Adjuvant chemotherapy là gì

Michael Thornton, Paul S Rooney, Department of Colorectal Surgery, the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool L7 8XP, United Kingdom

Amir Montazeri, Department of Oncology, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool CH63 4JY, United Kingdom

Author contributions: Milinis K, Thornton M, Montazeri A and Rooney PS equally contributed to this paper.

Correspondence to: Paul S Rooney, MBChB, FRCS, DM, Department of Colorectal Surgery, the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Merseyside, Liverpool L7 8XP, United Kingdom. [email protected]

Telephone: +44-151-7063426 Fax: +44-151-7063480

Received 2015 Apr 27; Revised 2015 Aug 1; Accepted 2015 Sep 7.

Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy has become a standard treatment of advanced rectal cancer in the West. The benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery alone have been well established. However, controversy surrounds the use adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, despite it being recommended by a number of international guidelines. Results of recent multicentre randomised control trials showed no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of survival and rates of distant metastases. However, concerns exist regarding the quality of the studies including inadequate staging modalities, out-dated chemotherapeutic regimens and surgical approaches and small sample sizes. It has become evident that not all the patients respond to adjuvant chemotherapy and more personalised approach should be employed when considering the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. The present review discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the current evidence-base and suggests improvements for future studies.

Keywords: Rectal cancer, Adjuvant chemotherapy

Core tip: Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer is a contentious issue despite its widespread use. Recent randomised controlled trials have shown no benefit in survival of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is becoming evident that not all patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and identification of these patients should be the focus of future studies. The present review discusses the current evidence-base for adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer and provides directions for future research.

INTRODUCTION

The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced rectal cancer in combination with preoperative chemoradiotherapy is controversial. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death[1]. Rectal cancer is defined as carcinoma arising in the distal 15 cm from the anal verge. It is estimated that approximately 40000 new cases of rectal cancer were diagnosed in the United States and 14226 in the United Kingdom in 2014[2,3]. Surgical treatment is the cornerstone of curative therapy for rectal cancer. Indeed, patients with early disease (stage I, T1/2, node negative) can be effectively treated with surgical resection and 90% are expected to survive at 5 years[4]. Therapeutic approach and prognosis differs significantly in more advanced rectal cancers (stage II and III, T3/4, node negative or positive). Local recurrence rates are significantly higher with more advanced lesions compared to early disease (13% vs 5%) and 5-year survival is markedly decreased (35% vs 90%)[4,5]. As a result, a more aggressive approach combining radical surgical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME), radiotherapy and chemotherapy is used to treat locally advanced rectal cancers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has now become a standard practice in the United States and Europe after the seminal German rectal cancer trial, which showed lower local recurrence rates in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group compared to postoperative chemoradiotherapy[6]. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has led to an increase in sphincter sparing operations and better quality of life as a result of pre-operative downstaging, and decreased risk of local recurrence[7].

Although mortality and local recurrence rates have improved dramatically over the past decades as a result of more accurate preoperative staging modalities [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoscopic ultrasound] and surgical techniques (TME), the rate of systemic relapse is still unacceptably high and contributes significantly[8]. About a third of patients with advanced rectal cancer will eventually develop distant metastases[6]. In order to prevent this, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has been employed in the management of locally invasive treatment of rectal cancer and is now incorporated into most treatment protocols in the west. Various national and international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, National Institute of Clinical Excellence) recommend postoperative chemotherapy with either capecitabine or 5-FU for a total of 6 mo for stage II and III rectal cancers irrespective of surgical pathology results[9]. Despite the widespread use of this approach, the evidence for beneficial effects of postoperative chemotherapy is conflicting. Indeed, the long-term results (10 years of follow-up) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22921 randomised trial published in 2014 showed no benefit of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiotherapy prompting the authors to question the validity of current recommendations[10]. Whether or not postoperative chemotherapy should be given is an important clinical dilemma for healthcare professionals, as chemotherapy is associated with significant systemic toxicity, which may lead to diminished quality of life[11]. The present review provides an update on the current evidence-base for treatment of rectal cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy, discusses the strengths and pitfalls of recent research and suggests improvements for future studies.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLON AND RECTAL CANCER

