skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Preoperative Capecitabine and Pelvic Radiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer-Is it Equivalent to 5-FU Infusion Plus Leucovorin and Radiotherapy?

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective case-matching study was to compare the treatment outcomes and acute toxicity of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) with capecitabine vs. preoperative RT with intermittent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion, leucovorin, and mitomycin C in rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: We matched 34 patients who were treated with preoperative concurrent capecitabine and 50 Gy of RT by their clinical T stage (T3 or T4) and the tumor location (<=7 cm or >7 cm from the anal verge) with another 68 patients who were treated with preoperative intermittent 5-FU infusion, leucovorin, mitomycin C, and 50 Gy of RT for a comparison of the pathologic tumor response, local control, distant failure, and survival rates. Results: The pathologic complete response rate was 21% with capecitabine and 18% with 5-FU and leucovorin (p = 0.72). The rate of T downstaging after chemoradiation was 59% for both groups. The rate of sphincter-sparing resection was 38% after capecitabine plus RT and 43% after 5-FU plus RT (p = 0.67). At 3 years, there was no significant difference in the local control rate (93% for capecitabine and 92% for 5-FU and leucovorin), relapse-free rate (74% for capecitabine and 73% for 5-FU and leucovorin), or disease-specific survivalmore » rate (86% for capecitabine and 77% for 5-FU and leucovorin). The acute toxicity profile was comparable, with little Grade 3 and 4 toxicity. Conclusions: When administered with concurrent preoperative RT, both capecitabine and intermittent 5-FU infusion with leucovorin modulation provided comparable pathologic tumor response, local control, relapse-free survival, and disease-specific survival rates in rectal cancer.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)
  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)
  3. Department of Surgery, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21372206
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 76; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.048; PII: S0360-3016(09)00517-3; Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CITROVORUM FACTOR; FLUOROURACILS; INFUSION; MITOMYCIN; NEOPLASMS; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; TOXICITY; ANTIBIOTICS; ANTI-INFECTIVE AGENTS; ANTIMETABOLITES; ANTIMITOTIC DRUGS; ANTINEOPLASTIC DRUGS; AZINES; BODY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; DRUGS; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS; HYDROXY COMPOUNDS; INTAKE; INTESTINES; LARGE INTESTINE; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; ORGANIC FLUORINE COMPOUNDS; ORGANIC HALOGEN COMPOUNDS; ORGANIC NITROGEN COMPOUNDS; ORGANS; PYRIMIDINES; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY; URACILS

Citation Formats

Chan, Alexander K., E-mail: alexc@cancerboard.ab.c, Wong, Alfred O., and Jenken, Daryl A. Preoperative Capecitabine and Pelvic Radiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer-Is it Equivalent to 5-FU Infusion Plus Leucovorin and Radiotherapy?. United States: N. p., 2010. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.048.
Chan, Alexander K., E-mail: alexc@cancerboard.ab.c, Wong, Alfred O., & Jenken, Daryl A. Preoperative Capecitabine and Pelvic Radiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer-Is it Equivalent to 5-FU Infusion Plus Leucovorin and Radiotherapy?. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.048.
Chan, Alexander K., E-mail: alexc@cancerboard.ab.c, Wong, Alfred O., and Jenken, Daryl A. 2010. "Preoperative Capecitabine and Pelvic Radiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer-Is it Equivalent to 5-FU Infusion Plus Leucovorin and Radiotherapy?". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.048.
