scholarly journals Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borut Stabuc
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oral Fluoropyrimidines ◽  
Significant Difference

Colorectal cancer alone accounts for around 200,000 deaths in Europe and represents a significant health problem. Although about fifty percent of patients are cured by surgery alone, the other half will eventually die due to metastatic disease, which includes approximately 25% of patients who have evidence of metastases at the time of diagnosis. Surgical resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes is the only curative therapy for colorectal cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III for colon cancer following curative resection has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence by 19-40% and of death by 16-33%. Today, 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin given for six months may represent the best adjuvant treatment available The contribution of levamisole to adjuvant treatment seems to be marginal, if any. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for the patients with Dukes B colon cancer is less clear. A meta-analysis of 1,381 patients with advanced colorectal cancer showed a significant increase in response rate with the bolus 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin versus 5-fluoroUracil alone but no significant difference in median survival. Continuous infusion allows higher doses of 5-FU than rapid bolus infusion and improves response rate survival and time to progression. Oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine and Uracil/Tegafur [UFT]) are as active as intravenous fluoropyrimidines. Compared to intravenous 5FU, oral fluoropyrimidines have safety advantages clinical benefits, and are more convenient for patients. Phase III randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer demonstrate the significant superiority of combining irinotecan with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin or oxaliplatin with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin over the same 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin alone. Several phase II studies have shown that the combination of the oral fluoropyrimidines plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin is very active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials with agents acting on novel targets in colorectal cancer are progressing rapidly, including doxifluridine, new inhibitors of thymidylate synthase (ZD9331), oral camptothecins (Rubitecan), multitarget antifolate antimetabolite (Premetrexet), inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (Cetuximab), COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) and farnesyltransferaze inhibitors (Zarnestra). However, a few randomized trials failed to show a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals Mutational Analysis of Patients With Colorectal Cancer in CALGB/SWOG 80405 Identifies New Roles of Microsatellite Instability and Tumor Mutational Burden for Patient Outcome

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (14) ◽  
pp. 1217-1227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Innocenti ◽  
Fang-Shu Ou ◽  
Xueping Qu ◽  
Tyler J. Zemla ◽  
Donna Niedzwiecki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Mutational Analysis ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Mutational Burden ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tumor Mutational Burden

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.

Risk factors for gastrointestinal perforations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3535-3535 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Sugrue ◽  
M. Kozloff ◽  
J. Hainsworth ◽  
S. Badarinath ◽  
A. Cohn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Potential Risk ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Large Community ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Potential Risk Factors

3535 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival when added to standard chemotherapy in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). BRiTE is a large, community-based observational registry of pts with mCRC receiving BV plus first-line chemotherapy (CT). Incidence rate, temporal pattern, and potential risk factors associated with gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) were explored. Methods: Baseline patient characteristics (BC), including prospectively identified potential risk factors for GIP, were collected at study entry. Safety data were collected every 3 months (mo). Logistic regression models, adjusted and unadjusted for treatment assignment, were used to identify BC potentially associated with GIP. Results: 1968 pts were enrolled between Feb 2004 and Jun 2005. Median study follow-up was 10 mo as of Nov 4, 2005. GIPs were observed in 34 pts (1.7%). For pts with GIP, median time to first event was 2.1 mo; the majority of events were non-fatal and occurred within the first 3 mo after starting BV. BC including GI medical history (chronic aspirin or NSAID use, peptic ulcer disease, diverticulosis) were similar in pts with or without GIP and with earlier or later GIP onset (≤ or >3 mo from start of BV). Although adjusted models did not show any significant BC, GIP rates were numerically higher in pts with primary tumor intact (2.6%) vs. resected (1.6%). Furthermore, univariate analyses revealed a significant difference between intact (2.3%) and resected (0.8%) primary tumor for earlier GIP (≤3 mo from start of BV). The majority of pts with GIP had at least one of the following: acute diverticulitis, intra-abdominal abscess, gastrointestinal obstruction, tumor at GIP site, abdominal carcinomatosis, prior abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy. Conclusions: Preliminary analyses indicate the incidence of GIP in this large, community-based observational registry is similar to that previously reported in phase III mCRC trials with BV. No associations between specific BCs and an increased risk of GIP were identified. Patients with primary tumor intact were more likely to incur a GIP within the first 3 mo of starting BV and CT. [Table: see text]

