 51 patients who were eligible, 40 had clinical complete response and were allocated to observation. Median follow-up for local recurrence in the observation group was 23·9 months (IQR 15·3-31·0). Local recurrence in the observation group at 1 year was 15·5% (95% CI 3·3-26·3). The most common acute grade 3 adverse event during treatment was diarrhoea, which affected four (8%) of 51 patients. Sphincter function in the observation group was excellent, with 18 (72%) of 25 patients at 1 year and 11 (69%) of 16 patients at 2 years reporting no faecal incontinence at all and a median Jorge-Wexner score of 0 (IQR 0-0) at all timepoints. The most common late toxicity was bleeding from the rectal mucosa; grade 3 bleeding was reported in two (7%) in 30 patients at 1 year and one (6%) of 17 patients at 2 years. There were no unexpected serious adverse reactions or treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting might be a safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection for patients with distal rectal cancer.

FUNDING

CIRRO-The Lundbeck Foundation Center for Interventional Research in Radiation Oncology and The Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Modified weekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy is acceptable in postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Triweekly cisplatin-based postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has high intolerance and toxicities in locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). We evaluated the effect of a modified weekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy in postoperative CCRT.

METHODS

A total of 117 patients with LAHNC were enrolled between December 2007 and December 2012. Survival, compliance/adverse events, and independent prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 30.0 (3.1-73.0) months. Most patients completed the entire course of postoperative CCRT (radiotherapy ≥ 60 Gy, 94.9%; ≥ 6 times weekly chemotherapy, 75.2%). Only 17.1% patients required hospital admission. The most common adverse effect was grade 3/4 mucositis (28.2%). No patient died due to protocol-related adverse effects. Multivariate analysis revealed the following independent prognostic factors: oropharyngeal cancer, extracapsular spread, and total radiation dose. Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 70.9% and 79.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Modified weekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy is an acceptable regimen in postoperative CCRT for LAHNC.

How can we determine the best neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen for rectal cancer?

SUMMARY 

The current management of patients with clinically defined ‘locally advanced rectal cancer’ often involves fluoropyrimidine-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision. The focus remains primarily on reducing local recurrence, and improving survival, with organ preservation an increasing target. The best neoadjuvant CRT is the most effective regimen, balanced against the tolerability and late functional consequences, which should be selected for the individual according to their individual risk of local and distant recurrence. Hence, what makes the best neoadjuvant treatment depends on the activity and toxicity of the particular schedule, the aims of treatment, the individual disease characteristics and the individual patient pharmacogenomics. Current research efforts focus on enhancing the efficacy of CRT by integrating additional cytotoxics and biologically targeted agents.

Clinical predictive factors of pathologic tumor response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify clinical predictive factors for tumor response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

The study involved 51 patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by surgery between January 2005 and February 2012. Radiotherapy was delivered to the whole pelvis at a dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions, followed by a boost of 5.4 Gy in 3 fractions to the primary tumor with 5 fractions per week. Three different chemotherapy regimens were used (5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, capecitabine, or tegafur/uracil). Tumor responses to preoperative CRT were assessed in terms of tumor downstaging and pathologic complete response (ypCR). Statistical analyses were performed to identify clinical factors associated with pathologic tumor response.

Results

Tumor downstaging was observed in 28 patients (54.9%), whereas ypCR was observed in 6 patients (11.8%). Multivariate analysis found that predictors of downstaging was pretreatment relative lymphocyte count (p = 0.023) and that none of clinical factors was significantly associated with ypCR.

Conclusion

Pretreatment relative lymphocyte count (%) has a significant impact on the pathologic tumor response (tumor downstaging) after preoperative CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer. Enhancement of lymphocyte-mediated immune reactions may improve the effect of preoperative CRT for rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant oral vs. infusional chemoradiotherapy on locally advanced rectal cancer: Prognostic factors

AIM

To evaluate the prognostic factors and impact on survival of neoadjuvant oral and infusional chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

There is still no definitive consensus about the prognostic factors and the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on survival. Some studies have pointed to an improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with tumor downstaging (TD) and nodal downstaging (ND).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A set of 159 patients with LARC were treated preoperatively. Group A - 112 patients underwent concomitant oral chemoradiotherapy: capecitabine or UFT + folinic acid. Group B - 47 patients submitted to concomitant chemoradiation with 5-FU in continuous infusion. 63.6% of patients were submitted to adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