Current recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy treatment of rectal cancer are based on the evidence, which is largely extrapolated from studies in colon cancer[12-14]. However, it is now known that clinical course and biology of colon and rectal cancers differ significantly. Rectal cancers have distinct gene expression profile, fewer BRAF mutations and less microsatellite instability[15-17]. Furthermore, colon and rectum posses distinct embryological origins as well as anatomical and physiological characteristics. Clinically, rectal cancers have a worse prognosis in the early stages of disease, but longer survival in more advanced stages compared to colonic tumours of the same stage[18]. Finally, it is more difficult to achieve complete resection of rectal cancers with circumferential margin involvement, due to multi organ involvement, compared to colonic cancers[19]. As a result, it is scientifically justifiable to consider colonic and rectal cancers as distinct diseases and therefore the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy cannot be assumed to be equal in both conditions.

POSTOPERATIVE CHEMOTHERAPY IN COMBINATION WITH SURGERY ALONE

The value of postoperative chemotherapy in patients treated only with curative surgery has been investigated in a large number of trials. The Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis (2012) of 21 RCTs comparing postoperative chemotherapy with observation alone found significant improvement in both overall (HR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.76-0.91) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.68-0.83)[20]. Data, pooled from almost 10000 patients, showed that 5-FU based postoperative chemotherapy was associated with risk reduction of 17% and 25% in overall and disease-free survival respectively. Only 5 out of 21 trials showed significantly positive results, which implies that large numbers of study participants are needed to discern a small, but clinically important, difference. Of note, nine trials were conducted in Japan. Despite considerable differences in populations and treatment practices of rectal cancer in the west and in Asian countries (infrequent use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and different surgical technique in Japan), the authors of the Cochrane review found similar results both for Western and Japanese studies. It is unclear which groups of patients benefit most from chemotherapy, as only three trials reported results based on TNM stage. The QUASAR trial (n = 3239, 948 with rectal cancer) found significantly prolonged overall and disease survival in patients with stage II (node negative) disease[12]. In contrast, a subgroup meta-analysis of three trials, which included patients with stage III disease showed no significant improvement in overall survival, but longer disease-free survival[21-23].

The results should be interpreted with caution as the heterogeneity of the studies was high, most likely due to variable TNM stages (Duke’s stages A to C). In addition, the studies were conducted over the course of the past three decades, during which surgical and oncological treatment practices have changed considerably. Indeed, there is an argument that postoperative chemotherapy without preoperative treatment was only found beneficial in older studies not employing TME surgery[24]. No RCTs in the TME era have evaluated the value of postoperative chemotherapy and are unlikely to be performed as neoadjuvant treatment has become a “gold standard” approach. Finally, postoperative radiotherapy was administered alongside chemotherapy in some of the studies, hence individual contribution of chemotherapy to increased survival is difficult to determine.

POSTOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION AFTER SURGERY ALONE

Therapeutic utilisation of the synergistic effects of radiation and chemotherapy has dominated the treatment of cancer for many decades. The benefits of chemoradiation for rectal cancer was established in a number of trials (NSABP R-01, GITSG-7175, NCCTG-794751, GITSG-7180) in 1980s and early 1990s and is now a recommended optimal treatment modality in patients undergoing curative surgical resection[25-28]. The GITSG-7175 study (n = 227) was the first trial to show lower recurrence rates (33% vs 55%), but no effect on overall survival in patients treated with radiotherapy and fluorouracil with semustine (methyl-CCNU) compared to surgery alone and had to be terminated prematurely as a result of these findings[25]. The following NCCTG trial randomised 204 patients to either chemoradiation (FU-semustine) or radiotherapy. In contrast to GITSG trial, chemoradiotherapy was found to be associated with significant reduction (46%) in cancer related deaths compared to radiotherapy alone[27]. Based on these studies National Institute of Health in 1990 produced the guidance recommending that all rectal cancers with stages II and III should be treated with a combined pelvic irradiation and concomitant chemotherapy[29].