A prospective randomized phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in patients with stage II colon cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4052-4052
Author(s):  
W. Schippinger ◽  
H. Samonigg ◽  
R. Greil ◽  
J. Tschmelitsch ◽  
G. Steger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Relapse ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Stage Ii Colon Cancer

4052 Background: Whereas several studies showed adjuvant chemotherapy to improve survival of patients with stage III colon cancer, survival benefit from adjuvant treatment in patients with stage II disease is a matter of controversy. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer (T3–4, N0, M0) according to UICC were randomized to either adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-FU/LV (100 mg/m2 LV + 450 mg/m2 5-FU weekly, w 1–6, in 8 w cycles x 7) or surveillance only. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with 636 patients originally planned to demonstrate a difference in OS of 10% with 85% power and alfa =0.05 in a final analysis 7 years after study initiation. After accrual of 535 patients between 11/1993 and 6/2003, recruitment was stopped ahead of schedule for low accrual rates. Results: 505 patients were eligible and evaluable for analyses. After a median follow-up of 96 months, 56 (21.8%) patients have died in the 5-FU/LV arm and 58 (23.4%) in the surveillance arm. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two treatment arms (HR 1.137, 95% CI 0.787–1.641, p=0.4947, chi square), thus the primary endpoint of the study was not met. Disease relapse was documented in 35 (13.6%) patients of the chemotherapy arm and in 48 (19.4%) patients of the control arm. The relative risk for disease relapse was higher for patients in the surveillance arm compared to patients in the 5-FU/LV arm, however, this difference was statistically not significant (HR 1.506, 95% CI 0.974–2.328, p=0.0657, chi square). Subgroup analysis including in the chemotherapy arm only patients who received at least one cycle of 5-FU/LV (n=250), showed a statistically significantly lower risk for relapse in patients treated with 5- FU/LV (HR 1.559, 95% CI 1.001–2.429, p=0.0477, chi square). Conclusions: Results of this trial demonstrate a trend to a lower risk for relapse in patients treated with adjuvant 5-FU/LV for stage II colon cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve DFS and OS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil-tegafur (UFT) for stage III colorectal cancer: Final results of randomized trials by the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Colorectal Cancer (NSAS-CC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4049-4049 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Hamaguchi ◽  
K. Shirao ◽  
Y. Moriya ◽  
S. Yoshida ◽  
S. Kodaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resected Stage

4049 Background: In the latter 1990s, no consensus was reached as to whether adjuvant chemotherapy was standard treatment for completely resected stage III colorectal cancer in Japan. At that time, we started two randomized controlled trials to clarify the role of adjuvant chemotherapy of stage III colon and rectal cancer in the same time. Methods: Patients with completely resected stage III cancer of the colon or rectum (PS, 0 to 2; age, 20 to 75 years; no other adjuvant therapy) were eligible for these trials. Patients were registered within 6 weeks after surgery and were randomly assigned to receive surgery alone (control group) or surgery followed by treatment with UFT (400 mg/m2/day), given for 5 consecutive days per week for 1 year (UFT group). The target number of patients was 500 for colon cancer and 400 for rectal cancer (hazard ratio = 0.67, one-sided a= 0.05, β= 0.2). The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and the secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: Between October 1996 and April 2001, a total of 334 patients with colon cancer and 276 with rectal cancer were enrolled. Four ineligible patients were excluded; data from the remaining 332 patients with colon cancer and 274 with rectal cancer were analyzed. The patients’ characteristics were similar in the groups. Analysis of the results of follow-up until March 2006, at least 5 years after surgery in all patients (median follow-up period, 6.2 years), showed no significant difference in RFS or OS in colon cancer. In rectal cancer, however, RFS and OS were significantly better in the UFT group than in the control group. The only grade 4 toxicity was diarrhea, occurring in 1 patient with colon cancer and 1 patient with rectal cancer. Conclusions: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT is well tolerated and improved RFS and OS in patients with stage III rectal cancer. In colon cancer, the expected benefits were not obtained (hazard ratio = 0.67). [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Development and validation of a robust prognostic and predictive signature for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4036-4036
Author(s):  
A. M. Glas ◽  
P. Roepman ◽  
R. Salazar ◽  
G. Capella ◽  
V. Moreno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Gene Signature ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Independent Cohort