GROUP A

pathologic complete response (pCR) - 18.7%; TD - 55.1%; ND - 76%; loco-regional response - 74.8%. Group B: pCR - 11.4%; TD - 50%; ND - 55.8%; LRR - 54.5%. The loco-regional control was 95.6%. There was no difference in survival between both groups. Those with loco-regional response had better PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor and nodal downstaging, loco-regional response and a normal CEA level turned out to be important prognostic factors in locally advanced rectal cancer. Nodal downstaging and loco-regional response were higher in Group A. Those with tumor downstaging and loco-regional response from Group A had better OS. Adjuvant chemotherapy had no impact on survival except in those patients with loco-regional response who achieved a higher PFS.

Comparison of neoadjuvant oral chemotherapy with UFT plus Folinic acid or Capecitabine concomitant with radiotherapy on locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

To evaluate the differences in treatment response and the impact on survival with both oral agents (UFT and Capecitabine) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy administered concomitantly with radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND

There are still no studies comparing the use of neoadjuvant oral chemotherapy either with UFT plus Folinic acid or Capecitabine concomitant with radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A set of 112 patients with LARC were treated preoperatively. GROUP 1 - 61 patients underwent concomitant oral chemotherapy with Capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) twice daily). GROUP 2 - 51 patients submitted to concomitant oral chemotherapy with UFT (300 mg/m(2)/d) + Folinic acid (90 mg/d) and radiotherapy. 57.1% of patients were submitted to adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

GROUP 1: acute toxicity - 80.3%; pathological complete response (pCR) - 10.5%; tumor downstaging (TD) - 49.1%; nodal downstaging (ND) - 76.5%; loco-regional response (LRR) - 71.9%; toxicity to adjuvant chemotherapy - 75%. GROUP 2: acute toxicity - 80.4%; pCR - 28%; TD - 62%; ND - 75.6%; LRR - 78%; toxicity to adjuvant chemotherapy - 56%. There was no difference in survival nor loco-regional control between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with neoadjuvant oral UFT + Folinic acid had a higher rate of pathologic complete response than patients treated with Capecitabine concomitant with radiotherapy. There were no differences in downstaging, LRR, toxicity, survival or loco-regional control between both groups. There was a trend to a higher rate of toxicity to adjuvant chemotherapy in the Capecitabine group.

Locally advanced rectal cancer: a comparison of management strategies

Traditionally, there has been a high local recurrence rate in rectal cancer and 10-40% of patients require a permanent stoma. Both short-course preoperative radiotherapy (SCPRT) and long-course preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) are used to reduce the risk of local recurrence and enable a curative resection. Total mesorectal excision has reduced the rate of local recurrence (even without radiotherapy) to below 10%, but has highlighted a high risk of metastatic disease in 30-40% of patients. Current trials suggest that in resectable cancers, where the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suggests the circumferential resection margin (CRM) is not potentially involved, then SCPRT and CRT are equivalent in terms of outcomes such as local recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). For patients with more advanced disease, where the CRM is breached or threatened according to the MRI, the integration of more active chemotherapy and biological agents into chemoradiation is an attractive strategy because of the high risk of metastases. However, in none of the trials published in the last decade has chemoradiation impacted on DFS or OS. We examine the strategies of neoadjuvant, concurrent, consolidation (after chemoradiation and before surgery) and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cytotoxic agents, and the integration of biological agents for future potential strategies of treatment. We also compare the trials and compare the different strategies of long-course preoperative radiotherapy and SCPRT; the intensification of preoperative radiation and chemoradiation with dose escalation of external beam radiotherapy, using brachytherapy, intra-operative radiotherapy, hyperfractionation, and various available techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy. We recommend examining dose escalation of radiotherapy to the primary tumour where MRI predicts a threatened CRM. Of the potential treatment strategies involving cytotoxic agents, such as neoadjuvant, concurrent, consolidation and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, the most promising would appear to be consolidation chemotherapy following chemoradiation in locally advanced disease, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in MRI-selected patients who do not require radiation. Improvement in the quality of surgery is also an important future goal.

Oral uracil-tegafur plus leucovorin vs fluorouracil bolus plus leucovorin for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate systematically the efficacy and safety of oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) compared with infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) plus LV for advanced colorectal cancer.

