Search

Background: To date, the role of adjuvant systemic therapy in stages ii and iii colon cancer remains a topic of interest and debate. The objective of the present review was to assess the most recent data, specifically addressing methods of risk stratification, duration of therapy, and future directions. Methods: PubMed and medline were searched for literature pertinent to adjuvant chemotherapy in either stage ii or stage iii colorectal cancer. Summary: Locoregional disease, histopathology, age, laterality, and a number of other biologic and molecular markers appear to have a role in disease risk stratification. The duration of adjuvant therapy for stage iii disease can vary based on risk factors, but use of adjuvant therapy and duration of therapy in stage ii disease remain controversial. Future directions should include genomic assays and improved study design to provide concrete evidence about the duration of adjuvant folfox or capox and about other types of chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

Background: We explored image-guided adaptive endorectal brachytherapy patients electing non-operative management for rectal cancer. We present the first pre-planned interim analysis. Methods: In this open-label phase II–III randomized study, patients with operable cT2-3ab N0 M0 rectal cancer received 45 Gy in 25 fractions of pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with 5-FU/Capecitabine. They were randomized 1:1 to receive either an EBRT boost of 9 Gy in 5 fractions (Arm A) or three weekly adaptive brachytherapy (IGAEBT) boosts totaling 30 Gy (Arm B). Patient characteristics and toxicity are presented using descriptive analyses; TME-free survival between arms with the intention to treat the population is explored using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 40 patients were in this analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced; acute toxicities were similar. Complete clinical response (cCR) was 50% (n = 10/20) in Arm A and 90% in Arm B (n = 18/20). Median follow-up was 1.3 years; 2-year TME-free survival was 38.6% (95% CI: 16.5–60.6%) in the EBRT arm and 76.6% (95% CI: 56.1–97.1%) in the IGAEBT arm. Conclusions: Radiation intensification with IGAEBT is feasible. This interim analysis suggests an improvement in TME-free survival when comparing IGAEBT with EBRT, pending confirmation upon completion of this trial.

Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil&ndash, leucovorin&ndash, oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine&ndash, oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity&mdash, thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes. A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006&ndash, 2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival. The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%, diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%, peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found. Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.