4036 Background: Between 25 and 35% of stage II CRC patients will experience a recurrence of their disease and may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Official guidelines give suggestions but no clear recommendation for best risk stratification. Here we describe the development a robust signature that predicts disease relapse and can assist in treatment decisions. Methods: Fresh frozen tumor tissues from 180 patients with stage I, II and III colorectal cancer undergoing surgery were analyzed using high density Agilent 44K oligonucleotide arrays. Median FU was 70.2 months; 85% of patients did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on full-genome gene expression measurement indicated the existence of 3 main colon molecular subclasses. Survival analysis of the 3 classes showed that subtype C (n= 27) had a poor outcome and subtype A (n= 48) good outcome. Only the intermediate group B (n=104) was used to develop a signature by using a cross validation procedure to score all genes for their association with 5-yr distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) and subsequently applied to all samples (n=180). The obtained gene signature was further validated on an independent cohort of 178 stage II + III colon samples. Results: A set of 38 prognosis related gene probes showed robust DMFS association in over 50% of all iterations in the Training Set of 180 samples. The gene signature was validated on an independent cohort of 178 samples from stage II + III colon cancer patients. The profile classified 61% of the validation samples as low-risk and 39% as high-risk. The low- and high-risk samples showed a significant difference in DMFS with a HR of 3.19 (P= 8.5e-4). Five-year DMFS rates were 89% (95%CI 83–95) for low-risk and 62% (95%CI 50–77) for high-risk samples. Moreover, the profile showed a significant performance within stage II (P=0.0058) and III (P=0.036) only samples. The performance of the profile was significant for both untreated (P=0.0082) and treated patients (P=0.016) suggesting that its power is independent of treatment benefits. Conclusions: ColoPrint is able to predict the prognosis of stage II and III colon cancer patients and facilitates the identification of patients who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

Phase III Trial of Cetuximab With Continuous or Intermittent Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX) Versus FLOX Alone in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The NORDIC-VII Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15) ◽  
pp. 1755-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Magne Tveit ◽  
Tormod Guren ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Per Pfeiffer ◽  
Halfdan Sorbye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

Purpose The NORDIC-VII multicenter phase III trial investigated the efficacy of cetuximab when added to bolus fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX), administered continuously or intermittently, in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The influence of KRAS mutation status on treatment outcome was also investigated. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard Nordic FLOX (arm A), cetuximab and FLOX (arm B), or cetuximab combined with intermittent FLOX (arm C). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), response rate, R0 resection rate, and safety were secondary end points. Results Of the 571 patients randomly assigned, 566 were evaluable in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. KRAS and BRAF mutation analyses were obtained in 498 (88%) and 457 patients (81%), respectively. KRAS mutations were present in 39% of the tumors; 12% of tumors had BRAF mutations. The presence of BRAF mutations was a strong negative prognostic factor. In the ITT population, median PFS was 7.9, 8.3, and 7.3 months for the three arms, respectively (not significantly different). OS was almost identical for the three groups (20.4, 19.7, 20.3 months, respectively), and confirmed response rates were 41%, 49%, and 47%, respectively. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, cetuximab did not provide any additional benefit compared with FLOX alone. In patients with KRAS mutations, no significant difference was detected, although a trend toward improved PFS was observed in arm B. The regimens were well tolerated. Conclusion Cetuximab did not add significant benefit to the Nordic FLOX regimen in first-line treatment of mCRC.

Phase III Comparison of Two Irinotecan Dosing Regimens in Second-Line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 807-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Melvin R. Moore ◽  
Graydon Harker ◽  
Luis Villa ◽  
David Rinaldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Global Quality Of Life ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose: Randomized trials in fluorouracil (FU)-refractory colorectal cancer demonstrate significant survival advantages for patients receiving irinotecan. We prospectively compared the efficacy and tolerability of two irinotecan regimens (once a week for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week rest period [weekly] v once every 3 weeks) in such patients. Patients and Methods: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned patients in a 1:2 ratio to irinotecan given either weekly (125 mg/m2) or once every 3 weeks (350 mg/m2, or 300 mg/m2 in patients who were ≥ 70 years of age, who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status equal to 2, or who had prior pelvic irradiation). Results: With median follow-up of 15.8 months, there was no significant difference in 1-year survival (46% v 41%, respectively; P = .42), median survival (9.9 v 9.9 months, respectively; P = .43), or median time to progression (4.0 v 3.0 months, respectively; P = .54) between the two regimens. Grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred in 36% of patients treated weekly and in 19% of those treated once every 3 weeks (P = .002). Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 29% of patients treated weekly and 34% of those treated once every 3 weeks (P = .35). Treatment-related mortality occurred in five patients (5.3%) receiving irinotecan weekly and three patients (1.6%) given therapy once every 3 weeks (P = .12). Global quality of life was not statistically different between treatment groups. Conclusion: Irinotecan schedules of weekly and of once every 3 weeks demonstrated similar efficacy and quality of life in patients with FU-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer. The regimen of once every 3 weeks was associated with a significantly lower incidence of severe diarrhea.