To date, only the GITSG-7175 trial compared postoperative chemotherapy alone vs chemoradiotherapy and found no significant difference in survival and local recurrence rates[25]. The results of the NASPB R01 trial (n = 555) showed that chemotherapy, when compared to surgery alone or radiotherapy, is associated with significantly prolonged disease-free survival[28]. Since postoperative radiotherapy has not been shown to prolong survival in rectal cancer, it is reasonable to believe that chemotherapy when combined with radiotherapy is responsible for reducing the risk of systemic dissemination of rectal cancer. The seminal trial, which compared preoperative with postoperative chemoradiation showed that patients achieve significantly better local control and have lower levels of systemic toxicity, although overall survival is similar in both approaches[6]. As a result of the findings of this trial, preoperative chemotherapy has gradually become a mainstay approach to treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

POSTOPERATIVE CHEMOTHERAPY AFTER NEOADJUVANT (CHEMO)RADIOTHERAPY AND SURGERY

Although postoperative chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy prolongs survival in patients treated with surgery alone, the evidence is much more conflicting in the setting of neoadjuvant treatment. Since majority of the patients in the West nowadays receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the most pertinent question regarding the benefit of postoperative chemotherapy remains unanswered by the studies described above. In light of several systematic reviews reporting no benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy when compared to radiotherapy alone in terms of disease free and overall survival, the role of postoperative chemotherapy has come into question[30,31]. Five recent European trials (CHRONICLE, QUASAR, EORTC 22921, PROCTO-SCRIPT, I-CNR-RT) enrolling 3143 patients with stage II and III rectal cancer investigated the benefits of postoperative chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (Table ​(Table11)[10,12,32-34]. Four out of five trials reported negative results and only QUASAR study found significantly increased survival in the postoperative chemotherapy group. EORTC 22921 trial (n = 1011) employed 2 × 2 factorial design comparing the effectiveness of postoperative 5-FU and leucovorin based chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiation or radiotherapy alone[10]. No difference in overall and disease-free survival was reported at 5 and 10 years of follow up. In the Italian trial (I-CNR-RT), 635 patients were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and then were randomised into observation and postoperative chemotherapy groups[33]. The investigators found no difference in 5-year survival and the distant metastases rates. PROCTO-SCRIPT trial (n = 437) patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were randomised into observation and treatment arms, which consisted of 5-FU plus leucovorin or capecitabine regimes[34]. The trial was stopped prematurely due to slow accrual and showed no benefit of postoperative chemotherapy in terms of overall survival. Another trial (CHRONICLE, n = 112), which was also terminated early due to slow accrual, found no survival advantage in patients treated postoperatively with capecitabine and oxaloplatin (XELOX)[32]. QUASAR trial was the only study to show borderline significant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative radiotherapy, however only 21% of patients with rectal cancer or both (rectal/colon) had radiotherapy[12].

Table 1

Trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with observation after neoadjuvant treatment

Sample sizeAccrual periodTotal mesorectal excisionPreoperative treatmentAdjuvant treatmentAdherence (%)Overall survival (adjuvant vs observation)Disease-free survival (adjuvant vs observation)Local recurrence (adjuvant vs observation)EORTC 2292110111993-200336.80%25 doses of 1.8 Gy and fluorouracil-based chemotherapyFour courses every 3 wk of fluorouracil and folinic acid42%51.8% vs 48.4%, P = 0.3247% vs 43.7%, P = 0.2911.7% vs 11.8%CHRONICLE1132004-2008NR45 Gy and fluorouracil-based chemotherapySix courses every 3 wk of oxaliplatin and oral capecitabine48.10%89% vs 88%, P = 0.7578% vs 71%, P = 0.56Not reportedPROCTOR-SCRIPT4372000-2013All patients25 doses of 1.8-2.0 Gy and fluorouracil-based chemotherapySix courses of fluorouracil and folinic acid OR 12 courses of fluorouracil and folinic acid OR eight courses every 3 wk of oral capecitabine73.60%80.4% vs 79.2%, P = 0.7362.7% vs 55.4%, P = 0.137.8% vs 7.8%, P = 0.69I-CNR-RT6341992-2001NR25 doses of 1.8 Gy and fluorouracil-based chemotherapySix courses of fluorouracil and folinic acid58.50%70% vs 69.1%, P = 0.7762.8% vs 65.3%, P = 0.884.5% vs 6.4%QUASAR3239 (948 with rectal cancer)1994-2003NRRadiotherapy (21%)Thirty doses of intravenous FU with high or low dose folinic acid58.00%HR = 0.8 (0.6-1.07)1HR = 0.69 (0.51-0.94)119.8% vs 27.2%

Open in a separate window

1Hazard ratios were obtained from Cochrane review by Petersen et al[20]. HR: Hazard ratios; FU: Fluorouracil; NR: Not reported.

