4.7 Article

No benefit of adjuvant Fluorouracil Leucovorin chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cancer of the rectum (LARC): Long term results of a randomized trial (I-CNR-RT)

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 2, Pages 223-229

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.10.006

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Adjuvant chemotherapy; Preoperative radiochemotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: To evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACT-RT). The study was funded by the Italian National Research Council (CNR). Methods: From September 1992 to January 2001, 655 patients with LARC (clinically T3-4, any N) treated with NACT-RT and surgery, were randomized in two arms: follow-up (Arm A) or 6 cycles of ACT with 5 fluorouracil (5FU)-Folinic Acid (Arm B). NACT-RT consisted of 45 Gy/28/ff concurrent with 5FU (350 mg/ sqm) and Folinic Acid (20 mg/sqm) on days 1-5 and 29-33; surgery was performed after 4-6 weeks. Median follow up was 63.7 months. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: 634/655 patients were evaluable (Arm A 310, Arm B 324); 92.5% of Arm A and 91% of Arm B patients received the preoperative treatment as in the protocol; 294 patients of Arm A (94.8%) and 296 of Arm B (91.3%) underwent a radical resection; complete pathologic response and overall downstaging rates did not show any significant difference in the two arms. 83/297 (28%) patients in Arm B, never started ACT. Five year OS and DFS did not show any significant difference in the two treatment arms. Distant metastases occurred in 62 patients (21%) in Arm A and in 58 (19.6%) in Arm B. Conclusions: In patients with LARC treated with NACT-RT, the addition of ACT did not improve 5 year OS and DFS and had no impact on the distant metastasis rate. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available