Alvaro Figueredo

American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer

PURPOSE To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. RESULTS A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. CONCLUSION Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline

BackgroundA systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed.MethodsThe MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.ResultsSix randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not.ConclusionFollow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence.Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed.Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review From the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care’s Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group

PURPOSE To develop a systematic review that would address the following question: Should patients with stage II colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy? METHODS A systematic review was undertaken to locate randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant therapy to observation. RESULTS Thirty-seven trials and 11 meta-analyses were included. The evidence for stage II colon cancer comes primarily from a trial of fluorouracil plus levamisole and a meta-analysis of 1,016 patients comparing fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus observation. Neither detected an improvement in disease-free or overall survival for adjuvant therapy. A recent pooled analysis of data from seven trials observed a benefit for adjuvant therapy in a multivariate analysis for both disease-free and overall survival. The disease-free survival benefits appeared to extend to stage II patients; however, no P values were provided. A meta-analysis of chemotherapy by portal vein infusion has also shown a benefit in disease-free and overall survival for stage II patients. A meta-analysis was conducted using data on stage II patients where data were available (n = 4,187). The mortality risk ratio was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P =.07). CONCLUSION There is preliminary evidence indicating that adjuvant therapy is associated with a disease-free survival benefit for patients with stage II colon cancer. These benefits are small and not necessarily associated with improved overall survival. Patients should be made aware of these results and encouraged to participate in active clinical trials. Additional investigation of newer therapies and more mature data from the presently available trials should be pursued.

Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis during high-dose chemotherapy of small-cell lung cancer.

In 103 patients with small-cell lung cancer, we compared four courses of standard doses of Adriamycin (A) (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio), vincristine (V), and cyclophosphamide (C) with a regimen of increased doses of cyclophosphamide and to a lesser extent, Adriamycin. We found no significant difference in rate (22% v 21%) or median duration (seven v nine months) of complete remission. Patients not in complete remission after the four cycles of AVC received two courses of VP-16 (etoposide) and cisplatin: the complete remission rate increased to 49% and 48% respectively. Patients on the high-dose arm received co-trimoxazole prophylaxis; those on the standard arm did not. Patients on the high-dose arm had a higher incidence of neutropenia (nadir less than 500 cells/microL) but a lower incidence of infection for similar degrees of neutropenia. However, they also suffered more severe side effects of a different kind. Cotrimoxazole thus allowed for the administration of higher doses of chemotherapy to outpatients by protecting them from infection. However, the higher doses of cyclophosphamide and Adriamycin, did not improve treatment results, produced more severe side effects, and is not recommended.

The use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer: a practice guideline

BackgroundThis systematic review with meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the literature and to develop recommendations regarding the use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with resectable rectal cancer.MethodsThe MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the annual proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Relevant reports were reviewed by four members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.ResultsTwo meta-analyses of preoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone, nineteen trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery to surgery alone, and five trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy to alternative treatments were obtained. Randomized trials demonstrate that preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery is significantly more effective than surgery alone in preventing local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer and it may also improve survival. A single trial, using surgery with total mesorectal excision, has shown similar benefits in local recurrence.ConclusionFor adult patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer we conclude that:• Preoperative radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative to the previous practice of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with stage II and III resectable rectal cancer;• Both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy decrease local recurrence but neither improves survival as much as postoperative radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Therefore, if preoperative radiotherapy is used, chemotherapy should be added postoperatively to at least patients with stage III disease.

A Phase II Study of Flavopiridol in Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Purpose. Flavopiridol is a potent cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor that has preclinical activity in many tumours. This synthetic flavonoid was tested in a phase II nonrandomized, nonblinded multicentre clinical trial to determine its activity and toxicity in patients with previously untreated metastatic or locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Methods. A total of 18 patients with histologically confirmed nonoperable soft tissue was treated with flavopiridol administered at a dose of 50 mg/m 2 IV over 1 hour daily ×3 days every 3 weeks. Results. Eighteen patients were accrued to the study over a period of 6 months. No objective responses were noted in the seventeen evaluable patients. Eight patients (47%) exhibited stable disease after 2 cycles (median duration of 4.3 months (range 1.4–6.9 months). Kaplan-Meier estimates for 3- and 6-month progression-free survivial rates were 44 percent and 22 percent, respectively. The only grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (N = 2), nausea (N = 2), gastritis (N = 1), and fatigue (N = 1). Ninety-four percent of patients received ≥ 90% of the planned dose intensity, during 55 treatment cycles. Conclusions. Flavopiridol was well tolerated at the dose and schedule used in this study, however, no objective treatment responses were seen and thus our results do not support further exploration of flavopiridol as a monotherapy at this dose and schedule in soft tissue sarcomas.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Following Complete Resection of Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose. To review the literature and make recommendations for the use of anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy in adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Patients. The recommendations apply to patients >15 years old with completely resected STS. Methods. A systematic overview of the published literature was combined with a consensus process around the interpretation of the evidence in the context of conventional practice to develop an evidence-based practice guideline. Results. Four meta-analyses and 17 randomized clinical trials comparing anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation were reviewed. The Sarcoma Meta-Analysis Collaboration (SMAC) was the best analysis because it assessed individual patient data and had the longest follow-up. The results of the SMAC meta-analysis together with data from more recently published randomized trials, as well as our analysis of the toxicity and compliance data, are incorporated in this systematic review. Discussion. It is reasonable to consider anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who have had removal of a sarcoma with features predicting a high likelihood of relapse (deep location, size >5 cm, high histological grade). Although the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy are most apparent in patients with extremity sarcomas, patients with high-risk tumours at other sites should also be considered for such therapy.