Changes in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer from 2009 to 2015 and associated improvements in short-term outcomes.

AIM: Significant recent changes in management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) include preoperative staging, use of extended neoadjuvant therapies and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study was aimed at characterizing these changes and associated short-term outcomes. METHOD: We retrospectively analysed treatment and outcome data from patients with T3/4 or N+ LARC ≤ 15 cm from the anal verge who were evaluated at a comprehensive cancer centre in 2009-2015. RESULTS: In total, 798 patients were identified and grouped into five cohorts based on treatment year: 2009-2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014-2015. Temporal changes included increased reliance on MRI staging, from 57% in 2009-2010 to 98% in 2014-2015 (P < 0.001); increased use of total neoadjuvant therapy, from 17% to 76% (P < 0.001); and increased use of MIS, from 33% to 70% (P < 0.001). Concurrently, median hospital stay decreased (from 7 to 5 days; P < 0.001), as did the rates of Grade III-V complications (from 13% to 7%; P < 0.05), surgical site infections (from 24% to 8%; P < 0.001), anastomotic leak (from 11% to 3%; P < 0.05) and positive circumferential resection margin (from 9% to 4%; P < 0.05). TNM downstaging increased from 62% to 74% (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Shifts toward MRI-based staging, total neoadjuvant therapy and MIS occurred between 2009 and 2015. Over the same period, treatment responses improved, and lengths of stay and the incidence of complications decreased.

Clinical and molecular characterization of patients with cancer of unknown primary in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of historical data, patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) are generally assumed to have a dismal prognosis with overall survival of less than 1 year. Treatment is typically cytotoxic chemotherapy guided by histologic features and the pattern of metastatic spread. The purpose of this study was to provide a clinical and pathologic description of patients with CUP in the modern era, to define the frequency of clinically actionable molecular alterations in this population, to determine how molecular testing can alter therapeutic decisions, and to investigate novel uses of next-generation sequencing in the evaluation and treatment of patients with CUP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Under Institutional Review Board approval, we identified all CUP patients evaluated at our institution over a recent 2-year period. We documented demographic information, clinical outcomes, pathologic evaluations, next-generation sequencing of available tumor tissue, use of targeted therapies, and clinical trial enrollment. RESULTS: We identified 333 patients with a diagnosis of CUP evaluated at our institution from 1 January 2014 through 30 June 2016. Of these patients, 150 had targeted next-generation sequencing carried out on available tissue. Median overall survival in this cohort was 13 months. Forty-five of 150 (30%) patients had potentially targetable genomic alterations identified by tumor molecular profiling, and 15 of 150 (10%) received targeted therapies. Dominant mutation signatures were identified in 21 of 150 (14%), largely implicating exogenous mutagen exposures such as ultraviolet radiation and tobacco. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CUP represent a heterogeneous population, harboring a variety of potentially targetable alterations. Next-generation sequencing may provide an opportunity for CUP patients to benefit from novel personalized therapies.

Predicted vitamin D status and colon cancer recurrence and mortality in CALGB 89803 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that higher levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D) are associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer and improved survival of colorectal cancer patients. However, the influence of vitamin D status on cancer recurrence and survival of patients with stage III colon cancer is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively examined the influence of post-diagnosis predicted plasma 25(OH)D on outcome among 1016 patients with stage III colon cancer who were enrolled in a National Cancer Institute-sponsored adjuvant therapy trial (CALGB 89803). Predicted 25(OH)D scores were computed using validated regression models. We examined the influence of predicted 25(OH)D scores on cancer recurrence and mortality (disease-free survival; DFS) using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Patients in the highest quintile of predicted 25(OH)D score had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for colon cancer recurrence or mortality (DFS) of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.86), compared with those in the lowest quintile (Ptrend = 0.005). Higher predicted 25(OH)D score was also associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival and overall survival (Ptrend = 0.01 and 0.0004, respectively). The benefit associated with higher predicted 25(OH)D score appeared consistent across predictors of cancer outcome and strata of molecular tumor characteristics, including microsatellite instability and KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and TP53 mutation status. CONCLUSION: Higher predicted 25(OH)D levels after a diagnosis of stage III colon cancer may be associated with decreased recurrence and improved survival. Clinical trials assessing the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in the adjuvant setting are warranted. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00003835.

