Dataset Information

Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy With Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin vs Capecitabine for Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Several studies have explored the efficacy and toxic effects of concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)- or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without oxaliplatin in the neoadjuvant setting. Addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU or capecitabine elicited similar outcomes but with significantly increased toxic effects; however, there is a need for randomized clinical trials comparing 2 CRT regimens for patients receiving CRT in the adjuvant setting.

Objective

To explore the efficacy and toxic effects of oxaliplatin combined with postoperative concurrent capecitabine and radiotherapy (RT) for pathological stage II and III rectal cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from 7 centers in China between April 1, 2008, and December 30, 2015. Patients with pathologically confirmed stage II and III rectal cancer were randomized (1:1) to receive concurrent CRT with capecitabine or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. Analysis was conducted from December 31, 2019, to March 15, 2020.

Interventions

RT comprised 45 to 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 1.8 to 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks. In the capecitabine with RT group, concurrent chemotherapy included 2 cycles of capecitabine (1600 mg/m2) on days 1 to 14 and 22 to 35. The capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group received identical postoperative RT to that in the capecitabine with RT group combined with capecitabine (1300 mg/m2) on days 1 to 14 and 22 to 35 and a 2-hour infusion of oxaliplatin (60 mg/m2) on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5. Patients in both groups received adjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) after CRT.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

A total of 589 patients (median [IQR] age, 55 [47-52] years; 375 [63.7%] men and 214 [36.3%] women) were enrolled, including 294 patients randomized to the capecitabine with RT group and 295 patients randomized to the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group. Median (IQR) follow-up was 68 (45-96) months. Most patients had stage III disease (574 patients [75.9%]). Three-year DFS was 76.3% for the capecitabine with RT group and 74.1% for the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group, and 5-year DFS was 72.0% for the capecitabine with RT group and 71.1% for the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79-1.44; P = .68). There was no significant difference between groups in overall survival (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34; P = .70) or local recurrence (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22; P = .16). More grade 3 and 4 acute toxic effects were observed in the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group than in the capecitabine with RT group (114 patients [38.6%] vs 84 patients [28.6%]; P = .01).

Conclusions and relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine-based postoperative CRT did not improve the efficacy of treatment but increased the risk of severe acute toxic effects. This finding highlights the basic role of postoperative capecitabine with RT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00714077.