Irinotecan Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin Is Not Superior to Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin Alone As Adjuvant Treatment for Stage III Colon Cancer: Results of CALGB 89803

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (23) ◽  
pp. 3456-3461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard B. Saltz ◽  
Donna Niedzwiecki ◽  
Donna Hollis ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Alexander Hantel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Stage Iii Colon Cancer ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Weekly Bolus

Purpose Randomized studies have shown that irinotecan (CPT-11) extends survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients when administered in second-line and when added to fluorouracil (FU) plus leucovorin (LV) in first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. When this study was initiated, FU plus LV was standard adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of weekly bolus CPT-11 plus FU plus LV in the treatment of patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer. Methods A total of 1,264 patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard weekly bolus FU plus LV regimen or weekly bolus CPT-11 plus FU plus LV. The primary end points of the study were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results Treatment arms were well-balanced for patient characteristics and prognostic variables. There were no differences in either DFS or OS between the two treatment arms. Toxicity, including lethal toxicity, was significantly higher on the CPT-11 plus FU plus LV arm. Conclusion The addition of CPT-11 to weekly bolus FU plus LV did not result in improvement in DFS or OS in stage III disease, but did increase both lethal and nonlethal toxicity. This trial demonstrates that advances in the treatment of metastatic disease do not necessarily translate into advances in adjuvant treatment, and it reinforces the need for randomized controlled adjuvant studies.

scholarly journals Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Right- and Left-sided Colorectal Adenocarcinoma after Adjuvant Chemotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-395
Author(s):  
Dean Marvin Potato Pizarro ◽  
Carlos Dy ◽  
Mel Valerie` Cruz- Ordinario ◽  
Cyrielle Marie Atutubo
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Colorectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Disease Free ◽  
Tumor Laterality

Objective: The survival outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma based on tumor laterality has already been established based on large-scale retrospective studies. As for the non-metastatic disease, the data is much more conflicting. Local data in this population is also scarce. In this study, we determined the difference in survival of right-sided versus left-sided colorectal cancer patients after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed a total of 124 patients who were diagnosed with early to locally advanced (stage I to IVA) colorectal adenocarcinoma and underwent definitive surgery and adjuvant systemic treatment per physician’s preference. The patients were stratified according to the primary tumor laterality: Right-Sided Colon cancer (RCC) and Left-sided Colon cancer (LCC). The primary outcome being investigated is the disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years and 5 years. Secondary outcomes are overall survival (OS) at 3 years and 5 years, and site of disease recurrence across laterality.Results: The findings did not show a significant difference in the 3-year and 5-year DFS between RCC and LCC after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (3-year DFS: 50.0% in the RCC group and 54.3% in the LCC group; P=.671; 5-year DFS: 36.7% in the RCC group and 36.2% in the LCC group, P=.474). The OS difference was also not significant at 3 years and 5 years (3-year OS: 68.8% in the RCC group and 73.9% in the LCC group, P=.572; 5-year OS: 31.3% in the RCC group and 26.1% in the LCC group, P=.474). The overall recurrence rate was not significantly different in both groups (65.6% in the RCC group and 66.3% in the LCC group; P=.944). Majority of the recurrences were at a distant site in both groups (61.1% in the RCC group and 69.6% in the LCC group; P=.501) and the most common were in the lungs, and liver. Conclusion: The survival outcome of non-metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma was not significantly different between RCC and LCC after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The outcome was also similar after stratification of the population into early and locally advanced disease. More diverse clinical characteristics other than tumor location may be prognostic of disease-free and survival outcomes in the non-metastatic setting of colorectal cancer. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to validate the correlation of survival to the specific stage and anatomic location.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document