@article{osti_21372206,
title = {Preoperative Capecitabine and Pelvic Radiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer-Is it Equivalent to 5-FU Infusion Plus Leucovorin and Radiotherapy?},
author = {Chan, Alexander K., E-mail: alexc@cancerboard.ab.c and Wong, Alfred O. and Jenken, Daryl A.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The aim of this retrospective case-matching study was to compare the treatment outcomes and acute toxicity of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) with capecitabine vs. preoperative RT with intermittent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion, leucovorin, and mitomycin C in rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: We matched 34 patients who were treated with preoperative concurrent capecitabine and 50 Gy of RT by their clinical T stage (T3 or T4) and the tumor location (<=7 cm or >7 cm from the anal verge) with another 68 patients who were treated with preoperative intermittent 5-FU infusion, leucovorin, mitomycin C, and 50 Gy of RT for a comparison of the pathologic tumor response, local control, distant failure, and survival rates. Results: The pathologic complete response rate was 21% with capecitabine and 18% with 5-FU and leucovorin (p = 0.72). The rate of T downstaging after chemoradiation was 59% for both groups. The rate of sphincter-sparing resection was 38% after capecitabine plus RT and 43% after 5-FU plus RT (p = 0.67). At 3 years, there was no significant difference in the local control rate (93% for capecitabine and 92% for 5-FU and leucovorin), relapse-free rate (74% for capecitabine and 73% for 5-FU and leucovorin), or disease-specific survival rate (86% for capecitabine and 77% for 5-FU and leucovorin). The acute toxicity profile was comparable, with little Grade 3 and 4 toxicity. Conclusions: When administered with concurrent preoperative RT, both capecitabine and intermittent 5-FU infusion with leucovorin modulation provided comparable pathologic tumor response, local control, relapse-free survival, and disease-specific survival rates in rectal cancer.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.048},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 5,
volume = 76,
place = {United States},
year = 2010,
month = 4
}
  • Purpose: To describe our experience with a bolus injection of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FL) vs. capecitabine in terms of radiologic and pathologic findings in preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: The study enrolled 278 patients scheduled for preoperative CRT using two protocols with different chemotherapeutic regimens. Pelvic radiotherapy (50.4 Gy) was delivered concurrently with FL (n = 145) or capecitabine (n = 133). Surgery was performed 6 weeks after CRT completion. Tumor responses to CRT were measured using both radiologic and pathologic examination. Magnetic resonance volumetry was performed at the initial workup and just before surgery aftermore » completion of preoperative CRT. Post-CRT pathology tests were used to determine tumor stage and regression. Results: Radiologic examination showed that tumor volume decreased by 68.2% {+-} 20.5% in the FL group and 68.3% {+-} 22.3% in the capecitabine group (p = 0.970). Postoperative pathologic T stage determination showed that downstaging occurred in 44.3% of FL and 49.9% of capecitabine patients (p = 0.571). The tumor regression grades after CRT were Grade 1 (minimal response) in 22.6% and 21.0%, Grade 2 (moderate response) in 53.2% and 50.0%, Grade 3 (near-complete response) in 12.9% and 12.9%, and Grade 4 (complete response) in 11.3% and 16.1% of the FL and capecitabine groups, respectively (p = 0.758). Conclusion: In the present study, the radiologic and pathologic findings did not reveal significant differences in short-term tumor responses between preoperative FL and capecitabine CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer. Long-term results and a prospective randomized trial are needed.« less
  • Purpose: To report secondary efficacy endpoints of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 0247, primary endpoint analysis of which demonstrated that preoperative radiation therapy (RT) with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin achieved a pathologic complete remission prespecified threshold (21%) to merit further study, whereas RT with capecitabine plus irinotecan did not (10%). Methods and Materials: A randomized, phase 2 trial evaluated preoperative RT (50.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) with 2 concurrent chemotherapy regimens: (1) capecitabine (1200 mg/m{sup 2}/d Monday-Friday) plus irinotecan (50 mg/m{sup 2}/wk × 4); and (2) capecitabine (1650 mg/m{sup 2}/d Monday-Friday) plus oxaliplatin (50 mg/m{sup 2}/wk × 5) for clinical T3 or T4 rectal cancer. Surgery was performed 4 tomore » 8 weeks after chemoradiation, then 4 to 6 weeks later, adjuvant chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m{sup 2}; leucovorin 400 mg/m{sup 2}; 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m{sup 2}; 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m{sup 2}) every 2 weeks × 9. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated univariately by the Kaplan-Meier method. Local–regional failure (LRF), distant failure (DF), and second primary failure (SP) were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. No statistical comparisons were made between arms because each was evaluated individually. Results: A total of 104 patients (median age, 57 years) were treated; characteristics were similar for both arms. Median follow-up for RT with capecitabine/irinotecan arm was 3.77 years and for RT with capecitabine/oxaliplatin arm was 3.97 years. Four-year DFS, OS, LRF, DF, and SP estimates for capecitabine/irinotecan arm were 68%, 85%, 16%, 24%, and 2%, respectively. The 4-year DFS, OS, LRF, DF, and SP failure estimates for capecitabine/oxaliplatin arm were 62%, 75%, 18%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. Conclusions: Efficacy results for both arms are similar to other reported studies but suggest that pathologic complete remission is an unsuitable surrogate for traditional survival metrics of clinical outcome. Although it remains uncertain whether the addition of a second cytotoxic agent enhances the effectiveness of fluorouracil plus RT, these results suggest that further study of irinotecan may be warranted.« less
