Wenyuan Ye1, Liming Shi1, Liwen Qian1, Yikan Sun2, Xiaonan Sun1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 2. University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is part of the standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Although various options for modifying preoperative radiotherapy protocols have been researched and proposed, there is still no consensus as to the most appropriate dose regimen of neoadjuvant therapy for this disease. AIM: To evaluate the effects of relatively low-dose radiation regimens on tumor regression and clinical outcomes in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by mesorectal excision. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with LARC who underwent neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) in our hospital from June 2010 to December 2015. A total of 259 consecutive patients were enrolled, receiving 42 to 44 Gy (RLD, n = 31), 46 Gy (SD1, n = 69), or 50 Gy (SD2, n = 159) of CRT, combined with either capecitabine/oxaliplatin or capecitabine only or mFOLFOX6, followed by total mesorectal excision. A 1:4 propensity score matching was employed, and all patients in the RLD group were matched with 124 patients in the SD2 group. Rates of pCR, 3-year local/regional recurrence (LRR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in the RLD group were all not significantly different (0.313 for pCR; 0.884 for LRR; and 0.762 for OS; 0.101 for DFS) from those in SD1 and SD2 groups. The RLD group showed a lower incidence of grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity than SD2 group (0.019). A propensity score analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the pCR rates and 3-year outcomes between the RLD and SD2 group. CONCLUSION: Relatively low-dose regimen (≤44 Gy) of neoadjuvant CRT combined with standard concurrent chemotherapy appears to be both safe and effective in Chinese patients with LARC. Further testing by prospective randomized trials is needed.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is part of the standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Although various options for modifying preoperative radiotherapy protocols have been researched and proposed, there is still no consensus as to the most appropriate dose regimen of neoadjuvant therapy for this disease. AIM: To evaluate the effects of relatively low-dose radiation regimens on tumor regression and clinical outcomes in rectal cancerpatients treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by mesorectal excision. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with LARC who underwent neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) in our hospital from June 2010 to December 2015. A total of 259 consecutive patients were enrolled, receiving 42 to 44 Gy (RLD, n = 31), 46 Gy (SD1, n = 69), or 50 Gy (SD2, n = 159) of CRT, combined with either capecitabine/oxaliplatin or capecitabine only or mFOLFOX6, followed by total mesorectal excision. A 1:4 propensity score matching was employed, and all patients in the RLD group were matched with 124 patients in the SD2 group. Rates of pCR, 3-year local/regional recurrence (LRR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in the RLD group were all not significantly different (0.313 for pCR; 0.884 for LRR; and 0.762 for OS; 0.101 for DFS) from those in SD1 and SD2 groups. The RLD group showed a lower incidence of grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity than SD2 group (0.019). A propensity score analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the pCR rates and 3-year outcomes between the RLD and SD2 group. CONCLUSION: Relatively low-dose regimen (≤44 Gy) of neoadjuvant CRT combined with standard concurrent chemotherapy appears to be both safe and effective in Chinese patients with LARC. Further testing by prospective randomized trials is needed.
Authors: Seung Hyun Cho; Seung Ho Kim; Ji Hea Bae; Yun-Jin Jang; Hye Jung Kim; Dakeun Lee; Jun Seok Park Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rainer Fietkau; Claus Rödel; Werner Hohenberger; Rudolf Raab; Clemens Hess; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Becker; Christian Wittekind; Matthias Hutter; Eva Hager; Johann Karstens; Hermann Ewald; Norbert Christen; Michael Jagoditsch; Peter Martus; Rolf Sauer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christina E Bailey; Chung-Yuan Hu; Y Nancy You; Brian K Bednarski; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John M Skibber; Scott B Cantor; George J Chang Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Emily Chan; Yi-Jen Chen; Harry S Cooper; Paul F Engstrom; Peter C Enzinger; Moon J Fenton; Charles S Fuchs; Jean L Grem; Axel Grothey; Howard S Hochster; Steven Hunt; Ahmed Kamel; Natalie Kirilcuk; Lucille A Leong; Edward Lin; Wells A Messersmith; Mary F Mulcahy; James D Murphy; Steven Nurkin; Eric Rohren; David P Ryan; Leonard Saltz; Sunil Sharma; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Kristina M Gregory; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vincenzo Valentini; Regina Beets-Tan; Josep M Borras; Zoran Krivokapić; Jan Willem Leer; Lars Påhlman; Claus Rödel; Hans Joachim Schmoll; Nigel Scott; Cornelius Van de Velde; Christine Verfaillie Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David Sebag-Montefiore; Richard J Stephens; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Phil Quirke; Jean Couture; Catherine de Metz; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Gareth Griffiths; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321