D. Tait

Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Radical radiotherapy is commonly used to treat localised prostate cancer. Late chronic side-effects limit the dose that can be given, and may be linked to the volume of normal tissues irradiated. Conformal radiotherapy allows a smaller amount of rectum and bladder to be treated, by shaping the high-dose volume to the prostate. We assessed the ability of this new technology to lessen the risk of radiation-related effects in a randomised controlled trial of conformal versus conventional radiotherapy. METHODS We recruited men with prostate cancer for treatment with a standard dose of 64 Gy in daily 2 Gy fractions. The men were randomly assigned conformal or conventional radiotherapy treatment. The primary endpoint was the development of late radiation complications (> 3 months after treatment) measured with the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) score. Indicators of disease (cancer) control were also recorded. FINDINGS In the 225 men treated, significantly fewer men developed radiation-induced proctitis and bleeding in the conformal group than in the conventional group (37 vs 56% > or = RTOG grade 1, p=0.004; 5 vs 15% > or = RTOG grade 2, p=0.01). There were no differences between groups in bladder function after treatment (53 vs 59% > or = grade 1, p=0.34; 20 vs 23% > or = grade 2, p=0.61). After median follow-up of 3.6 years there was no significant difference between groups in local tumour control (conformal 78% [95% CI 66-86], conventional 83% [69-90]). INTERPRETATION Conformal techniques significantly lowered the risk of late radiation-induced proctitis after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Widespread introduction of these radiotherapy treatment methods is appropriate. Our results are the basis for dose-escalation studies to improve local tumour control.

Neoadjuvant Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Followed by Synchronous Chemoradiation and Total Mesorectal Excision in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Defined Poor-Risk Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) in newly diagnosed patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -defined poor-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS MRI criteria for poor-risk rectal cancer were tumors within 1 mm of mesorectal fascia (ie, circumferential resection margin threatened), T3 tumors at or below levators, tumors extending > or = 5 mm into perirectal fat, T4 tumors, and T1-4N2 tumors. Patients received 12 weeks of neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin followed by concomitant capecitabine and radiotherapy. TME was planned 6 weeks after CRT. Postoperatively, patients received another 12 weeks of capecitabine. RESULTS Between November 2001 and August 2004, 77 eligible patients were recruited. After neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin, the radiologic response rate was 88%. In addition, 86% of patients had symptomatic responses in a median of 32 days (ie, just over one cycle of capecitabine/oxaliplatin). After CRT, the tumor response rate was increased to 97%. Three patients remained inoperable. Sixty-seven patients proceeded to TME, and all but one patient had R0 resection. Pathologic complete response was observed in 16 patients (24%; 95% CI, 14% to 36%), and in an additional 32 patients (48%), only microscopic tumor foci were found on surgical specimens. Four deaths occurred during neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin therapy as a result of pulmonary embolism, ischemic heart disease, sudden death with history of chest pain, and neutropenic colitis. CONCLUSION Capecitabine/oxaliplatin before synchronous CRT and TME results in substantial tumor regression, rapid symptomatic response, and achievement of R0 resection.

Allogeneic blood and bone-marrow stem-cell transplantation in haematological malignant diseases: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Autologous transplantation with peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) results in faster haematopoietic-cell repopulation than with bone marrow. We prospectively compared bone marrow and PBSC for allogeneic transplantation. METHODS Adult HLA-identical sibling donors provided bone marrow and lenograstim-mobilised PBSC. 39 patients with malignant haematological disorders were infused with either bone marrow (n=19) or PBSC (n=20) after standard conditioning regimens in a double-blind, randomised fashion. The identity of the infused products for all patients remained masked until 1 year after the last patient had received transplantation. FINDINGS The PBSC group had significantly faster neutrophil recovery to 0.5x10(9)/L (median 17.5 vs 23 days, p=0.002), and platelet recovery to 20x10(9)/L (median 11 vs 18 days, p<0.0001) and to 50x10(9)/L (median 20.5 vs 27 days, p=0.02) than the bone-marrow group. PBSC patients were discharged from hospital earlier than were bone-marrow patients (median 26 vs 31 days, p=0.01). At 4 weeks after transplantation, absolute lymphocytes (0.48 vs 0.63, p=0.08) and CD25 cells (0.04 vs 0.08, p=0.007) were higher in the PBSC group, and the proportion of patients with absolute lymphopenia (74% vs 33%, p=0.03) and CD4 lymphopenia (59% vs 24%, p=0.05) was significantly higher in the bone-marrow group. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease and overall survival. The probability of relapse was significantly higher in the bone-marrow group than in the PBSC group (p=0.01); all five relapses occurred among bone-marrow recipients. INTERPRETATION Our small study indicates that PBSCs are better than bone marrow for allogeneic transplantation from HLA-identical siblings in terms of faster haematopoietic and immune recovery, and have the potential to reduce disease recurrence.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for medulloblastoma: The first multi-centre control trial of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP I)