METHOD

Eligible studies were identified from Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The end-points included overall survival and overall tumour response rate, and toxicity including leucopenia, febrile neutropenia, stomatitis/mucositis and diarrhoea.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled data demonstrated no difference in overall survival between the oral UFT plus LV regimen and the 5-FU bolus plus LV regimen [hazard ratio 1.013; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.911-1.127].The fixed-effect pooled estimate for overall tumour response rate showed no significant difference between the two regimens (relative risk 0.893; 0.672-1.187). Grade 3-4 leucopenia [odds ratio (OR) 0.126; 955 CI 0.048-0.326], grade 1-4 leucopenia (OR 0.089; 95% CI 0.067-0.119) and grade1-4 febrile neutropenia (OR 0.020; 95% CI 0.004-0.102) were significantly less prominent in the oral UFT regimens. For nonhaematological toxicities, grade 3-4 stomatitis/mucositis (OR 0.075; 95% CI 0.039-0.146), grade 3-4 infection (OR 0.484; 95% CI 0.310-0.758), grade 1-4 infection (OR 0.672; 95% CI 0.547-0.826, P < 0.001), grade 1-4 diarrhoea (OR 0.743; 95% CI 0.626-0.881) were also less likely to happen in patients in the oral UFT plus LV regimen, while there was no significant difference between the two treatment regimens with respect to grade 1-4 stomatitis/mucositis (OR 0.278; 95% CI 0.053-1.456) and grade 3-4 (OR 1.174; 95% CI 0.983-1.403) diarrhoea.

CONCLUSION

Oral UFT or 5-FU bolus combined with LV results in similar overall survival and tumour response rates for advanced colorectal cancer. The former treatment regimen is greatly superior in terms of toxicity, especially haematological toxicity.

Phase II study of preoperative radiation plus concurrent daily tegafur-uracil (UFT) with leucovorin for locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

Considerable variation in intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) metabolism can occur due to the wide range of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity, which can affect both tolerability and efficacy. The oral fluoropyrimidine tegafur-uracil (UFT) is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient alternative to intravenous 5-FU. We undertook this study in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of UFT with leucovorin (LV) and preoperative radiotherapy and to evaluate the utility and limitations of multicenter staging using pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy ultrasound. We also performed a validated pretherapy assessment of DPD activity and assessed its potential influence on the tolerability of UFT treatment.

Methods

This phase II study assessed preoperative UFT with LV and radiotherapy in 85 patients with locally advanced T3 rectal cancer. Patients with potentially resectable tumors received UFT (300 mg/m/²/day), LV (75 mg/day), and pelvic radiotherapy (1.8 Gy/day, 45 Gy total) 5 days/week for 5 weeks then surgery 4-6 weeks later. The primary endpoints included tumor downstaging and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate.

Results

Most adverse events were mild to moderate in nature. Preoperative grade 3/4 adverse events included diarrhea (n = 18, 21%) and nausea/vomiting (n = 5, 6%). Two patients heterozygous for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) experienced early grade 4 neutropenia (variant IVS14+1G > A) and diarrhea (variant 2846A > T). Pretreatment ultrasound TNM staging was compared with postchemoradiotherapy pathology TN staging and a significant shift towards earlier TNM stages was observed (p < 0.001). The overall downstaging rate was 42% for primary tumors and 44% for lymph nodes. The pCR rate was 8%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for staging was poor. Anal sphincter function was preserved in 55 patients (65%). Overall and recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86.1% and 66.7%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 36 node-positive patients (mean duration 118 days).

Conclusion

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy using UFT with LV plus radiotherapy was well tolerated and effective and represents a convenient alternative to 5-FU-based chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of resectable rectal cancer. Pretreatment detection of DPD deficiency should be performed to avoid severe adverse events.

Radiation, chemotherapy and biological therapy in the curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To review the published evidence relating to the use of radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy and biological therapy as adjuncts to surgery in the curative treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Searches were carried out of the MEDLINE and CANCERLIT databases together with conference abstracts from key meetings including the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium and the ECCO/ESMO Multidisciplinary Congress.

