Search

Background and objective: The management of elderly patients with cancer is a therapeutic challenge and a public health problem. The aim of this phase II single-arm study was to evaluate the acute toxicities and efficacy of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) comprising a single platinum-based agent combined with radiotherapy in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: Between March 2000 and October 2011, patients aged 75 years and older were prospectively treated with external beam radiotherapy combined with cisplatin or oxaliplatin. Other selection criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-2, disease stage II-III, squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, and an adequate biological profile. The radiotherapy dose was 50 Gy administered over 5 weeks to the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes. Cisplatin was planned at a dose of 75 mg/m on days 1 and 21 and oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m on days 1, 15, and 29. Treatment was delivered an outpatient setting. Results: Thirty patients with a mean age of 85.2 (range 79.4-92.0) years were included; 28 completed the treatment. Dysphagia was the only grade 4 toxicity to occur during the study; no grade 5 toxicities were observed. Six weeks after the completion of treatment, 16 patients (53.3 %) were in complete response. Two patients in complete response died from pneumonitis 5 and 7 months after CRT. With a 36-month median follow-up, 18 patients died from cancer (nine from local failure, nine from metastasis). Seven patients died from other causes and two patients were alive 40.3 and 56 months after the end of their treatment. Three-year overall survival was 22.2 %. Conclusions: Selected elderly patients with esophageal cancer and adequate functional status should not be excluded from CRT and may be able to tolerate the treatment with acceptable acute toxicities. However, mid-term efficacy is mediocre. Our data also suggest that the therapeutic ratio or locoregional control might be improved by increasing the radiotherapy dose or by testing new radiosensitizer agents since half of the failures were within the treated volume. Trial Registration: EudraCT no. 2009-010113-76. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To investigate whether patients treated for a localized prostate cancer (PCa) require a radical prostatectomy followed by postoperative radiotherapy or exclusive radiotherapy, in the modern era of image guided IMRT. Methods: 178 patients with PCa were referred for daily exclusive image guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) using an on-line 3D ultra-sound based system and 69 patients were referred for postoperative IMRT without image guidance after radical prostatectomy (RP + IMRT). Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to their baseline risk group before any treatment. Late toxicity was scored using the CTV v3.0 scale. Biochemical failure was defined as a postoperative PSA ≤ 0.1 ng/mL followed by 1 consecutive rising PSA for the postoperative group of patients and by the Phoenix definition (nadir + 2 ng/mL) for the group of patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy. Results: A total of 98 patients were matched (49:49). From the start of any treatment, the median follow-up was 56.6 months (CI 95% = [49.6-61.2], range [18.2-115.1]). No patient had late gastrointestinal grade ≥ 2 toxicity in the IG-IMRT group vs. 4% in the RP + IMRT group. Forty two percent of the patients in both groups had late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity. The 5-year FFF rates in the IG-IMRT group and in the RP + IMRT groups were 93.1% [80.0-97.8] and 76.5% [58.3-87.5], respectively (p = 0.031). Conclusions: Patients with a localized PCa treated with IG-IMRT had better oncological outcome than patients treated with RP + IMRT. Further improvements in postoperative IMRT using image guidance and dose escalation are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: This work describes the clinical validation of an automatic segmentation algorithm in CT-based radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer patients. Material and methods: The validated auto-segmentation algorithm (Smart Segmentation, version 1.0.05) is a rule-based algorithm using anatomical reference points and organ-specific segmentation methods, developed by Varian Medical Systems (Varian Medical Systems iLab, Baden, Switzerland). For the qualitative analysis, 39 prostate patients are analysed by six clinicians. Clinicians are asked to rate the auto-segmented organs (prostate, bladder, rectum and femoral heads) and to indicate the number of slices to correct. For the quantitative analysis, seven radiation oncologists are asked to contour seven prostate patients. The individual clinician contour variations are compared to the automatic contours by means of surface and volume statistics, calculating the relative volume errors and both the volume and slice-by-slice degree of support, a statistical metric developed for the purposes of this validation. Results: The mean time needed for the automatic module to contour the four structures is about one minute on a standard computer. The qualitative evaluation using a score with four levels (“not acceptable”, “acceptable”, “good” and “excellent”) shows that the mean score for the automatically contoured prostate is “good”; the bladder scores between “excellent” and “good”; the rectum scores between “acceptable” and “not acceptable”. Using the concept of surface and volume degree of support, the degree of support given to the automatic module is comparable to the relative agreement among the clinicians for prostate and bladder. The slice-by-slice analysis of the surface degree of support pinpointed the areas of disagreement among the clinicians as well as between the clinicians and the automatic module. Conclusion: The efficiency and the limits of the automatic module are investigated with both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis. In general, with efficient correction tools at hand, the use of this auto-segmentation module will lead to a time gain for the prostate and the bladder; with the present version of the algorithm, modelling of the rectum still needs improvement. For the quantitative validation, the concept of relative volume error and degree of support proved very useful. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and purposes: The appropriate application of 3-D conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulated radiotherapy or image guided radiotherapy for patients undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires a standardisation of target delineation as well as clinical quality assurance procedures. Patients and methods: Pathological and imaging studies provide valuable information on tumour extension. In addition, clinical investigations on patient positioning and immobilisation as well as treatment verification data offer an abundance of information. Results: Target volume definitions for different risk groups of prostate cancer patients based on pathological and imaging studies are provided. Available imaging modalities, patient positioning and treatment preparation studies as well as verification procedures are collected from literature studies. These studies are summarised and recommendations are given where appropriate. Conclusions: On behalf of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Radiation Oncology Group this article presents a common set of recommendations for external beam radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of routine assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on quality of life and satisfaction with care in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). A randomized controlled open-label clinical trial with 200 patients with HNC managed in four cancer centers in Eastern France was performed. In the intervention arm (regularly completed HRQoL questionnaires), HRQoL mean change was significantly improved at 2 years from baseline. Compared with the control arm, differences were not statistically significant, but minimal clinically important differences in favor of the intervention arm were found for HRQoL, satisfaction with waiting times, and satisfaction with accessibility. In patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatments, routine assessment of HRQoL is a simple practice and may have HRQoL and satisfaction benefits. The impact of routine assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on satisfaction with care and the HRQoL of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) treated with radiotherapy was assessed. Patients with HNC were randomly assigned to two arms, with stratification on sex, cancer localization, and stage of the disease. In the intervention arm, the patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires first before randomization, then before each medical appointment during radiotherapy (7 weeks), and then every 3 months until 1 year and at 2 years thereafter. In the control arm, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires were completed before randomization and at 1 year and 2 years thereafter. The primary endpoint was mean change in HRQoL at score at 2 years from baseline assessed by EQ VAS from the EuroQol questionnaire. The secondary endpoint was mean change in satisfaction with care at 2 years from baseline assessed by QLQ-SAT32. Two hundred patients with head and neck cancers were involved in this study (mean age, 58.83 years (range, 36.56–87.89)), of whom 100 were assigned to the intervention arm and 100 to the control arm. Patients in the intervention arm were reported to have a statistically significant increase in EQ VAS at 2 years (p < 0.0001) and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (mean change at 2 years from baseline = 10.46). In the two arms, mean differences between arms were not statistically significant, but minimal clinically important differences in favor of the intervention arm were found for EQ VAS (mean change difference (MD) = 5.84), satisfaction with care, in particular waiting times (MD = 10.85) and satisfaction with accessibility (MD = 6.52). Routine assessment of HRQoL improves HRQoL and satisfaction with care for patients with HNC treated with radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In total, more than 4000 adult patients are currently treated with PT across Europe annually. • CNS and HNC tumours are the most frequently treated tumour sites. • Most centres use national or institutional guidelines for selecting patients for PT. • Treatments are usually reimbursed by national health care systems. • Most patients are included in prospective data registries and clinical trials. Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n = 19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Target volume selection and delineation for both the primary tumor and the lymph nodes are critical steps in the treatment of head and neck tumors with Intensity Modulated Radiation therapy (IMRT). These steps should be based on a probabilistic approach, which is that selection and delineation will be considered as optimal when reaching the best compromise between a too tight volume that could be associated to an unacceptable rate of local recurrence, and a too large volume, which could be associated to an unacceptable rate of treatment morbidity. Failure to do so have been reported to be associated to a higher risk of loco-regional recurrences and/or morbidity after treatment. In this framework, groups of experts proposed sets of guidelines for the radiation oncology community, aiming at standardizing radiotherapy practices of head and neck cancer patients. Although in constant improvement, such guidelines have been shown to translate into more consistent treatment approaches. This review article summarizes the knowledge accumulated over the years on target volume selection and delineation and tries to reconcile the various schools of thoughts on the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• ESTRO/ACROP recommendations for the use of androgen deprivation therapy in the various indications of external-beam radiotherapy. • Highlights use of androgen deprivation therapy in the primary as well as postoperative setting of radiotherapy. • Androgen deprivation therapy use during moderate or extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy also addressed. There is no consensus concerning the appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) during primary and postoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Thus, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines seeks to present current recommendations for the clinical use of ADT in the various indications of EBRT. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE PubMed that evaluated EBRT and ADT in prostate cancer. The search focused on randomized, Phase II and III trials published in English from January 2000 to May 2022. In case topics were addressed in the absence of Phase II or III trials, recommendations were labelled accordingly based on the limited body of evidence. Localized PCa was classified according to D'Amico et al. classification in low-, intermediate and high risk PCa. The ACROP clinical committee identified 13 European experts who discussed and analyzed the body of evidence concerning the use of ADT with EBRT for prostate cancer. Key issues were identified and are discussed: It was concluded that no additional ADT is recommended for low-risk prostate cancer patients, whereas for intermediate- and high-risk patients four to six months and two to three years of ADT are recommended. Likewise, patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are recommended to receive ADT for two to three years and when ≥ 2 high-risk factors (cT3-4, ISUP grade ≥ 4 or PSA ≥ 40 ng/ml) or cN1 is present ADT for three years plus additional Abiraterone for two years is recommended. For postoperative patients no ADT is recommended for adjuvant EBRT in pN0 patients whereas for pN1 patients adjuvant EBRT with long-term ADT is performed for at least 24 to 36 months. In the setting of salvage EBRT ADT is performed in biochemically persistent PCa patients with no evidence of metastatic disease. Long-term ADT (24 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with high risk of further progression (PSA ≥ 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group ≥ 4) and a life expectancy of over ten years, whereas short-term ADT (6 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with lower risk profile (PSA < 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group 4). Patients considered for ultra-hypofractionated EBRT as well as patients with image based local recurrence within the prostatic fossa or lymph node recurrence should participate in appropriate clinical trials evaluating the role of additional ADT. These ESTRO-ACROP recommendations are evidence-based and relevant to the use of ADT in combination with EBRT in PCa for the most common clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disconnected cancer research data management and lack of information exchange about planned and ongoing research are complicating the utilisation of internationally collected medical information for improving cancer patient care. Rapidly collecting/pooling data can accelerate translational research in radiation therapy and oncology. The exchange of study data is one of the fundamental principles behind data aggregation and data mining. The possibilities of reproducing the original study results, performing further analyses on existing research data to generate new hypotheses or developing computational models to support medical decisions (e.g. risk/benefit analysis of treatment options) represent just a fraction of the potential benefits of medical data-pooling. Distributed machine learning and knowledge exchange from federated databases can be considered as one beyond other attractive approaches for knowledge generation within “Big Data”. Data interoperability between research institutions should be the major concern behind a wider collaboration. Information captured in electronic patient records (EPRs) and study case report forms (eCRFs), linked together with medical imaging and treatment planning data, are deemed to be fundamental elements for large multi-centre studies in the field of radiation therapy and oncology. To fully utilise the captured medical information, the study data have to be more than just an electronic version of a traditional (un-modifiable) paper CRF. Challenges that have to be addressed are data interoperability, utilisation of standards, data quality and privacy concerns, data ownership, rights to publish, data pooling architecture and storage. This paper discusses a framework for conceptual packages of ideas focused on a strategic development for international research data exchange in the field of radiation therapy and oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Chemoradiotherapy (CHRT) is often advocated for locally-advanced biliary tract cancer (LABTC). However there was not comparative study with chemotherapy alone (CH). Patients and methods Patients with hilar or extrahepatic non-metastatic, LABTC could be included in this phase II trial. The inclusion criteria required World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status ⩽2, bilirubinemia ⩽50 μM/L after biliary drainage if necessary, and possibility of external radiotherapy. Fluorouracil (5 FU) infusion and cisplatin, were given in association to radiotherapy (50 Gy) in the CHRT arm. Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin (GEMOX) was planned for 6 months in the CH arm. End-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity and rate of biliary complications. Results The trial was closed before completion due to slow recruitment. Eighteen and 16 patients were included in the CHRT and CH arms, respectively. Median follow up was 27.9 months (±2.8). Grade III–IV toxicities were mostly haematological (23% and 25%), and gastrointestinal (11% and 6%), in the CHRT and CH arm, respectively. Biliary complications occurred in 28% of patients in the CHRT arm and 44% of patients in the CH arm (risk ratio (RR): 1.60 [0.65–3.92]). Median PFS was 5.8 months in the CHRT group and 11.0 months in the CH group (hazard ratio (HR): 0.65 [0.32–1.33]). Median OS was 13.5 months in the CHRT group and 19.9 months in the CH group (HR: 0.69 [0.31–1.55]). Conclusions Combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin seems to be at least as efficient as chemoradiotherapy (50 Gy plus 5 FU and cisplatin) in LABTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction One of the goals of Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy (QART) is to reduce the variability and uncertainties related to treatment planning and beam delivery. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome impact and cost-effectiveness (CE) of various QART levels for a head and neck (H&N) cancer study. Materials and methods QART levels were defined as: basic QART with a dummy run (level 2), level 2 plus prospective Individual Case Reviews (ICRs) for 15% of patients (level 3) and level 2 plus prospective ICRs for all patients (level 4). The follow-up of patients was modeled using a multi-state model with parameters derived from EORTC, TROG and RTOG prospective studies. Individual patient data, linking QART results with outcome, were retrieved from the TROG database. Results for each QART level were expressed as percentage of mortality and local failure at 5 years. Results Quality-of-life-adjusted and recurrence-free survival increased with increasing QART levels. The increase of all these metrics was more sizeable with an increased QART level from 2 or 3 to 4. The estimated quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) for an increase of QART levels of 3-4 and 2-4 were 0.09 and 0.15, respectively. The incremental CE ratio was €5525 and €3659 Euros per QALY for these QART levels. Compared to QART level 2 or 3, level 4 was cost-effective. Conclusions Increasing QART levels resulted in better patient outcome in this simulated study. The increased complexity of the QART program was also cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: This randomized phase III trial investigated the potential benefit of concurrent re-irradiation, fluorouracil and hydroxyurea versus methotrexate for patients treated with palliative intent for recurrent or second primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in previously irradiated area. Patients and methods: Patients with recurrent HNSCC or a second primary not amenable to curative-intent treatment were randomized to the R-RT arm (concurrent re-irradiation, fluorouracil and hydroxyurea) or to the Ch-T arm (methotrexate). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Due to a very slow accrual, the trial was closed after inclusion of 57 patients. Results: Fifty-seven patients were included. All patients died in the two arms with a maximal follow-up of 5years. Although four complete responses were achieved in R-RT arm, (none in Ch-T arm) re-irradiation did not improve OS compared with methotrexate (23% versus 22% at 1year, NS). Sixteen patients experienced clinical grade ⩾3 late toxicities (>6months), 11 in R-RT arm and five in Ch-T arm. Conclusions: Premature discontinuation of the trial did not allow us to draw firm conclusions. However, there was no suggestion that concurrent re-irradiation, fluorouracil and hydroxyurea improved OS compared to methotrexate alone in patients treated with palliative intent for a recurrent or second primary HNSCC. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Introduction: EORTC trial 22991 was designed to evaluate the addition of concomitant and adjuvant short-term hormonal treatments to curative radiotherapy in terms of disease-free survival for patients with intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. In order to assess the compliance to the 3D conformal radiotherapy protocol guidelines, all participating centres were requested to participate in a dummy run procedure. An individual case review was performed for the largest recruiting centres as well. Materials and methods: CT-data of an eligible prostate cancer patient were sent to 30 centres including a description of the clinical case. The investigator was requested to delineate the volumes of interest and to perform treatment planning according to the protocol. Thereafter, the investigators of the 12 most actively recruiting centres were requested to provide data on five randomly selected patients for an individual case review. Results: Volume delineation varied significantly between investigators. Dose constraints for organs at risk (rectum, bladder, hips) were difficult to meet. In the individual case review, no major protocol deviations were observed, but a number of dose reporting problems were documented for centres using IMRT. Conclusions: Overall, results of this quality assurance program were satisfactory. The efficacy of the combination of a dummy run procedure with an individual case review is confirmed in this study, as none of the evaluated patient files harboured a major protocol deviation. Quality assurance remains a very important tool in radiotherapy to increase the reliability of the trial results. Special attention should be given when designing quality assurance programs for more complex irradiation techniques. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To assess the benefit of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with conventional RT for the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors. Methods and Materials: Cross-sectional QOL measures (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire C30 and head and neck cancer module) were used with a French multicenter cohort of patients cured of head and neck cancer (follow-up ≥ 1 year) who had received bilateral neck RT (≥ 45 Gy) as a part of their initial treatment. We compared the QOL mean scores regarding RT modality (conventional RT vs. IMRT). The patients of the two groups were matched (one to one) according to the delay between the end of RT and the timing of the QOL evaluation and the T stage. Each QOL item was divided into two relevant levels of severity: “not severe” (responses, “not at all” and “a little”) vs. “severe” (responses “quite a bit” and “very much”). The association between the type of RT and the prevalence of severe symptoms was approximated, through multivariate analysis using the prevalence odds ratio. Results: Two comparable groups (67 pairs) were available. Better scores were observed on the head and neck cancer module QOL questionnaire for the IMRT group, especially for dry mouth and sticky saliva (p < 0.0001). Severe symptoms were more frequent with conventional RT concerning saliva modifications and oral discomfort. The adjusted prevalence odds ratios were 3.17 (p = 0.04) for dry mouth, 3.16 (p = 0.02) for sticky saliva, 3.58 (p = 0.02) for pain in the mouth, 3.35 (p = 0.04) for pain in the jaw, 2.60 (p = 0.02) for difficulties opening the mouth, 2.76 (p = 0.02) for difficulties with swallowing, and 2.68 (p = 0.03) for trouble with eating. Conclusion: The QOL assessment of head and neck cancer survivors demonstrated the benefit of IMRT, particularly in the areas of salivary dysfunction and oral discomfort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To describe treatments and acute tolerance in a randomized trial comparing 70 Gy and 80 Gy to the prostate in patients with localized prostate cancer.Between September 1999 and February 2002, 306 patients were randomized to receive 70 Gy (153 patients) or 80 Gy (153 patients) in 17 institutions. Patients exhibited intermediate-prognosis tumors. If the risk of node involvement was greater than 10%, surgical staging was required. Previous prostatectomy was excluded, and androgen deprivation was not admitted. The treatment was delivered in two steps. PTV1—including seminal vesicles, prostate, and a 1–0.5-cm margin—received 46 Gy given with a 4-field conformal technique. PTV2, reduced to prostate with the same margins, irradiated with at least 5 fields. Dose was prescribed according to ICRU recommendations in the 70 Gy group, but adapted at the 80 Gy level.All patients but one in the 80 Gy arm completed the treatment. In the 70 Gy arm, the mean dose to the PTV2 was 69.5 Gy. In the 80 Gy arm, the mean dose in the PTV2 was 78.5 Gy. Acute toxicity according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale during treatment was reported in 306 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two arms: 12% had no toxicity, 80% complained of bladder toxicity, and 70% complained of rectal symptoms. Two months after the end of treatment, 43% of the 70 Gy level and 48% of the 80 Gy level complained of side effects, including 24% and 20% of sexual disorders. There was 6% and 2% of Grade 3 urinary and rectal toxicity. Five patients required a 10–29-day suspension of the treatment. Acute Grade 2 and 3 side effects were related to PTV and CTV1 size, which was the only independent predictive factor in multivariate analysis. Toxicity was not related to the center, age, arm of treatment, or selected data from dose–volume histogram of organ at risk.Treatments were completed in respect to constraints. Acute toxicity was acceptable. Intensity of toxicity depended on target volumes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Preoperative radiotherapy is recommended for selected patients with rectal cancer. We evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to preoperative radiotherapy and the use of postoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: We randomly assigned patients with clinical stage T3 or T4 resectable rectal cancer to receive preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, preoperative radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy, or preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. Radiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy delivered over a period of 5 weeks. One course of chemotherapy consisted of 350 mg of fluorouracil per square meter of body-surface area per day and 20 mg of leucovorin per square meter per day, both given for 5 days. Two courses were combined with preoperative radiotherapy in the group receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy and the group receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy; four courses were planned postoperatively in the group receiving preoperative radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy and the group receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Results: We enrolled 1011 patients in the trial. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the groups that received chemotherapy preoperatively (P=0.84) and those that received it postoperatively (P=0.12). The combined 5-year overall survival rate for all four groups was 65.2%. The 5-year cumulative incidence rates for local recurrences were 8.7%, 9.6%, and 7.6% in the groups that received chemotherapy preoperatively, postoperatively, or both, respectively, and 17.1% in the group that did not receive chemotherapy (P=0.002). The rate of adherence to preoperative chemotherapy was 82.0%, and to postoperative chemotherapy was 42.9%. Conclusions: In patients with rectal cancer who receive preoperative radiotherapy, adding fluorouracil-based chemotherapy preoperatively or postoperatively has no significant effect on survival. Chemotherapy, regardless of whether it is administered before or after surgery, confers a significant benefit with respect to local control. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002523.) N Engl J Med 2006;355:1114-23. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]