In all of the studies above, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with only marginal benefit, which was not statistically significant. None of the trials were large enough to detect a 5% difference in 5-year survival, hence the likelihood of type II error was high[35]. As a result, Breugom et al[36] performed a meta-analysis of available studies using patient-level data. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to obtain the data from the QUASAR trial investigators. The analysis of 1196 patients with stage II and III rectal cancer with R0 resection showed no significant effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival, disease-free survival and distant metastases. In subgroup analysis, patients with tumours located 10-15 cm from the anal verge seemed to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as disease-free survival was significantly prolonged (HR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.40-0.85; P = 0.005) and rates of distant metastases were lower (HR = 0.61, 0.40-0.94; P = 0.025). There was no survival difference between stages II and III.

A meta-analysis performed by Petrelli et al[37], which included 16 randomised and non-randomised studies (a total of 5457 patients) found that overall adjuvant chemotherapy had significantly positive effects on disease-free and overall survival and distant metastasis rates. However, the validity of the results is limited due to significant bias of non-randomised studies. Indeed, in stratified analyses significant benefit was observed only in the non-randomised studies. Study participants who received chemotherapy were often younger, had node negative disease and showed good response to preoperative chemotherapy. In addition, median follow up rates were often shorter than 5 years, which could have exaggerated overall and disease-free survival in the short term.

The findings of these studies beg two questions question: Are current recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer valid? Or, are the findings of the studies reliable enough to change current practice?

POTENTIAL PITFALLS OF THE CURRENT EVIDENCE

Although the RCTs described above are generally held to have robust designs, there are some important considerations to be made when interpreting the results. Poor adherence to postoperative chemotherapy is a well-recognised problem in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Of the patients assigned to the adjuvant chemotherapy group in the EORTC 22921 trial 25% did not start the adjuvant treatment, with similar figures in other studies. The numbers are even smaller for completion rates of chemotherapy with only around half of the patients fully complying with the treatment. Although this may reflect a real life scenario, it is pertinent to determine the effects of optimal chemotherapy treatment so that clinicians and patients can make the informed decision regarding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Breugom et al[34,36] argued that the results of the trials could have not been affected by poor adherence as PROCTOR-SCRIPT trial showed no benefit of chemotherapy for patients who completed all cycles. Unfortunately the number of patients in this group (n = 159) is too small to detect the clinically meaningful difference.

Another important consideration is a change of surgical practices over long accrual periods. Most trials commenced recruitment in the early 1990s (EORTC 22921, I-CTR-RT, QUASAR). Surgical practices have changed considerably since then and the type of surgery patients received in the trials poorly reflect current standards. For instance, in the EORTC 22921 trial TME was performed in only 36.8% of patients, which contrasts with the contemporary practices where TME is performed virtually in all patients with locally advanced rectal cancers[38]. Furthermore, abdominoperineal resection rate was 47.2% in the intervention arm in the CHRONICLE study, which is significantly higher proportion compared to the United Kingdom National Bowel Cancer Audit Programme (24%)[39]. These deviations from current treatment practices raise concerns about the applicability of the study findings to today’s management of rectal cancer.

One of the most important shortcomings of the present studies is the use of inadequate imaging modalities. All of the RCTs relied on CT staging before the commencement of neoadjuvant treatment. Endoscopic ultrasound was only performed in 67% of patients in the EORTC 22912 trial and only in a selected proportion in I-CNR-RT study. The accuracy of the CT based-TNM staging is not perfect and the risk of overstaging is high[40]. Hence, it is likely that many patients were over-treated. Furthermore, CT does not enable accurate assessment of circumferential resection margin (CRM), which is an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival[41-43] (Figure ​(Figure1).1). The best modality to assess the extent of CRM is MRI, however no chemotherapy trials have reported the use of MRI[44] (Figure ​(Figure11).

Open in a separate window

Figure 1

Computed tomography (A) and magnetic resonance imaging (B) of the T3 rectal cancer. Note poor quality of circumferential margin on the computed tomography scan compared to the magnetic resonance imaging.

Furthermore, lymph node status was determined using pathological staging. Earlier studies have indicated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy may reduce the number of lymph nodes available for pathological examination and thus may affect the accuracy of staging[45-49]. There is a theoretical risk that some patients with metastatic lymph nodes are not identified on pathological staging and are at risk of systemic dissemination[49]. In particular, proximal node involvement carries a significant risk of distant metastasis[49]. Advanced imaging modalities, such as PET and MRI may enable accurate assessment of lymph node involvement before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and would subsequently guide clinicians in deciding whether or not adjuvant therapy is necessary (Figure ​(Figure22).

