Patients' Preferences for 3 Months vs 6 Months of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer.

Background: SCOT was an international, randomized phase 3 trial of 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in patients with colorectal cancer. We sought patients' preferences for 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the SCOT trial. Methods: SCOT participants from Australia and New Zealand completed a validated questionnaire (at 3 and 18 months) to elicit the minimum survival benefits judged necessary to make an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile, based on their experience. Standardized hypothetical scenarios used the following baseline survivals (with 3 months of chemotherapy): life expectancies (LE) of 5 years and 15 years and 5-year survival rates (5YS) of 65% and 85%. Results: Of the 160 participants, 82 were assigned 3 months adjuvant chemotherapy, and 78 were assigned 6 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was FOLFOX in 121 (75.6%) and XELOX in 39 (24.4%). Preferences varied substantially and did not differ according to treatment group. The median survival benefits judged necessary to make the extra 3 months of chemotherapy worthwhile were an extra 3 years beyond a LE of 5 years; 3 years beyond a LE of 15 years; 15% beyond a 5YS of 65%; and 5% beyond a 5YS of 85%. Preferences were similar at 3 months and 18 months. Preferences were not predicted by participants' baseline characteristics. Conclusion: Preferences varied substantially, and the benefits many required to warrant an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy were larger than the benefits of an extra 3 months of chemotherapy calculated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) meta-analysis.

The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Local and distant disease recurrence are frequently observed following pancreatic cancer resection, but an improved understanding of resection margin assessment is required to aid tailored therapies. METHODS: Analyses were carried out to assess the association between clinical characteristics and margin involvement as well as the effects of individual margin involvement on site of recurrence and overall and recurrence-free survival using individual patient data from the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: There were 1151 patients, of whom 505 (43.9%) had an R1 resection. The median and 95% confidence interval (CI) overall survival was 24.9 (22.9-27.2) months for 646 (56.1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-30.4) months for 146 (12.7%) patients with R1<1 mm positive resection margins, and 18.7 (17.2-21.1) months for 359 (31.2%) patients with R1-direct positive margins (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, overall R1-direct tumor margins, poor tumor differentiation, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status ≥1, maximum tumor size, and R1-direct posterior resection margin were all independently significantly associated with reduced overall and recurrence-free survival. Competing risks analysis showed that overall R1-direct positive resection margin status, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status 1, and R1-direct positive superior mesenteric/medial margin resection status were all significantly associated with local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: R1-direct resections were associated with significantly reduced overall and recurrence-free survival following pancreatic cancer resection. Resection margin involvement was also associated with an increased risk for local recurrence.

SCORE: Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient's primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency. METHODS/DESIGN: SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs. DISCUSSION: The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p . Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

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.

Does the Chemotherapy Backbone Impact on the Efficacy of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.

IMPORTANCE: The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC. OBJECTIVE: To document the overall impact of specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ESMO conference abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin-irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan-based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.

Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS: Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)1= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)1 = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)1 = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.

Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas undergo the same resectional surgery as that of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Although adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have a survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized trials for periampullary adenocarcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil or gemcitabine) provides improved overall survival following resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 periampullary trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (July 2000-May 2008) in 100 centers in Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada. Of the 428 patients included in the primary analysis, 297 had ampullary, 96 had bile duct, and 35 had other cancers. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the observation group, 143 patients to receive 20 mg/m2 of folinic acid via intravenous bolus injection followed by 425 mg/m2 of fluorouracil via intravenous bolus injection administered 1 to 5 days every 28 days, and 141 patients to receive 1000 mg/m2 of intravenous infusion of gemcitabine once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was overall survival with chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy; secondary measures were chemotherapy type, toxic effects, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (61%) in the observation group, 83 (58%) in the fluorouracil plus folinic acid group, and 73 (52%) in the gemcitabine group died. In the observation group, the median survival was 35.2 months (95%% CI, 27.2-43.0 months) and was 43.1 (95%, CI, 34.0-56.0) in the 2 chemotherapy groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; (95% CI, 0.66-1.11; χ2 = 1.33; P = .25). After adjusting for independent prognostic variables of age, bile duct cancer, poor tumor differentiation, and positive lymph nodes and after conducting multiple regression analysis, the hazard ratio for chemotherapy compared with observation was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.98; Wald χ2 = 4.53, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with observation, was not associated with a significant survival benefit in the primary analysis; however, multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic variables demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

Single-agent irinotecan or FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer; results of a randomised phase II study (DaVINCI) and meta-analysis [corrected].

