54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Short-course radiotherapy followed by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer – the RAPIDO trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Current standard for most of the locally advanced rectal cancers is preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and, variably per institution, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Short-course preoperative radiation with delayed surgery has been shown to induce tumour down-staging in both randomized and observational studies. The concept of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy has been proven successful in gastric cancer, hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer and is currently tested in primary colon cancer.

          Methods and design

          Patients with rectal cancer with high risk features for local or systemic failure on magnetic resonance imaging are randomized to either a standard arm or an experimental arm. The standard arm consists of chemoradiation (1.8 Gy x 25 or 2 Gy x 25 with capecitabine) preoperatively, followed by selective postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Postoperative chemotherapy is optional and may be omitted by participating institutions. The experimental arm includes short-course radiotherapy (5 Gy x 5) followed by full-dose chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) in 6 cycles before surgery. In the experimental arm, no postoperative chemotherapy is prescribed. Surgery is performed according to TME principles in both study arms. The hypothesis is that short-course radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy increases disease-free and overall survival without compromising local control. Primary end-point is disease-free survival at 3 years. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, local control, toxicity profile, and treatment completion rate, rate of pathological complete response and microscopically radical resection, and quality of life.

          Discussion

          Following the advances in rectal cancer management, increased focus on survival rather than only on local control is now justified. In an experimental arm, short-course radiotherapy is combined with full-dose chemotherapy preoperatively, an alternative that offers advantages compared to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with or without postoperative chemotherapy. In a multi-centre setting this regimen is compared to current standard with the aim of improving survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01558921

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years.

          Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been established as standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer after first results of the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 [Working Group of Surgical Oncology/Working Group of Radiation Oncology/Working Group of Medical Oncology of the Germany Cancer Society] trial, published in 2004, showed an improved local control rate. However, after a median follow-up of 46 months, no survival benefit could be shown. Here, we report long-term results with a median follow-up of 134 months. A total of 823 patients with stage II to III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to preoperative CRT with fluorouracil (FU), total mesorectal excision surgery, and adjuvant FU chemotherapy, or the same schedule of CRT used postoperatively. The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in 5-year overall survival as the primary end point. Secondary end points included the cumulative incidence of local and distant relapses and disease-free survival. Of 799 eligible patients, 404 were randomly assigned to preoperative and 395 to postoperative CRT. According to intention-to-treat analysis, overall survival at 10 years was 59.6% in the preoperative arm and 59.9% in the postoperative arm (P = .85). The 10-year cumulative incidence of local relapse was 7.1% and 10.1% in the pre- and postoperative arms, respectively (P = .048). No significant differences were detected for 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases (29.8% and 29.6%; P = .9) and disease-free survival. There is a persisting significant improvement of pre- versus postoperative CRT on local control; however, there was no effect on overall survival. Integrating more effective systemic treatment into the multimodal therapy has been adopted in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial to possibly reduce distant metastases and improve survival.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial.

            After curative resection, the prognosis of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is poor. This phase III trial was designed to evaluate the benefit in overall survival (OS) of perioperative fluorouracil plus cisplatin in resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Overall, 224 patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or stomach were randomly assigned to either perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (CS group; n = 113) or surgery alone (S group; n = 111). Chemotherapy consisted of two or three preoperative cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (800 mg/m(2)/d) for 5 consecutive days (days 1 to 5) every 28 days and three or four postoperative cycles of the same regimen. The primary end point was OS. Compared with the S group, the CS group had a better OS (5-year rate 38% v 24%; hazard ratio [HR] for death: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.95; P = .02); and a better disease-free survival (5-year rate: 34% v 19%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89; P = .003). In the multivariable analysis, the favorable prognostic factors for survival were perioperative chemotherapy (P = .01) and stomach tumor localization (P < .01). Perioperative chemotherapy significantly improved the curative resection rate (84% v 73%; P = .04). Grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 38% of CS patients (mainly neutropenia) but postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups. In patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, GEJ, or stomach, perioperative chemotherapy using fluorouracil plus cisplatin significantly increased the curative resection rate, disease-free survival, and OS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

              Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central
                1471-2407
                2013
                7 June 2013
                : 13
                : 279
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet and Center for Surgical Gastroenterology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna P9:03, SE 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Surgical Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
                [8 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [9 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [10 ]Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [11 ]Department of Pathology, Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [12 ]Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [13 ]Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
                Article
                1471-2407-13-279
                10.1186/1471-2407-13-279
                3680047
                23742033
                30f13b96-ccd2-467e-92f5-44c1211e6418
                Copyright ©2013 Nilsson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 January 2013
                : 30 May 2013
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                rectal cancer,radiotherapy,chemotherapy,neo-adjuvant,magnetic resonance imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article