  • Purpose: Capecitabine and its metabolites reach peak plasma concentrations 1 to 2 hours after a single oral administration, and concentrations rapidly decrease thereafter. We performed a retrospective analysis to find the optimal time interval between capecitabine administration and radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: The time interval between capecitabine intake and radiotherapy was measured in patients who were treated with preoperative radiotherapy and concurrent capecitabine for rectal cancer. Patients were classified into the following groups. Group A1 included patients who took capecitabine 1 hour before radiotherapy, and Group B1 included all other patients. Group B1 was then subdivided intomore » Group A2 (patients who took capecitabine 2 hours before radiotherapy) and Group B2. Group B2 was further divided into Group A3 and Group B3 with the same method. Total mesorectal excision was performed 6 weeks after completion of chemoradiation and the pathologic response was evaluated. Results: A total of 200 patients were enrolled in this study. Pathologic examination showed that Group A1 had higher rates of complete regression of primary tumors in the rectum (23.5% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.01), good response (44.7% vs. 25.2%, p = 0.006), and lower T stages (p = 0.021) compared with Group B1; however, Groups A2 and A3 did not show any improvement compared with Groups B2 and B3. Multivariate analysis showed that increases in primary tumors in the rectum and good response were only significant when capecitabine was administered 1 hour before radiotherapy. Conclusion: In preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, the pathologic response could be improved by administering capecitabine 1 hour before radiotherapy.« less
  • Purpose: To determine the safety and efficacy of preoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and an incorporated boost with concurrent capecitabine in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: The eligibility criteria included adenocarcinoma of the rectum, T3-T4 and/or N1-N2 disease, performance status 0 or 1, and age {>=}18 years. Photon IMRT and an incorporated boost were used to treat the whole pelvis to 45 Gy and the gross tumor volume plus 2 cm to 55 Gy in 25 treatments within 5 weeks. The study was designed to escalate the dose to the gross tumor volume inmore » 5-Gy increments in 3-patient cohorts. Capecitabine was given orally 825 mg/m{sup 2} twice daily for 7 days each week during RT. The primary endpoint was the maximal tolerated radiation dose, and the secondary endpoints were the pathologic response and quality of life. Results: Eight patients completed RT at the initial dose level of 55 Gy. The study was discontinued because of toxicity-six Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 3 (38%) of 8 patients. All patients went on to definitive surgical resection, and no patient had a pathologically complete response. Conclusion: This regimen, using hypofractionated RT with an incorporated boost, had unacceptable toxicity despite using standard doses of capecitabine and IMRT. Additional research is needed to determine whether IMRT is able to reduce the side effects during and after pelvic RT with conventional dose fractionation.« less
  • Purpose: To identify the maximal tolerated dose level of preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin and to evaluate the efficacy. Patients and Methods: Patients with rectal T3-T4 and/or N0-N+ rectal cancer received capecitabine 825 mg/m{sup 2} twice daily Monday through Friday and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m{sup 2} intravenously on Days 1, 8, and 15, concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The radiation dose was increased in 5.0-Gy steps in cohorts of 3 patients starting from 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions (dose level [DL] 1). DL2 and DL3 were designed to reach 42.5 Gy in 17 fractions and 47.5 Gy in 19more » fractions, respectively. Results: No dose-limiting toxicity was observed at DL1 or DL2. Of the 3 patients treated at DL3, 1 presented with Grade 3 diarrhea, which was considered a dose-limiting toxicity, and 3 additional patients were added. Of the 6 patients treated at DL3, no new dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and DL3 was identified as the recommended dose in this study. Eight additional patients were treated at 47.5 Gy. Grade 2 proctitis was the most frequent adverse event (40%); Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 2 patients (10%). All patients underwent surgery, and 17 patients (85%) underwent R0 resection. Four patients (20%) presented with a histologic response of Grade 4, 11 (55%) with Grade 3+, 2 (15%) with Grade 3, and 2 patients (10%) with Grade 2. Conclusion: The maximal tolerated dose in this study was 47.5 Gy. The high rates of pathologic response of Grade 3+ and 4 must be confirmed through the accrual of new patients in the Phase II study.« less