Open in a separate window

Figure 2

Magnetic resonance imaging of the T3 rectal cancer showing lymph node involvement.

The timing of adjuvant chemotherapy may also have a considerable effect on survival outcomes and has been largely overlooked in the present studies. Several meta-analyses showed that the longer the chemotherapy is delayed the shorter survival is in patients with colorectal cancer[50,51]. One of the reasons why colon cancer responds to adjuvant chemotherapy and rectal does not may be prompt administration of adjuvant chemotherapy[9]. Stoma and prolonged preoperative radiotherapy especially in combination with chemotherapy for rectal cancer means that adjuvant chemotherapy may not start until months later. Adverse consequences of delayed chemotherapy are also supported by animal studies, in which surgery was shown to increase the number of circulating neoplastic cells and promote metastatic growth[52]. In addition, surgery has been shown to enhance the production of oncogenic growth factors, such as transforming growth fact - alpha[53,54].

Finally, the most informative analysis of these trials by Breugom et al[34,36] is not without limitations. Out of 2195 patients available from four trials, only 1196 were included. These included patients only with stage II and III disease who had R0 resection, hence the meta-analyses does not address the question whether responders to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy achieve any benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (see below). In addition, QUASAR, which was one of the largest trials and showed positive effects, was not included in the analysis.

WHO MIGHT BENEFIT FROM POSTOPERATIVE CHEMOTHERAPY?

Several studies have suggested that not all the patients with rectal cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and that only certain groups may respond to treatment. The degree of bowel wall penetration and nodal involvement has been shown to be one of most important predictive factors for local relapse, distant metastasis and survival[4,5,55]. For example, in a pooled analysis of five randomised control trials in the United States, which included 3791 patients with rectal cancer, 5-year overall survival for T1-2N0 stage was 90%, for T3-4N0 60%, T4N1 30%[4]. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the benefits of chemotherapy in certain subgroups of patients, however the results haven been rather conflicting. Most of the evidence comes from post-hoc subgroup analyses of randomised control trials or retrospective/prospective non-randomised studies, hence is subject to inherent weaknesses of these designs.

The exploratory analysis of the early results (5 years of follow up) of the EORTC 22921 trial has showed that only patients downstaged to ypTN0-2 benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, while patients with ypTN3-4 do not[56]. In line with this, two other studies by De Stefano et al[57] and Janjan et al[58] found that patients who responded to preoperative chemoradiotherapy benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy, however no benefit was observed in the non-responders group. Such observations also have sound scientific basis, since rectal cancers are highly heterogenous tumours and preoperative chemotherapy may enable to predict favourable tumour biology, which may respond to subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there have been several reports to suggest that downstaged ypTNM0-2 tumours follow a more indolent course postoperatively and do not require additional chemotherapy. Three studies have shown that patients with good response to preoperative chemotherapy had excellent 5-year survival (90% survival) irrespective whether adjuvant chemotherapy was given or not[59-61]. Hence, additional chemotherapy may not be necessary and potentially harmful. This is also supported by the results of the long term outcomes of EORTC 22921 trial[10]. The investigators showed that although there appeared to be a survival advantage in patients with downstaged tumours in the short term, this benefit was transient and the survival curves equalised after 10 years.

Unfortunately, in a majority of patients a highly favourable response to preoperative chemotherapy is not observed and they are at greater risk of local and distant recurrence as well as shorter survival[62]. As a result, it appears logical to treat these patients aggressively with adjuvant chemotherapy[55,59,63-65]. Unfortunately, Breugom et al[36] in the meta-analysis of five trials (described above) showed no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy neither in stage IInor in stage III, however there was no data available for stage 0 and I disease. The differing results in the studies above may reflect variations in chemotherapy regimes used. Poor response to neoadjuvant treatment, which is usually fluoropyridine-based, indicates unfavourable tumour pathology and, unsurprisingly, administration of fluoropyridines during postoperative period may bring no benefit due to tumour resistance. In these cases, more aggressive combined therapy may have a role. A retrospective analysis of 160 rectal cancers with ypN0 stage showed that patients with T3-4 disease have significantly longer disease-free and overall survival if adjuvant FOLFOX (Oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid) or XELOX (capecitabine with oxaliplatin) regimens were given, while those with T0-2 appeared to show no benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy[64]. Randomised controlled trials are needed to determine whether non-responders may benefit from a more aggressive adjuvant treatment.