SUBMITTER: Li N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634060 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDistant metastasis has been the main failure pattern for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients, and intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become a popular research topic. The present study aimed to compare the survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy with triweekly oxaliplatin and capecitabine (triweekly XELOX) or capecitabine.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, patients with clinically staged II-III rectal cancer who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy using either triweekly XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 plus capecitabine 825 mg/m2) or capecitabine were included. Variables potentially influencing chemotherapy treatment selection were used to generate propensity scores (PS). The association between chemotherapy regimens and survival endpoints, including distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were evaluated and adjusted with PS. The acute toxicities and surgical complications were also compared.ResultsA total of 810 patients were included in the analysis; 277 (34.2%) patients received triweekly XELOX, and 533 (65.8%) received capecitabine. The pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 20.2 and 19.9% (P = 0.912) for the groups treated with triweekly XELOX and capecitabine, respectively. The 5-year DMFS, OS and DFS with triweekly XELOX versus capecitabine were 75.6% vs. 77.6% (P = 0.555), 79.2% vs. 83.3% (P = 0.101), and 69.9% vs. 73.7% (P = 0.283), respectively. Triweekly XELOX was not associated with an increased risk of severe toxicity during chemoradiotherapy, but it increased the risk of postoperative complications compared to capecitabine. After PS adjustment, the differences between the two groups remained insignificant in pCR rate, survival outcomes, and acute toxicities, and the difference in surgical complications disappeared.ConclusionsTriweekly XELOX or capecitabine concurrent with neoadjuvant radiotherapy leads to similar long-term survival outcomes, acute toxicities and surgical complications in LARC patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS:Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2?weeks for 12 cycles. RESULTS:E5204 registered only 355 patients (17% of planned accrual goal) as it was terminated prematurely owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. The rate of treatment-related grade ??3 adverse events (AEs) was 68.8% on Arm A and 70.7% on Arm B. Arm B had a higher proportion of patients who discontinued therapy early as a result of AEs and patient withdrawal than did Arm A (32.4% vs. 21.5%, p = .029).The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue. CONCLUSION:At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to develop a large population-based nomogram incorporating the log odds of positive nodes (LODDS) for predicting the overall survival (OS) of stage II/III rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) followed by surgical resection.MethodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to collect information on patients diagnosed with stage II/III rectal cancer between 2010 and 2015 and treated with NCRT followed by surgical resection. The Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the independent prognostic factors. In this study, LODDS was employed instead of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th N stage to determine lymph node status. Then a nomogram integrating independent prognostic factors was developed to predict the 24-, 36-, and 60-month overall survival. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves were used to validate the nomogram. Furthermore, patients were stratified into three risk groups (high-, middle-, and low-risk) based on the total points obtained from the nomogram. And Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to compare the OS of the three groups.ResultsA total of 3829 patients were included in the study. Race, sex, age, marital status, T stage, tumor grade, tumor size, LODDS, CEA level, and postoperative chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors, based on which the prognostic nomogram was developed. The area under curve values of the nomogram for the 24-, 36-, and 60-month OS in the training cohort were 0.736, 0.720, and 0.688, respectively; and 0.691, 0.696, and 0.694 in the validation cohort, respectively. In both the validation and training cohorts, the calibration curves showed a high degree of consistency between actual and nomogram-predicted survival rates. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the three risk groups had significant differences in overall survival (P < 0.001).ConclusionA large population-based nomogram incorporating LODDS was developed to assist in evaluating the prognosis of stage II/III rectal cancer patients treated with NCRT followed by surgical resection. The nomogram showed a satisfactorily discriminative and stable ability to predict the OS for those patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) improves survival of patients with stage III colon cancer in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, RCT participants are younger, healthier, and less racially diverse than the general cancer population. Thus, the benefit of oxaliplatin outside RCTs is uncertain.Subjects and methodsPatients younger than 75 years with stage III colon cancer who received chemotherapy within 120 days of surgical resection were identified from five observational data sources-the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare), the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) linked to Medicaid and Medicare claims, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database, and the Cancer Care Outcomes Research & Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS). Overall survival (OS) was compared among patients treated with oxaliplatin vs non-oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall survival for 4060 patients diagnosed during 2004-2009 was compared with pooled data from five RCTs (the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoinTs [ACCENT] group, n = 8292). Datasets were juxtaposed but not combined using Kaplan-Meier curves. Covariate and propensity score adjusted proportional hazards models were used to calculate adjusted survival hazard ratios (HR). Stratified analyses examined effect modifiers. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsThe survival advantage associated with the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5-FU was evident across diverse practice settings (3-year OS: RCTs, 86% [n = 1273]; SEER-Medicare, 80% [n = 1152]; CanCORS, 88% [n = 129]; NYSCR-Medicaid, 82% [n = 54]; NYSCR-Medicare, 79% [n = 180]; and NCCN, 86% [n = 438]). A statistically significant improvement in 3-year overall survival was seen in the largest cohort, SEER-Medicare, and in the NYSCR-Medicare cohort (non-oxaliplatin-containing vs oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant therapy, adjusted HR of death: pooled RCTs: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.92, P = .002; SEER-Medicare: HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.82, P < .001; NYSCR-Medicare patients aged ?65 years: HR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.90, P = .02). The association between oxaliplatin treatment and better survival was maintained in older and minority group patients, as well as those with higher comorbidity.ConclusionThe addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU appears to be associated with better survival among patients receiving adjuvant colon cancer treatment in the community.