A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinoma first-line therapy. METHODS: Patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas received gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) and cisplatin 25 mg m(-2) on a 2 weeks on/1 week off cycle and sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. After the initial 16 patients were enrolled, the chemotherapy doses were amended in view of grade 3 and 4 hand-foot skin reaction and haematologic toxicity. Subsequently, 21 patients received gemcitabine 800 mg m(-2), cisplatin 20 mg m(-2) and sorafenib 400 mg. The primary end point was an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) from historical 57-77% (90% power, type I error of 10%). Pretreatment pERK, evaluated by immunostaining, was correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were accrued. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities noted in >10% of patients were fatigue, elevated liver function tests and haematologic toxicities including thromboemboli, hyponatraemia and hypophosphataemia. Six-month progression-free survival was 51% (95% confidence interval (CI) 34-66%). Median PFS and overall survival were 6.5 (95% CI: 3.5-8.3) and 14.4 months (95% CI: 11.6-19.2 months), respectively. No correlation was observed between pERK and outcomes. CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinomas did not improve efficacy over historical data, and toxicity was increased.

MethyLight: a high-throughput assay to measure DNA methylation.

Cytosine-5 DNA methylation occurs in the context of CpG dinucleotides in vertebrates. Aberrant methylation of CpG islands in human tumors has been shown to cause transcriptional silencing of tumor-suppressor genes. Most methods used to analyze cytosine-5 methylation patterns require cumbersome manual techniques that employ gel electrophoresis, restriction enzyme digestion, radiolabeled dNTPs or hybridization probes. The development of high-throughput technology for the analysis of DNA methylation would significantly expand our ability to derive molecular information from clinical specimens. This study describes a high-throughput quantitative methylation assay that utilizes fluorescence-based real-time PCR (TaqMan) technology that requires no further manipulations after the PCR step. MethyLight is a highly sensitive assay, capable of detecting methylated alleles in the presence of a 10,000-fold excess of unmethylated alleles. The assay is also highly quantitative and can very accurately determine the relative prevalence of a particular pattern of DNA methylation. We show that MethyLight can distinguish between mono-allelic and bi-allelic methylation of the MLH1 mismatch repair gene in human colorectal tumor specimens. The development of this technique should considerably enhance our ability to rapidly and accurately generate epigenetic profiles of tumor samples.

CpG island hypermethylation in human colorectal tumors is not associated with DNA methyltransferase overexpression.

The molecular basis of aberrant hypermethylation of CpG islands observed in a subset of human colorectal tumors is unknown. One potential mechanism is the up-regulation of DNA (cytosine-5)-methyltransferases. Recently, two new mammalian DNA methyltransferase genes have been identified, which are referred to as DNMT3A and DNMT3B. The encoded proteins differ from the predominant mammalian DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 in that they have a substantially higher ratio of de novo to maintenance methyltransferase activity. We have used a highly quantitative 5' nuclease fluorogenic reverse transcription-PCR method (TaqMan) to analyze the expression of all three DNA methyltransferase genes in 25 individual colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens and matched normal mucosa samples. In addition, we examined the methylation patterns of four CpG islands [APC, ESR1 (estrogen receptor), CDKN2A (p16), and MLH1] to determine whether individual tumors show a positive correlation between the level of DNA methyltransferase expression and the frequency of CpG island hypermethylation. All three methyltransferases appear to be up-regulated in tumors when RNA levels are normalized using either ACTB (beta-actin) or POLR2A (RNA pol II large subunit), but not when RNA levels are normalized with proliferation-associated genes, such as H4F2 (histone H4) or PCNA. The frequency or extent of CpG island hypermethylation in individual tumors did not correlate with the expression of any of the three DNA methyltransferases. Our results suggest that deregulation of DNA methyltransferase gene expression does not play a role in establishing tumor-specific abnormal DNA methylation patterns in human colorectal cancer.

Influence of inflammatory bowel disease on the ability of patients to tolerate systemic fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of administering fluorouracil (5FU)-based chemotherapy to cancer patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients entered into the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center clinical data base from 1985 through 1995 who had a diagnosis of IBD, had a gastrointestinal malignancy, and were treated with systemic 5FU-based chemotherapy. A total of 19 patient charts were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patients reviewed experienced severe (grade III/IV) diarrhea on treatment. Sixty percent of patients with a history of active IBD and 40% of patients with a history of inactive IBD experienced severe diarrhea on treatment. The incidence of severe diarrhea did not appear to be substantially influenced by age, schedule of 5FU administration, concurrent radiation, or type of IBD. CONCLUSION: While there does appear to be an increased risk of diarrhea exacerbation in IBD patients treated with 5FU, a substantial number of patients tolerate chemotherapy without increased difficulty. The degree of IBD activity or other clinical parameters can not be used to predict accurately the likelihood of toxicity.