BACKGROUND: Second-line treatment with irinotecan for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival. It is uncertain whether irinotecan is better administered with 5-fluorouracil or alone in patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine. We compared toxicity (particularly diarrhoea), quality of life, and efficacy of combination chemotherapy and irinotecan in these patients. METHODS: In DaVINCI, a randomised phase II trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly allocated to: Combination therapy (FOLFIRI), irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) IV over 90 min, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (400mg/m(2) IV bolus and 2400 mg/m(2) by 46-hour infusion from day 1) and folinic acid (20mg/m(2) IV bolus, day 1), 2-weekly; or Single-agent, irinotecan (350 mg/m(2) IV over 90 min), 3-weekly. Toxicity was evaluated every treatment cycle; QOL and response 6-weekly. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial, amended from a larger factorial design, was terminated early due to slow recruitment. Results were also combined with other second-line irinotecan trials. FINDINGS: We randomised 44 patients to combination and 45 to single agent. Eight patients in the irinotecan arm and 4 in the combination arm had grade 3/4 diarrhoea (P=0.24). Treatment groups did not differ significantly in overall QOL changes, response rate or progression free or overall-survival. In a systematic review of 29 trials of second-line irinotecan-based treatment, single-agent irinotecan was associated with more diarrhoea and alopecia than the combination but efficacy was similar. INTERPRETATION: Combination treatment compared with single-agent irinotecan reduces alopecia and diarrhoea without compromising efficacy on clinical outcomes. Both regimens remain as reasonable treatment options. FUNDING: Research grant (Pfizer).

Changing management and survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancers have poor outcomes. Yet recent developments in the use of chemotherapy and surgery have promised improvements in survival. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment and survival for all patients presenting with stage IV colorectal cancer managed over the last 20 years at a tertiary referral center and to define independent predictors for survival. METHODS: A cohort of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated from 1989 through 1995 served as a historical control for comparison with prospective cohorts treated from 1996 through 2002 or from 2003 through 2009. The Kaplan Meier technique was used to calculate overall survival. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients with stage IV colorectal cancer were analyzed. Two-year overall survival was significantly higher in the 2003 to 2009 cohort (40.3%; 95%CI, 28.6-51.8%) than in either the 1989 to 1995 cohort (20.6%, 95%CI, 13.5- 28.6%) or the 1996 to 2002 cohort (19.3%; 95%CI, 12.8-26.9%). Significant independent predictors for overall survival included surgical resection with anastomosis (hazard ratio, 0.507; 95%CI, 0.371-0.692), surgical resection with stoma (0.578; 0.401-0.833), ASA score 3 (1.493; 1.150-1.941) or score 4 (2.532; 1.505-4.258), receiving palliative chemotherapy (0.64; 0.457-0.885), and receiving palliative radiotherapy (0.543; 0.352-0.835). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of overall survival for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated from 1989 through 2009, significant improvements were noted only in the last 7 years. Improvements may be related to more widespread use of palliative chemotherapy, newer chemotherapy agents, surgical excision of the primary tumor, and lower postoperative mortality.

Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined poor-risk rectal cancer: a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with poor-risk rectal cancer defined by MRI can be at high risk of disease recurrence despite standard chemoradiotherapy and optimum surgery. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, a treatment strategy developed to enhance the outcome of this population. METHODS: Between November, 2001, and August, 2005, we enrolled eligible patients with poor-risk rectal cancer defined by high-resolution MRI and without metastatic disease. The protocol was amended in January, 2004, following clinically significant cardiotoxic events (nine events in eight of 77 patients), to exclude patients with a recent history of clinically significant cardiac problems. Patients received 12 weeks of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 with capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks) followed by chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy over 6 weeks) with capecitabine (825 mg/m2 twice daily), total mesorectal excision, and 12 weeks of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate. We followed up patients for a median of 55 months (IQR 47-67). Efficacy analyses were undertaken for the intention-to-treat population, unless otherwise specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00220051. FINDINGS: 105 eligible patients were enrolled. Radiological response rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were 74% (78/105) and 89% (93/105), respectively. 97 patients underwent surgery, of whom 95 underwent total mesorectal excision, of whom 93 had microscopically clear resection margins and 21 had pathological complete response (21/105 [20%]). 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 68% (95% CI 59-77) and 83% (76-91), respectively. 3-year relapse-free survival for patients who had complete resection was 74% (65-83). Following the protocol amendment for cardiovascular safety, only one further thromboembolic event was reported (fatal pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Intensification of systemic therapy with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy before standard treatment is feasible in poor-risk potentially operable rectal cancer, with acceptable safety and promising long-term outcomes. Future development of this multidisciplinary treatment strategy in randomised trials is warranted. FUNDING: UK National Health Service, Sanofi-Aventis.

Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by synchronous chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-risk rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) in newly diagnosed patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -defined poor-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MRI criteria for poor-risk rectal cancer were tumors within 1 mm of mesorectal fascia (ie, circumferential resection margin threatened), T3 tumors at or below levators, tumors extending > or = 5 mm into perirectal fat, T4 tumors, and T1-4N2 tumors. Patients received 12 weeks of neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin followed by concomitant capecitabine and radiotherapy. TME was planned 6 weeks after CRT. Postoperatively, patients received another 12 weeks of capecitabine. RESULTS: Between November 2001 and August 2004, 77 eligible patients were recruited. After neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin, the radiologic response rate was 88%. In addition, 86% of patients had symptomatic responses in a median of 32 days (ie, just over one cycle of capecitabine/oxaliplatin). After CRT, the tumor response rate was increased to 97%. Three patients remained inoperable. Sixty-seven patients proceeded to TME, and all but one patient had R0 resection. Pathologic complete response was observed in 16 patients (24%; 95% CI, 14% to 36%), and in an additional 32 patients (48%), only microscopic tumor foci were found on surgical specimens. Four deaths occurred during neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin therapy as a result of pulmonary embolism, ischemic heart disease, sudden death with history of chest pain, and neutropenic colitis. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine/oxaliplatin before synchronous CRT and TME results in substantial tumor regression, rapid symptomatic response, and achievement of R0 resection.

The value of routine serum carcino-embryonic antigen measurement and computed tomography in the surveillance of patients after adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This analysis aims to evaluate routine carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and computed tomography (CT) of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis as part of protocol-specified follow-up policy for colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin or protracted venous infusion fluorouracil. Following completion of chemotherapy, patients were seen in clinic at regular intervals for 5 years. CEA was measured at each clinic visit, and CT of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis was performed at 12 and 24 months after commencement of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 1999, 530 patients were recruited. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. Disease relapses were observed in 154 patients. Relapses were detected by symptoms (n = 65), CEA (n = 45), CT (n = 49), and others (n = 9). Fourteen patients, whose relapses were detected by CT, had a concomitant elevation of CEA and were included in both groups. The CT-detected group had a better survival compared with the symptomatic group from the time of relapse (P =.0046). Thirty-three patients (21%) proceeded to potentially curative surgery for relapse and enjoyed a better survival than those who did not (P <.00001). For patients who underwent hepatic or pulmonary metastatic resection, 13 (26.5%) were in the CT group, eight (17.8%) in the CEA group, and only two (3.1%) in the symptomatic group (CT v symptomatic, P <.001; CEA v symptomatic, P =.015). CONCLUSION: Surveillance CT and CEA are valuable components of postoperative follow-up in stage II and III colorectal cancer.

Response of Apc(min) and A33 (delta N beta-cat) mutant mice to treatment with tea, sulindac, and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP).

There is growing interest in the potential health benefits of tea, and a recent report described the potent antimutagenic activity of white tea in comparison with green tea against several heterocyclic amines, including 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) [Mutat. Res. 495 (2001) 61]. We compared the inhibitory effects of white and green teas with sulindac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent, in two different mouse models of intestinal tumorigenesis. In the Apc(min) mouse, white and green teas given at human-relevant concentrations (1.5% w/v, 2-min brew), and sulindac (80 ppm in the drinking water), each suppressed polyp formation by approximately 50%, and the combination of white tea plus sulindac was more effective than either treatment alone (P=0.05). Mice expressing an N-terminally truncated, oncogenic version of beta-catenin (A 33(delta N beta-cat) mutant mice) developed colonic aberrant crypt foci (ACF) spontaneously, but PhIP treatment increased the incidence and number of ACF per colon. In the normal-looking intestinal mucosa of Apc(min) and A 33(delta N beta-cat) mice, white tea plus sulindac treatment markedly attenuated the expression of beta-catenin protein, and this was recapitulated in vitro in cells transiently transfected with beta-catenin plus Tcf-4 and treated with tea or the major tea polyphenol epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG). Expression of a beta-catenin/Tcf reporter was inhibited by EGCG in the transfected cells, and the beta-catenin/Tcf target genes cyclin D1 and c-jun were downregulated in vivo by tea plus sulindac treatment. Collectively, the data support a chemopreventive role for tea and sulindac against intermediate and late stages of colon cancer, via effects on the beta-catenin/Tcf signaling pathway.