Yoanna Pumpalova1, Margaret M Kozak2, Rie von Eyben2, Pamela Kunz3, George Fisher3, Daniel T Chang2, Sigurdis Haraldsdottir3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capecitabine (Cap) is an established treatment alternative to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for chemoradiation in rectal cancer. Few studies have compared the two agents in anal cancer. We compared outcomes and toxicities using Cap versus 5-FU in non-metastatic anal cancer patients at Stanford. METHODS: All non-metastatic anal cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation at Stanford from 1997-2016 were included. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare nominal and continuous variables. Gray's test was used to compare incidence of recurrence and colostomy, and Log-rank test was used to compare survival. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included. Thirty-six patients received Cap and 32 received 5-FU (12 received standard 5-FU and 20 received low-dose continuous 5-FU). Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in the 3-year overall and disease-specific survival between Cap and 5-FU (94% vs. 80%, P=0.197; 100% vs. 86%, P=0.051). Overall incidence of recurrence was equivalent between Cap and 5-FU (11% vs. 13%, P=0.703), but incidence of locoregional recurrence was higher in the 5-FU group (0% vs. 13%, P=0.042); patients treated with Cap had longer recurrence-free intervals (18 vs. 6 months, P=0.400), and all recurrences were distant. More colostomies were needed with 5-FU (3% vs. 13%, P=0.133). Toxicities were similar between the two groups. The most common grade ≥2 toxicities were dermatitis (77%), anal pain (78%), and diarrhea (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and incidence of recurrence were equivalent between Cap and 5-FU in anal cancer. Patients treated with Cap had statistically significant lower incidence of loco-regional relapses.
BACKGROUND: Capecitabine (Cap) is an established treatment alternative to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for chemoradiation in rectal cancer. Few studies have compared the two agents in anal cancer. We compared outcomes and toxicities using Cap versus 5-FU in non-metastatic anal cancer patients at Stanford. METHODS: All non-metastatic anal cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation at Stanford from 1997-2016 were included. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare nominal and continuous variables. Gray's test was used to compare incidence of recurrence and colostomy, and Log-rank test was used to compare survival. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included. Thirty-six patients received Cap and 32 received 5-FU (12 received standard 5-FU and 20 received low-dose continuous 5-FU). Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in the 3-year overall and disease-specific survival between Cap and 5-FU (94% vs. 80%, P=0.197; 100% vs. 86%, P=0.051). Overall incidence of recurrence was equivalent between Cap and 5-FU (11% vs. 13%, P=0.703), but incidence of locoregional recurrence was higher in the 5-FU group (0% vs. 13%, P=0.042); patients treated with Cap had longer recurrence-free intervals (18 vs. 6 months, P=0.400), and all recurrences were distant. More colostomies were needed with 5-FU (3% vs. 13%, P=0.133). Toxicities were similar between the two groups. The most common grade ≥2 toxicities were dermatitis (77%), anal pain (78%), and diarrhea (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and incidence of recurrence were equivalent between Cap and 5-FU in anal cancer. Patients treated with Cap had statistically significant lower incidence of loco-regional relapses.
Authors: Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz; 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 Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rob Glynne-Jones; Helen Meadows; Susan Wan; Simon Gollins; Martin Leslie; Ed Levine; Alec C McDonald; Sun Myint; Les Samuel; David Sebag-Montefiore Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: O Matzinger; F Roelofsen; L Mineur; S Koswig; E M Van Der Steen-Banasik; P Van Houtte; K Haustermans; L Radosevic-Jelic; R P Mueller; P Maingon; L Collette; J F Bosset Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J F Bosset; F Roelofsen; D A L Morgan; V Budach; P Coucke; J J Jager; E Van der Steen-Banasik; N Trivière; G Stüben; M Puyraveau; M Mercier Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: D Meulendijks; L Dewit; N B Tomasoa; H van Tinteren; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens; A Cats Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 7.640