Two hundred and eighty-six patients with medulloblastoma from 46 centres in 15 countries were treated in a prospective randomized trial designed to assess the value of adjuvant chemotherapy. All patients were treated by craniospinal irradiation. Those randomly allocated to receive adjuvant chemotherapy were given vincristine during irradiation and maintenance CCNU and vincristine, given in 6-weekly cycles, for 1 year. The overall survival was 53% at 5 years and 45% at 10 years. At the close of the trial in 1979, the difference between the disease-free survival rate for the chemotherapy and control groups was statistically significant (P = 0.005). Since then, late relapses have occurred in the chemotherapy arm and the statistically significant difference between the two groups has been lost. Although there is now no statistical difference between the two arms of the trial, a benefit for chemotherapy persists in a number of sub-groups; partial or sub-total surgery (P = 0.007), brainstem involvement (P = 0.001), and stage T3 and T4 disease (P = 0.002). A number of prognostic factors for medulloblastoma have emerged; sub-total resection, extent of disease and being male sex carry a poor prognosis.

Results of a Randomized Study of Preradiation Chemotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone for Nonmetastatic Medulloblastoma: The International Society of Paediatric Oncology/United Kingdom Children’s Cancer Study Group PNET-3 Study

PURPOSE To determine whether preradiotherapy (RT) chemotherapy would improve outcome for Chang stage M0-1 medulloblastoma when compared with RT alone. Chemotherapy comprised vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 weekly for 10 weeks and four cycles of etoposide 100 mg/m2 daily for 3 days, and carboplatin 500 mg/m2 daily for 2 days alternating with cyclophosphamide 1.5 g/m2. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients aged 3 to 16 years inclusive were randomly assigned to receive 35 Gy craniospinal RT with a 20 Gy posterior fossa boost, or chemotherapy followed by RT. RESULTS Of 217 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 179 were eligible for analysis (chemotherapy + RT, 90 patients; RT alone, 89 patients). Median age was 7.67 years, and median follow-up was 5.40 years. Overall survival (OS) at 3 and 5 years was 79.5% and 70.7%, respectively. Event-free survival (EFS) at 3 and 5 years was 71.6% and 67.0%, respectively. EFS was significantly better for chemotherapy and RT (P =.0366), with EFS of 78.5% at 3 years and 74.2% at 5 years compared with 64.8% at 3 years and 59.8% at 5 years for RT alone. There was no statistically significant difference in 3-year and 5-year OS between the two arms (P =.0928). Multivariate analysis identified use of chemotherapy (P =.0248) and time to complete RT (P =.0100) as having significant effect on EFS. CONCLUSION This is the first large multicenter randomized study to demonstrate improved EFS for chemotherapy compared with RT alone. It is anticipated that this regimen could reduce ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity compared with cisplatin-containing schedules. The importance of avoiding interruptions to RT has been confirmed.

Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C)

