Adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer with 5-fluorouracil and levamisole versus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin

Optimal adjuvant chemotherapy completion time for stage III colon cancer: a cohort study

Background

Adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months following surgery is the standard treatment plan for stage III colon cancer. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the adjuvant chemotherapy completion time for stage III colon cancer had an effect on prognosis and cut-off time that affected the prognosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of stage III colon cancer patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy at Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital from January 2010 to December 2017. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the association between adjuvant chemotherapy completion time and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The restricted cubic spline model was used to analyze the cut-off time that affected the 3-year DFS.

Results

A total of 431 patients were included in the study. The 3-year DFS was associated with a combination of obstruction or perforation, preoperative serum carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) concentration, T stage, N stage, pathological stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy completion time in the univariate analysis (P<0.05). A combination of obstruction or perforation, preoperative serum CEA concentration, N stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy completion time were independent prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis (P<0.05). The cut-off time was 28 weeks for adjuvant chemotherapy completion time in the restricted cubic spline model analysis. For those whose adjuvant chemotherapy completion time was >28 weeks, the risk of 3-year recurrence was 1.428 times higher compared with those whose adjuvant chemotherapy completion time was ≤28 weeks. [P=0.032, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.034-2.055].

Conclusions

The 3-year DFS of stage III colon cancer was related to the adjuvant chemotherapy completion time. For those who completed adjuvant chemotherapy >28 weeks, the risk of 3-year recurrence increased.

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.

Adjuvant chemotherapy use and adverse events among older patients with stage III colon cancer

CONTEXT

Randomized trials suggest adjuvant chemotherapy is effective for older patients with stage III colon cancer. However, older patients are less likely to receive this therapy than younger patients, perhaps because of concern about adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate adjuvant chemotherapy use and outcomes for older patients with stage III colon cancer from well-defined population-based settings and health care systems.

DESIGN

Observational study of adjuvant chemotherapy use and outcomes by age using Poisson regression to estimate the number of adverse events adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, including comorbid illness and specific elements of chemotherapy regimens documented with clinically detailed medical record reviews and patient and surrogate surveys.

SETTING

Five geographically defined regions (Alabama, Iowa, Los Angeles County, northern California, and North Carolina), 5 integrated health care delivery systems, and 15 Veterans Affairs hospitals.

PATIENTS

Six hundred seventy-five patients diagnosed with stage III colon cancer from 2003 through 2005 who underwent surgical resection and were followed up for as long as 15 months postdiagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Chemotherapy regimen, dose, duration, and annualized mean number of adverse events stratified by age.

RESULTS

Of 202 patients aged 75 years and older, 101 (50%) received adjuvant chemotherapy compared with 87% of 473 younger patients (difference, 37%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-45%). Among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 14 patients (14%) aged 75 years and older and 178 younger patients (44%) received a regimen containing oxaliplatin (difference, 30%; 95% CI, 21%-38%). Older patients were less likely to continue treatment, such that by 150 days, 99 patients (40%) aged 65 years and older and 68 younger patients (25%) had discontinued chemotherapy (difference, 15%; 95% CI, 7%-23%). Overall, 162 patients (24%) had at least 1 adverse clinical event, with more events among patients treated with vs without adjuvant chemotherapy (mean, 0.39 vs 0.16; difference, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.36; P < .001). Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, adjusted rates of late clinical adverse events were lower for patients 75 years and older (mean, 0.28) vs for younger patients (0.35 for ages 18-54 years, 0.52 for ages 55-64 years, and 0.45 for ages 65-74 years; P = .008 for any age effect).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stage III colon cancer who underwent surgical resection and received adjuvant chemotherapy, older patients in the community received less-toxic and shorter chemotherapy regimens, and those treated had fewer adverse events than younger patients.

Metastatic colorectal cancer-past, progress and future

The clinical management of metastatic (stage IV) colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common challenge faced by surgeons and physicians. The last decade has seen exciting developments in the management of CRC, with significant improvements in prognosis for patients diagnosed with stage IV disease. Treatment options have expanded from 5-fluorouracil alone to a range of pharmaceutical and interventional therapies, improving survival, and providing a cure in selected cases. Enhanced understanding of the biologic pathways most important in colorectal carcinogenesis has led to a new generation of drugs showing promise in advanced disease. It is hoped that in the near future the treatment paradigm of metastatic CRC will be analogous to that of a chronic illness, rather than a rapidly terminal condition. This overview discusses the epidemiology of advanced CRC and currently available therapeutic options including medical, surgical, ablative and novel modalities in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Endpoints in Adjuvant Treatment Trials: A Systematic Review of the Literature in Colon Cancer and Proposed Definitions for Future Trials

Disease-free survival is increasingly being used as the primary endpoint of most trials testing adjuvant treatments in cancer. Other frequently used endpoints include overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and time to recurrence. These endpoints are often defined differently in different trials in the same type of cancer, leading to a lack of comparability among trials. In this Commentary, we used adjuvant studies in colon cancer as a model to address this issue. In a systematic review of the literature, we identified 52 studies of adjuvant treatment in colon cancer published in 1997-2006 that used eight other endpoints in addition to overall survival. Both the definition of these endpoints and the starting point for measuring time to the events that constituted these endpoints varied widely. A panel of experts on clinical research on colorectal cancer then reached consensus on the definition of each endpoint. Disease-free survival--defined as the time from randomization to any event, irrespective of cause--was considered to be the most informative endpoint for assessing the effect of treatment and therefore the most relevant to clinical practice. The proposed guidelines may add to the quality and cross-comparability of future studies of adjuvant treatments for cancer.

A prospective randomised trial to study the role of levamisole and interferon alfa in an adjuvant therapy with 5-FU for stage III colon cancer

The purpose of this trial was to examine the efficacy of the addition of levamisole (LEV) or interferon alfa (IFN) to an adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with stage III colon cancer. According to a 2 × 2 factorial study design, 598 patients were randomly assigned to one of four adjuvant treatment arms. Patients in arm one received 5-FU weekly for 1 year, patients in arm two 5-FU plus LEV, in arm three 5-FU plus IFN and patients in arm four 5-FU, LEV and IFN. The relative risk of relapse and the relative risk of death were significantly higher for patients treated with LEV compared with those without LEV treatment (HR 1.452, 95% CI 1.135–1.856, P=0.0028; HR 1.506, 95% CI 1.150–1.973, P=0.0027, respectively). No significant impact on survival was observed for therapy with IFN in the univariate analysis. The addition of LEV to adjuvant 5-FU significantly worsened the prognosis of patients with stage III colon cancer. Interferon alfa had no significant influence on survival when combined with adjuvant 5-FU, but increased the toxicity of therapy substantially.