Irinotecan is an active agent in untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the response rate, survival, and toxicity of the new anticancer agent, irinotecan (CPT-11), in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with a 90-minute infusion of irinotecan 125 mg/m2 administered weekly for 4 weeks every 6 weeks. Pretreatment tumor biopsies to assess topoisomerase-I (Topo-I) activity were obtained from 11 patients. The pharmacokinetics for irinotecan and its active metabolite, SN-38, were determined in 18 patients. RESULTS: Thirteen of 41 patients (32%) had a partial response (PR; 95% confidence interval, 18% to 46%). The median response duration was 8.1 months (range, 4.0 to 16.0) and the median survival time was 12.1 months (range, 2.1 to 21.7) for all 41 patients. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were diarrhea (29% of patients) and neutropenia (22% of patients). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea was substantially more prevalent in the initial 18 patients on study, with an incidence rate of 56%; a significant reduction in the incidence of severe diarrhea to 9% was noted with strict adherence to an antidiarrheal regimen of loperamide and diphenyldramine. No correlations were seen between pharmacokinetics of irinotecan/SN-38 and the clinical parameters of response, survival, or incidence of diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Irinotecan has activity in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Strict adherence to an antidiarrheal regimen of diphenhydramine/loperamide significantly reduced the incidence of diarrhea; the agent was thereafter well tolerated in the majority of patients.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerable dose (MTD) of fluorouracil (5FU) when given with fixed doses of leucovorin and irinotecan (CPT-11), to define the dose-limiting toxicities of this combination, and to evaluate the effect of 5FU on the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CPT-11, leucovorin, and 5FU were administered in repeated 6-week cycles that consisted of weekly treatment with all three drugs for 4 consecutive weeks followed by a 2-week break. On day 1 of treatment, CPT-11 alone was given by 90-minute infusion, and pharmacokinetic sampling was performed over 24 hours. Leucovorin and 5FU were administered by brief intravenous injection on day 2. On days 8, 15, and 22, CPT-11 infusion was immediately followed by leucovorin and then 5FU. A second 24-hour pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on day 8, which permitted comparison of the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11 with and without 5FU. For the second 6-week cycle, leucovorin was administered first, followed by 5FU and then CPT-11, and a third pharmacokinetic sampling was performed. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were entered onto this trial. The CPT-11 dose was initially fixed at 100 mg/m2. Leucovorin was fixed at 20 mg/m2. 5FU doses of 210, 265, 340, 425, and 500 mg/m2 were studied. When the 500-mg/m2 dose of 5FU was found to be tolerable, this was then maintained and CPT-11 was escalated to 125 and then 150 mg/m2. This final CPT-11 dose exceeded the MTD. Neutropenia was the major dose-limiting toxicity. Diarrhea was common, but was rarely dose-limiting. Coadministration of 5FU had no substantial effect on the pharmacokinetics of CPT-11 or SN-38. Among the 38 patients with colorectal cancer, six partial responses (PRs) were seen in this predominantly 5FU-refractory patient population. CONCLUSION: 5FU does not substantially affect the metabolism of CPT-11 to its active metabolite, SN-38. The combination of CPT-11125 mg/m2, 5FU 500 mg/m2, and leucovorin 20 mg/m2 is feasible and tolerable on this schedule.

Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of weekly cisplatin combined with weekly irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: In vitro synergy between cisplatin and irinotecan (CPT-11) has been reported. We designed a combination schedule of these agents to maximize the potential for synergistic interaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To maximize the opportunity for synergy, we divided the cisplatin into four consecutive weekly treatments, followed by a 2-week rest. Each dose of cisplatin was immediately followed by a dose of irinotecan. The dose of cisplatin was fixed at 30 mg/m2/wk. The initial irinotecan dose was 50 mg/m2/wk and this was escalated by 30% increments in successive cohorts of three to six patients to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and its metabolites, SN-38 and SN-38 glucuronide (SN-38G), were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 35 patients with solid tumors enrolled onto this trial, 30 were assessable for toxicity and response. The MTD for this regimen was 30 mg/m2/wk of cisplatin plus 50 mg/m2/wk of irinotecan in previously treated patients and 30 mg/m2/wk of cisplatin plus 65 mg/m2/wk of irinotecan in chemotherapy-naive patients. Neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) encountered in this trial. Diarrhea was infrequent and rarely dose-limiting. Seven of 30 assessable patients achieved a partial response. No alteration in irinotecan, SN-38, or SN-38G pharmacokinetics resulted from the administration of cisplatin with irinotecan. CONCLUSION: The administration of cisplatin and irinotecan on this weekly schedule provides a practical and well-tolerated regimen that has the potential to maximize any clinical synergy between the two agents. Evidence of substantial clinical activity was seen in this phase I study.