RESULTS

RT reduces local pelvic recurrence when used as an adjunct to surgery, even when this is performed optimally by total mesorectal excision (TME). RT is usually given as short-course preoperative radiotherapy (SCPRT) followed by immediate surgery which produces no or very little downstaging or long-course concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) followed by a 6-8 week gap prior to surgery which produces significant downstaging. The prognostic importance of achieving a clear histological circumferential resection margin is now well recognised and pathological assessment of the quality of surgery can predict long-term outcomes. Internationally there is considerable heterogeneity in the staging modalities and criteria used in deciding which approach might be used, in the reporting of histological results and in RT parameters (time/dose/fractionation/volume). Attempts to increase the potency of CRT have included the addition of concurrent chemotherapeutic and biological agents to the standard fluoropyrimidine although there is little randomised data and none with regard to long-term survival outcomes. Neither SCPRT nor downstaging CRT have been shown to reduce the rate of subsequent distant metastatic relapse which remains a significant clinical problem. The potential additional benefit of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to SCPRT or long-course CRT remains ill-defined. Late morbidity can include bowel and sexual dysfunction, pelvic fractures and second malignancies with considerably more being known in relation to SCPRT than long-course CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in imaging, pathology and surgical technique combined with multimodality treatment using RT and chemotherapy are leading to continuing improvements in the long term outcome for patients with rectal cancer although much remains to be learnt regarding the optimum strategy for use of these in different clinical contexts and their relationship to long-term morbidity.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on pathologic response and survival of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) on overall survival (OS) has been controversial. Some studies have pointed to an improvement in OS and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with pathologic complete response (pCR).

AIM

To evaluate the therapeutic response and impact on survival of preoperative RT, alone or combined with CT, in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A set of 132 patients with LARC were treated preoperatively. GROUP 1: RT alone, 19 patients. GROUP 2: RT and concomitant oral CT (Capecitabine or UFT + leucovorin), 68 patients. GROUP 3: RT and concomitant CT with 5-FU in continuous infusion, 45 patients. 58.2% of patients were submitted to adjuvant CT.

RESULTS

GROUP 1: no pCR, tumoral downstaging was 26.7%. GROUP 2: pCR in 16.9%; tumoral downstaging was 47.7%. GROUP 3: pCR in 11.9%; tumor downstaging was 52.4%. The loco-regional control (LRC) was 95%. The 5-year OS (p = 0.038) and DFS (p = 0.05) were significantly superior in patients treated with CT + RT. Patients with pCR had a significant increase on DFS (p = 0.019). Patients cT3-4 that had a tumoral downstaging to ypT0-2, showed an increase on DFS, OS and LRC.

CONCLUSIONS

CT combined with RT has increased tumoral response and survival rate. Nodal downstaging and pCR were higher in the GROUP 2. The 5-year OS and DFS were significantly superior in CT + RT arms. Patients with pathologic response showed a better DFS. Adjuvant CT had no impact on LRC, DFS nor on OS.

Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to determine postoperative complication rates of radical surgery for rectal cancer (abdominal perineal resection and anterior resection).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lack of accepted complication rates for rectal cancer surgery may hinder quality improvement efforts and may impede the conception of future studies because of uncertainty regarding the expected event rates.

METHODS

All prospective studies of rectal cancer receiving radical surgery published between 1990 and August 2008 were obtained by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as ASCO GI, CAGS, and ASCRS meeting abstracts between 2004 and 2008. There was no language restriction. The outcomes extracted were anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, postoperative death, wound infection, and fecal incontinence. Summary complication rates were obtained using a random effects model; the Z-test was used to test for study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-three prospective cohort studies and 45 randomized controlled studies with 36,315 patients (24,845 patients had an anastomosis) were eligible for inclusion. Most of the studies found were based in continental Europe (58%), followed by Asia (25%), United Kingdom (10%), North America (5%), and Australia/New Zealand. The anastomotic leak rate, reported in 84 studies, was 11% (95% CI: 10, 12); the pelvic sepsis rate, in 29 studies, was 12% (9, 16); the postoperative death rate, in 75 studies, was 2% (2, 3); and the wound infection rate, in 50 studies, was 7% (5, 8). Fecal incontinence rates were reported in too few studies and so heterogeneously that numerical summarization was inappropriate. Year of publication, use of preoperative radiation, use of laparoscopy, and use of protecting stoma were not significant variables, but average age, median tumor height, and method of detection (clinical vs. radiologic) showed significance to explain heterogeneity in anastomotic leak rates. Year of publication, study origin, average age, and use of laparoscopy were significant, but median tumor height and preoperative radiation use were not significant in explaining heterogeneity among observed postoperative death rates. With multivariable analysis, only average age for anastomotic leak and year of publication for postoperative death remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark complication rates for radical rectal cancer surgery were obtained for use in sample size calculations in future studies and for quality control purposes. Postoperative death rates showed improvement in recent years.

