Literature DB >> 22503032

Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz1, Frederik Wenz, Stefan Post, Axel Matzdorff, Stephan Laechelt, Jörg T Hartmann, Lothar Müller, Hartmut Link, Markus Moehler, Erika Kettner, Elisabeth Fritz, Udo Hieber, Hans Walter Lindemann, Martina Grunewald, Stephan Kremers, Christian Constantin, Matthias Hipp, Gernot Hartung, Deniz Gencer, Peter Kienle, Iris Burkholder, Andreas Hochhaus.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy is regarded as a standard perioperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. We investigated the efficacy and safety of substituting fluorouracil with the oral prodrug capecitabine.
METHODS: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial began in March, 2002, as an adjuvant trial comparing capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, in patients aged 18 years or older with pathological stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer from 35 German institutions. Patients in the capecitabine group were scheduled to receive two cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) days 1-14, repeated day 22), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) days 1-38), then three cycles of capecitabine. Patients in the fluorouracil group received two cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5, repeated day 29), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) daily), then two cycles of bolus fluorouracil. The protocol was amended in March, 2005, to allow a neoadjuvant cohort in which patients in the capecitabine group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) daily) followed by radical surgery and five cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days) and patients in the fluorouracil group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33) followed by radical surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) for 5 days). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment group in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks, with stratification by centre and tumour stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analyses were done based on all patients with post-randomisation data. Non-inferiority of capecitabine in terms of 5-year overall survival was tested with a 12·5% margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500993.
FINDINGS: Between March, 2002, and December, 2007, 401 patients were randomly allocated; 392 patients were evaluable (197 in the capecitabine group, 195 in the fluorouracil group), with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 41-72). 5-year overall survival in the capecitabine group was non-inferior to that in the fluorouracil group (76% [95% CI 67-82] vs 67% [58-74]; p=0·0004; post-hoc test for superiority p=0·05). 3-year disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-81) in the capecitabine group and 67% (59-73) in the fluorouracil group (p=0·07). Similar numbers of patients had local recurrences in each group (12 [6%] in the capecitabine group vs 14 [7%] in the fluorouracil group, p=0·67), but fewer patients developed distant metastases in the capecitabine group (37 [19%] vs 54 [28%]; p=0·04). Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups (any grade: 104 [53%] patients in the capecitabine group vs 85 [44%] in the fluorouracil group; grade 3-4: 17 [9%] vs four [2%]). Patients in the capecitabine group had more hand-foot skin reactions (62 [31%] any grade, four [2%] grade 3-4 vs three [2%] any grade, no grade 3-4), fatigue (55 [28%] any grade, no grade 3-4 vs 29 [15%], two [1%] grade 3-4), and proctitis (31 [16%] any grade, one [<1%] grade 3-4 vs ten [5%], one [<1%] grade 3-4) than did those in the fluorouracil group, whereas leucopenia was more frequent with fluorouracil than with capecitabine (68 [35%] any grade, 16 [8%] grade 3-4 vs 50 [25%] any grade, three [2%] grade 3-4).
INTERPRETATION: Capecitabine could replace fluorouracil in adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany).
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22503032     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70116-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  152 in total

1.  Accuracy of computed tomography in nodal staging of colon cancer patients.

Authors:  Audrey H Choi; Rebecca A Nelson; Hans F Schoellhammer; Won Cho; Michelle Ko; Amanda Arrington; Christopher R Oxner; Marwan Fakih; Jimmie Wong; Stephen M Sentovich; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Joseph Kim
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-07-27

Review 2.  Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer: Is it needed?

Authors:  Kristijonas Milinis; Michael Thornton; Amir Montazeri; Paul S Rooney
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-12-10

3.  The Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Stage II/III Resected Rectal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy.

Authors:  Daniel H Ahn; Christina Wu; Lai Wei; Terence M Williams; Evan Wuthrick; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Alan Harzman; Syed Husain; Carl Schmidt; Richard M Goldberg; Tanios Bekaii-Saab
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.339

Review 4.  SEOM clinical guidelines for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer 2013.

Authors:  J Maurel; C Grávalos; F Rivera; R Vera; E González Flores
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Treatment Intensification for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Impact on Pathological Complete Response and Outcomes.

Authors:  Monica DI Tommaso; Consuelo Rosa; Luciana Caravatta; Antonietta Augurio; Valentina Borzillo; Sara DI Santo; Francesca Perrotti; Maria Taraborrelli; Roberta Cianci; Paolo Innocenti; Pierluigi DI Sebastiano; Antonella Colasante; Domenico Angelucci; Massimo Basti; Giulia Sindici; Lorenzo Mazzola; Giuseppe Pizzicannella; Nicola DI Bartolomeo; Michele Marchioni; Marta DI Nicola; Domenico Genovesi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 6.  Review of systemic therapies for locally advanced and metastatic rectal cancer.

Authors:  Patrick Yaffee; Arsen Osipov; Carlyn Tan; Richard Tuli; Andrew Hendifar
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-04

Review 7.  Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and the role of adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Valerie M Nelson; Al B Benson
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 8.  Controversies in the multimodality management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  Robert Díaz Beveridge; Dilara Akhoundova; Gema Bruixola; Jorge Aparicio
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 9.  Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  J Joshua Smith; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A comparison between 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin and capecitabine/mitomycin in combination with radiation for anal cancer.

Authors:  Renata D'Alpino Peixoto; Dante D Wan; Devin Schellenberg; Howard J Lim
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.