Safe and cost effective use of alteplase for the clearance of occluded central venous access devices.

PURPOSE: To determine whether cryopreserved solutions of the thrombolytic agent alteplase could be used as a safe, effective, and economically reasonable alternative to urokinase in patients presenting with occluded central venous access devices (CVADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alteplase has been reported as an efficacious alternative to urokinase for treatment of occluded CVADs. However, the practicality of using alteplase as the thrombolytic of choice for this indication remained conjectural. To make this approach economically feasible, alteplase was diluted to 1 mg/mL and 2.5-mL aliquots were stored at -20 degrees C until use. A need to confirm that the cryopreserving and thawing of the reconstituted solution did not compromise the safety and efficacy reported from prior trials was recognized. A quality assessment initiative was undertaken to concurrently monitor the safety and efficacy of this approach. Patients presenting with occluded CVADs received a sufficient volume of the thawed alteplase solution to fill the occluded catheter(s). Data, including efficacy, adverse reactions, dwell time, and catheter type, were collected over a 5-month period. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients accounting for 168 attempted clearances were assessable for safety and efficacy. One hundred thirty-six (81%) of the 168 catheter clearance attempts resulted in successful catheter clearance (95% confidence interval, 74% to 86%). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Cryopreserved 1-mg/mL aliquots of alteplase are safe and effective in the clearance of occluded CVADs when stored at -20 degrees C for 30 days. The ability to cryopreserve alteplase aliquots makes it an economically reasonable alternative to urokinase in the setting of CVAD occlusion.

Phase I study of topoisomerase I inhibitor exatecan mesylate (DX-8951f) given as weekly 24-hour infusions three of every four weeks.

Exatecan mesylate (DX-8951f) is a topoisomerase I inhibitor that has increased solubility and antitumor activity compared with other topoisomerase I inhibitors. The purpose of this study was to establish a safe dose of DX-8951f given as a weekly 24-h infusion 3 of every 4 weeks. DX-8951f was administered as a 24-h continuous infusion in escalating doses. Twenty-seven patients were treated with 81 courses of the drug. Dose-limiting toxicities included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and inability to administer all three doses in the first cycle. In minimally pretreated patients, a dose of 0.8 mg/m(2) was tolerable. In patients who were heavily pretreated, a slightly lower dose, 0.53 mg/m(2), was tolerated without any severe toxicities. Nonhematological toxicities were mild and consisted of mild diarrhea, asthenia, mild nausea, and constipation. Pharmacokinetic parameters could be well described with a one-compartment model in most patients, although the application of the one-compartment model probably resulted in an underestimated elimination half-life. In conclusion, the recommended Phase II dose for DX-8951f administered as a weekly 24-h infusion on a 3-of-4 week schedule is 0.8 mg/m(2) in minimally pretreated patients and 0.53 mg/m(2) in patients who are heavily pretreated.

High-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy for recurrent colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Management of locally recurrent colorectal adenocarcinoma represents a significant challenge. Many of these tumors adhere to or invade into vital pelvic structures rendering surgery or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as palliative treatment. Therefore, a treatment approach was developed to evaluate the role of high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy (HDR-IORT) and surgery as a component of therapy in the management of locally recurrent colorectal cancer. This is an update of our preliminary report with longer follow-up and larger patient numbers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 1992 and September 1998, 74 patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer were treated with surgery and HDR-IORT. Additional EBRT was given to 29 patients, and 33 patients received 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy. All patients underwent complete gross resection, and 21 of 74 had positive microscopic margin. The dose of HDR-IORT ranged from 10 to 18 Gy. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 22 months, the 5-year local control, distant metastasis disease-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 39%, 39%, 23%, and 23%, respectively. The only predictor of improved local control was a negative margin of resection with a 5-year local control rate of 43%, compared to 26% in those with positive margin (p = 0.02). For overall survival, a negative microscopic margin (p = 0.04) and the use of IORT + EBRT (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of improved survival. The incidence of peripheral neuropathy was 16%. CONCLUSION: The results with HDR-IORT in this group of patients are encouraging. Further improvements in local and distant control are still needed.