Project description:ImportanceThere is limited evidence to guide stage I to II small cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatment.ObjectiveTo examine the characteristics and outcomes among patients with stage I to II SCLC treated with modern chemoradiotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsIn this post hoc secondary analysis of the Concurrent Once-Daily vs Twice-Daily Radiotherapy Trial (CONVERT), a multicenter phase 3 trial conducted in patients with limited-stage SCLC from April 7, 2008, to November 29, 2013, patients with TNM stage I to II SCLC were compared with those with stage III disease. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2017, to February 28, 2018.InterventionsIn CONVERT, patients were randomized to receive twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) or once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) chemoradiotherapy. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) was offered, if indicated.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary trial end point was overall survival (OS). TNM staging information was collected prospectively; this was an unplanned analysis because stratification was not performed according to TNM stage.ResultsA total of 509 (277 [54.4%] men; mean [SD] age, 61.5 [8.3] years) of 543 patients (93.7%) with TNM staging information were eligible for this subgroup analysis, and 86 of the 509 (16.9%) had TNM stage I to II disease. The median gross tumor volume was smaller in patients with stage I to II disease (38.4 cm3; range, 2.2-593.0 cm3) compared with patients with stage III disease (93 cm3; range, 0.5-513.4 cm3) (P < .001). No other significant differences were found in baseline and treatment characteristics and chemoradiotherapy adherence between the 2 groups or the number of patients with stage I to II disease (78 [90.7%]) and stage III disease (346 [81.8%]) who received PCI (P = .10). Patients with stage I to II disease achieved longer OS (median, 50 months [95% CI, 38 to not reached months] vs 25 months [95% CI, 21-29 months]; hazard ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.83]; P = .001) compared with patients with stage III disease. In patients with stage I to II disease, no significant survival difference was found between the trial arms (median, 39 months in the once-daily arm vs 72 months in the twice-daily arm; P = .38). Apart from lower incidence of acute esophagitis in patients with stage I to II disease compared with patients with stage III disease (grade ≥3, 9 [11.3%] vs 82 [21.1%]; P < .001), the incidences of acute and late toxic effects were not significantly different.Conclusions and relevancePatients with stage I to II SCLC in CONVERT achieved long-term survival with acceptable toxic effects after chemoradiotherapy and PCI. This study suggests that patients with stage I to II small cell lung cancer treated with modern chemoradiotherapy have better outcomes compared with patients with stage III disease, providing information that practitioners can potentially give their patients to aid clinical decisions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00433563.

Project description:BackgroundIn most guidelines, upper rectal cancers (URC) are not recommended to take neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation. However, the definitions of URC vary greatly. Five definitions had been commonly used to define URC: 1) >10 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 2) >12 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 3) >10 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 4) >12 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 5) above the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR). We hypothesized that the fifth definition is optimal to identify patients with rectal cancer to avoid adjuvant radiation.MethodsThe data of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The height of the APR was measured, and compared with the tumor height measured by digital rectal examination (DRE), MRI and colonoscopy. The five definitions were compared in terms of prediction of local recurrence, survival, and percentages of patients requiring radiation.ResultsA total of 576 patients were included, with the intraoperative location of 222 and 354 tumors being above and straddle/below the APR, respectively. The median distance of the APR from anal verge (height of APR) as measured by MRI was 8.7 (range: 4.5-14.3) cm. The height of APR positively correlated with body height (r=0.862, P<0.001). The accuracy of the MRI in determining the tumor location with respect to the APR was 92.1%. Rectal cancer above the APR had a significantly lower incidence of local recurrence than those straddle/below the APR (P=0.042). For those above the APR, there was no significant difference in local recurrence between the radiation and no-radiation group. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor location regarding APR was an independent risk factor for LRFS. Tumor height as measured by DRE, MRI and colonoscopy were not related with survival outcomes. Fewer rectal cancer patients required adjuvant radiation using the definition by the APR, compared with other four definitions based on a numerical tumor height measured by MRI and colonoscopy.ConclusionsThe definition of URC as rectal tumor above the APR, might be the optimal definition to select patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to avoid postoperative adjuvant radiation.