Randomized clinical trials in rectal and anal cancers

This article reviews randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between April 2001 and November 2008 on the management of patients with rectal cancer. In total, the authors reviewed 78 RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer. Of these, five met the authors' criteria for level 1a evidence. The article discusses the major RCTs and relevant findings that have impacted clinical management most and includes most but not all RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer published during this period.

Double blind randomized phase II study with radiation+5-fluorouracil+/-celecoxib for resectable rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility and efficacy of the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in conjunction with preoperative chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in a double blind randomized phase II study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five patients of the initially planned 80 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were treated with preoperative radiation (45 Gy; 1.8 Gy/fraction, 5 days/week) combined with 5-fluorouracil (continuous infusion, 225 mg/m(2)/day) and celecoxib (2 x 400 mg/day) or placebo. Pathological response and toxicity of study treatment were evaluated, as well as expression of COX-2 and Ki67 in tumor tissue and IL-6 in plasma as possible molecular correlates and predictors of response to treatment.

RESULTS

Patients treated with celecoxib tended to show a better response (61%) when compared to those treated with placebo (35%), although not significant (p=0.13). T-downstaging and N-downstaging were also slightly higher with celecoxib. Plasma IL-6 levels and intratumoral COX2 or Ki67 were altered by chemoradiation, but were not further altered by celecoxib treatment and therefore not useful for prediction of treatment benefit. Celecoxib therapy in conjunction with chemoradiation was not associated with additional toxicity and seemed to help mitigate therapy-related pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of celecoxib to preoperative chemoradiation is feasible for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. To study the individual effect of COX-2 inhibitors on pathological response phase III studies are required.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy with UFT and Leucovorin in patients with advanced rectal cancer: a phase II study

PURPOSE

The aim this study was to determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate defined as tumor regression grade 1 (TRG1) and toxicity profile of the combination of high-dose pre-operative radiotherapy and simultaneous UFT/leucovorin (LV) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Eligibility included biopsy proven rectal adenocarcinoma; T3-T4 N0-N2; performance status < 2 (ECOG) and adequate blood, hepatic and renal function. Treatment consisted of radiotherapy 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy/day and UFT 300 mg/m(2)/day and LV 60 mg/day, given simultaneously daily for 6 weeks. Surgery was performed within 4-6 weeks period after chemoradiotherapy. Patients who did not achieve TGR1 were to receive 4 cycles of adjuvant UFT/LV on days 1-28, every 5 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included. All but one received full dose of radiation and 62 had the total planned pre-operative UFT/LV dose. Grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea 7% and proctitis 3%. Complete resection was achieved in 62 patients (91%). Tumor regression grade 1 (TRG1) was seen in 11 patients (16%). Forty-eight patients received adjuvant UFT/LV. Grade 3 toxicity during adjuvant UFT/LV included diarrhea 12%, asthenia 4%, neutropenia 2%, and hand-foot syndrome 2%. The 3-year disease-free survival was 71%.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous high-dose pre-operative localized radiation therapy concurrent with UFT/LV is feasible and has a low toxicity profile. This schedule is highly effective and merits further investigation.

UFT (tegafur-uracil) in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Major achievements in the treatment of localised rectal cancer include the development of total mesorectal excision and the perioperative administration of radiotherapy in combination with continuous infusion (CI) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). This multimodal approach has resulted in extended survival and lower local relapse rates, with the potential for sphincter-preserving procedures. However, CI 5-FU is inconvenient for patients and is costly. Oral fluoropyrimidines like UFT (tegafur-uracil) offer a number of advantages over 5-FU.

METHODS

We undertook a review of published articles and abstracts relating to clinical studies of UFT in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Pre- and postoperative studies carried out in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were included.

RESULTS

The combination of UFT and radiotherapy was effective and well tolerated in the preoperative setting, while adjuvant UFT improved survival and reduced distant relapse compared with surgery alone. The efficacy of UFT appears comparable with that of 5-FU and capecitabine and its side-effect profile is favourable.

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience to date suggests that UFT is a valuable treatment option for the perioperative treatment of LARC. Further improvements in patient outcomes may result from the combination of UFT with targeted agents.