Irinotecan in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan (CPT-11 [Camptosar]) is currently approved for use as a second-line agent in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Phase II studies have also shown substantial single-agent activity of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Response rates appear to be similar to those seen with standard first-line regimens, although direct randomized comparisons have not yet been reported. In the absence of definitive data showing irinotecan to be superior, its routine use as a single agent in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer may be hard to justify, given the significant cost differential between irinotecan and current standard first-line regimens. Studies exploring combinations of irinotecan with fluorouracil may identify a first-line role for these combination regimens. Also, use of specific molecular markers may permit the identification of selected patients with tumor characteristics that would specifically favor consideration of upfront irinotecan monotherapy.

Irinotecan and cisplatin in upper gastrointestinal malignancies.

Irinotecan (CPT-11 [Camptosar]), an active agent in the treatment of fluorouacil-refractory colorectal cancer, has antitumor activity in upper gastrointestinal cancers. Clinical trials from Japan indicate antitumor responses in gastric and pancreatic cancers. Cisplatin (Platinol), a central agent in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal malignancies, is a logical drug to study in combination with irinotecan in upper gastrointestinal cancers. In vitro studies have shown important sequence-dependent synergy of cisplatin/irinotecan combination therapy. Irinotecan appears to prevent removal of cisplatin-induced DNA-interstrand cross-links. Initial phase I and III trials of cisplatin plus irinotecan appear to confirm this synergy, with Japanese trials in gastric cancer showing an encouraging rate of response with acceptable toxicity. A phase I trial conducted at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has demonstrated the safety and tolerability of weekly cisplatin and irinotecan. Currently, a phase II trial of this weekly regimen is under way in patients with metastatic or recurrent esophageal cancer. The response proportion compares favorably to standard therapy, with relatively mild toxicity. Other phase II studies, including single-agent irinotecan in esophageal cancer and the combination of cisplatin and irinotecan in gastric cancer, are being initiated at other US institutions.

A phase II study of topotecan administered five times daily in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Topotecan (Tpt), a semisynthetic analogue of camptothecin (Cpt), has shown excellent preclinical activity in a number of solid tumors. Cpt, the parent compound, has preclinical activity against several gastrointestinal tumors, including a gastric adenocarcinoma xenograft. A phase-II clinical trial was conducted to assess the activity to Tpt in patients with advanced gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 patients with advanced, incurable gastric adenocarcinomas were treated. Tpt 1.5 (mg/m2/day) was administered intravenously as a 30-min infusion daily for 5 consecutive days. Treatments were repeated on a 21-days cycle. RESULTS: No major objective responses were observed in 13 evaluable patients (response rate = 0%; 95% confidence interval = 0-22%). The major dose-limiting toxicity in this trial was myelosuppression, which was severe in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Tpt at the dose and schedule studies does not possess substantial antitumor activity in patient with gastric cancer, and the toxicities were formidable. We do not advocate further development of this drug in the treatment of gastric cancer. Tpt has shown more promising activity and tolerability in other patient populations, and these areas deserve further exploration.

The role of irinotecan in colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan, also known as CPT-11, is a topoisomerase I inhibitor currently approved for use as a second-line agent in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Preliminary reports from randomized studies exploring combinations of CPT-11 plus 5-fluorouracil have shown improved antitumor activity versus 5-fluorouracil-based treatments alone, and suggest a first-line role for these combination regimens. The role of CPT-11/5-fluorouracil regimens in the adjuvant setting is now being actively explored. Studies of single-agent CPT-11 in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer have shown activity; however response rates do not appear to be superior to those seen with standard first-line 5-fluorouracil-based regimens. The use of specific molecular markers as prognostic indicators of response or resistance to specific chemotherapies may, however, permit the identification of a selected population of patients with tumor characteristics that would specifically favor consideration of up-front use of single-agent CPT-11.

Adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer.

The adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer has seen many important advances in recent years. Chemotherapy improves long-term disease-free survival rates in high-risk patients with resected colon cancer. Combined modality therapy, using surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, improves both local control and survival in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. We examine in detail the data on which current recommendations for adjuvant treatments are based. We also review some of the more promising experimental approaches currently under investigation.

Oral chemotherapeutic agents for colorectal cancer.

A number of novel oral chemotherapeutic agents are entering practice or are under development in the United States. Many of these agents display significant clinical activity against colorectal cancer. Many classes of compounds, including fluoropyrimidine analogs, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) inhibitors, topoisomerase inhibitors, farnesyl transferase inhibitors, and others, are being developed for oral administration. This manuscript describes the progress of clinical development of these agents and also explores the relative merits and challenges of these approaches. Economic issues, patient preference, and patient selection issues surrounding oral chemotherapy for colorectal cancer will also be discussed.