PURPOSE To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined poor-risk rectal cancer: a phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with poor-risk rectal cancer defined by MRI can be at high risk of disease recurrence despite standard chemoradiotherapy and optimum surgery. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, a treatment strategy developed to enhance the outcome of this population. METHODS Between November, 2001, and August, 2005, we enrolled eligible patients with poor-risk rectal cancer defined by high-resolution MRI and without metastatic disease. The protocol was amended in January, 2004, following clinically significant cardiotoxic events (nine events in eight of 77 patients), to exclude patients with a recent history of clinically significant cardiac problems. Patients received 12 weeks of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 with capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks) followed by chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy over 6 weeks) with capecitabine (825 mg/m2 twice daily), total mesorectal excision, and 12 weeks of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate. We followed up patients for a median of 55 months (IQR 47-67). Efficacy analyses were undertaken for the intention-to-treat population, unless otherwise specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00220051. FINDINGS 105 eligible patients were enrolled. Radiological response rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were 74% (78/105) and 89% (93/105), respectively. 97 patients underwent surgery, of whom 95 underwent total mesorectal excision, of whom 93 had microscopically clear resection margins and 21 had pathological complete response (21/105 [20%]). 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 68% (95% CI 59-77) and 83% (76-91), respectively. 3-year relapse-free survival for patients who had complete resection was 74% (65-83). Following the protocol amendment for cardiovascular safety, only one further thromboembolic event was reported (fatal pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION Intensification of systemic therapy with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy before standard treatment is feasible in poor-risk potentially operable rectal cancer, with acceptable safety and promising long-term outcomes. Future development of this multidisciplinary treatment strategy in randomised trials is warranted. FUNDING UK National Health Service, Sanofi-Aventis.

Intestinal complications after chemotherapy for patients with unresected primary colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases

Background: The role of palliative resection of the primary tumour in patients who present with metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. Aims: This study compared the incidence of major intestinal complications in such patients who received chemotherapy treatment with or without prior palliative resection of the primary tumour. Patients: The incidence of intestinal obstruction, perforation, fistula formation, and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and the requirement for abdominal radiotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated at a single institution over a 10 year period was determined. Results: Eighty two patients received initial treatment with chemotherapy without resection of the primary tumour (unresected group) and 280 patients had undergone prior resection (resected group). In the unresected group, the incidence of peritonitis, fistula formation, and intestinal haemorrhage was 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3–8.5%), 3.7% (95% CI 0.8–10.3%), and 3.7% (95% CI 0.8–10.3%), respectively, and was not significantly different from the resected group. Intestinal obstruction affected 13.4% (95% CI 6.9–22.7%) of patients in the unresected group and 13.2% (95% CI 9.2–17.2%) of patients in the resected group. More patients in the unresected group required ⩾3 blood transfusions (14.6% v 7.5%; p=0.048) and abdominal radiotherapy (18.3% v 9.6%; p=0.03) than the resected group. Conclusions: The incidence of major intestinal complications in patients with unresected colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases who receive initial treatment with chemotherapy is low. Chemotherapy may be successfully used as initial treatment for such patients with no increased risk of most major intestinal complications compared with patients who have undergone initial resection of the primary tumour.

Non-operative treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

The past decade has seen pronounced changes in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. Historically, the standard of care involved surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. More recently, the emergence of neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has fundamentally changed the management of patients with locally advanced disease. In clinical trials, pathological complete responses of up to 25% have raised the question as to whether surgery can be avoided in a select cohort of patients. A trial of omission of surgery for selected patients with complete response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy has shown favourable long-term results. In this article, we outline emerging factors for achieving pathological complete response, non-operative strategies to date, methods for prediction of response to chemoradiotherapy, and future directions with the addition of MRI as a radiological guide to complete response.

Systematic review, including meta-analyses, on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer using radiation/combined modality therapy.

There is no consensus on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer, with either chemotherapy or combined modality approaches being employed (Maheshwari and Moser, 2005). No published meta-analysis (Fung et al, 2003; Banu et al, 2005; Liang, 2005; Bria et al, 2006; Milella et al, 2006) has included randomised controlled trials employing radiation therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the following: (i) chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy (combined modality therapy) vs best supportive care (ii) radiotherapy vs chemoradiation (iii) radiotherapy vs combined modality therapy (iv) chemotherapy vs combined modality therapy (v) 5FU-based combined modality treatment vs another-agent-based combined modality therapy. Relevant randomised controlled trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival and secondary end points were progression-free survival/time-to-progression, response rate and adverse events. Survival data were summarised using hazard ratio (HR) and response-rate/adverse-event data with relative risk. Eleven trials involving 794 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of survival with chemoradiation was increased compared with radiotherapy alone (two trials, 168 patients, HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.94), but chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not lead to a survival advantage over chemotherapy alone (two trials, 134 patients, HR 0.79; CI 0.32–1.95). Meta-analyses could not be performed for the other comparisons. A survival benefit was demonstrated for chemoradiation over radiotherapy alone. Chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not demonstrate any survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, but important clinical differences cannot be ruled out due to the wide CI.