Postoperative irinotecan in resected stage II-III rectal cancer: final analysis of the French R98 Intergroup trial†.

BACKGROUD: The R98 trial explores the addition of irinotecan to a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) adjuvant regimen in optimally resected stages II-III rectal cancers. We report the updated long-term results. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point. PATIENST AND METHODS: Between March 1999 and December 2005, 357 patients were randomized: 178 in 5-FU/LV and 179 in LV5-FU2 + irinotecan arm. The trial was stratified by control arm: Mayo Clinic regimen or LV5-FU2 regimen. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-seven randomized patients were evaluable for efficacy. With a follow-up of 156 months, the DFS was in favour of experimental arm but did not reach statistical significance [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80, P = 0.154]. The same was observed for overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.87, P = 0.433). The 5-year DFS was 58% in the control arm and 63% in the experimental arm. The 5-year OS was 74% in the control arm and 75% in the experimental arm. Patients allocated to the experimental arm had more grade 3-4 neutropenia when compared with the LV5-FU2 arm (33% versus 6%, P = 0.03), but not when compared with the Mayo Clinic arm (33% versus 36%, P = 0.84). Grade 3-4 diarrhoea tended to be higher in the experimental arm, but analyses stratified by control arm or by radiotherapy failed to show significant differences across strata (test for interaction P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Even though a benefit of irinotecan in subgroups of patients cannot be excluded, due to early termination and lack of power, the study does not support the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU/LV in routine in patients with resected stage II-III rectal cancer.

Impact of on-site initiation visits on patient recruitment and data quality in a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide empirical evidence on the impact of on-site initiation visits on the following outcomes: patient recruitment, quantity and quality of data submitted to the trial coordinating office, and patients' follow-up time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This methodological study was performed as part of a randomized trial comparing two combination chemotherapies for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Centers participating to the trial were randomized to either receive systematic on-site visits (Visited group), or not (Non-visited group). RESULTS: The study was terminated after two years, while the main randomized trial continued. Of the 135 centers that had expressed an interest in the trial, only 69 randomized at least one patient (35/68 in the Visited group, 34/67 in the Non-visited group). Almost two-thirds of the patients were entered by 17 centers (10 in the Visited group, seven in the Non-visited group) that accrued more than 10 patients each. None of the prespecified outcomes favored the group of centers submitted to on-site initiation visits (ie, mean number of queries par patient: 6.1 +/- 9.7 versus 5.4 +/- 6.4, respectively for the Visited and Non-visited groups). Spontaneous transmittal of case report forms, although required by protocol, was low in both randomized groups (mean number of pages per patient: 1.5 +/- 2.0 versus 2.1 +/- 2.3, respectively), with investigators submitting about one-third of the expected forms on time (29% and 39%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: This study could not evaluate the impact of repeated on-site visits on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Systematic on-site initiation visits did not contribute significantly to this clinical trial.