Location of rectal cancer in relation to anal verge was also found to have significance when aiming to predict which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. In the subgroup analysis, Breugom et al reported that tumours occurring 10-15 cm from the anal verge have longer disease-free survival if adjuvant chemotherapy is administered (HR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.40-0.85, P = 0.005). No significant interaction between distance from the anal verge and treatment group was found for more distal tumours. The authors proposed that this observation might be as a result of the arbitrary definition of rectum and that tumours in proximal rectum are in fact biologically similar to colonic ones. Bujko et al[35] suggested several anatomical reasons why low lying rectal cancer may have poor prognosis compared to higher ones. The authors argued that higher proportion of low lying rectal cancers involve a circumferential margin. In addition, lower cancers receive both systemic and portal venous drainage and hence are at risk of systemic dissemination. Finally, internal iliac and obturator nodes are at risk of involvement in low lying rectal cancers, which are not routinely removed in the West.

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY AGENTS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Fluoropyrimidine-based agents

Fluoropyrimidine-containing agents have formed the basis of adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer. 5-FU can be administered either bolus or by continuous intravenous infusion. The NCCTG trial involving 660 patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma showed that protracted venous infusion of 5-FU (PVI FU) alongside pelvic irradiation was associated with significantly reduced distant metastases rate (31% vs 40%) and increased overall survival[66]. In contrast, a larger study (n = 1917) by Smalley et al[67] found no significant differences between three trial arms (5-FU bolus plus leucovorin, 5-FU bolus plus infusion, 5-FU only) (United States intergroup study). There appears to be limited evidence to favour PVI FU over simple bolus FU in rectal cancer bearing in mind higher costs, inconvenience and requirement for a central line.

An attractive alternative to PVI FU is an oral agent called capecitabine. Capecitabine requires 3-step enzymatic activation in vivo, one of which preferentially occurs in tumours, hence capecitabine offers a highly targeted approach. Trials, mainly investigating the effectiveness of capecitabine in the neoadjuvant setting, show non-inferiority to intravenous 5-FU regimens in terms of disease-free and overall survival and distant and local recurrences[68,69]. A phase IIIGerman trial randomised 392 patients to receive either capecitabine or intravenous 5-FU in the perioperative period (231 patients received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy). The results showed significantly lower distant metastases rates with capecitabine compared to 5-FU (19% vs 28%), however similar 5-year survival (76% vs 67%)[70]. Aside from higher risk of hand-foot syndrome, capecitabine offers a great substitute to intravenous 5-FU regimes and obviates the need for a central line and is already recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Oxaliplatin-based regimens

Oxaloplatin is a third-generation 1,2 diaminocyclohexane platinum analogue, which prevents replication and transcription of DNA. The MOSAIC and NSABP C07 trials showed significant improvement in overall survival in patients with advanced colon cancer[71,72]. Based on these encouraging results, several trials were carried out to determine the benefits of oxaliplatin in addition to standard fluopyridinamine-based regimens in rectal cancer (ACCORD12/0405-Prodige, CAO/ARO/AIO-04, ADORE, STAR-01, NSAPB R-04, PETACC-6)[73-78]. While some studies reported significant improvement in pathological response and disease-free survival[76,78], others found no superiority of oxaliplatin, but instead an increased risk of acute toxicity[74,75,77,79]. Only four trials reported the data on survival. Recently published results of ADORE trial showed significant improvements in 3-year disease-free survival in FOLFOX group (5-FU, oxaliplatin, leucovorin) compared to (5-FU and leucovorin) (71.6% vs 62.9%, HR = 0.657, 95%CI: 0.434-0.994; P = 0.047)[78]. Toxicity was more commonly seen in FOLFOX group, however there was no difference in frequency of grade 3 and grade 4 events. Similar results were reported in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial, which showed significant increase in the proportion of patients achieving pathological complete response (17% vs 13%) and improved 3-year disease survival[76]. In contrast, interim results of PETACC-6 trial reported in a conference abstract did not show survival advantage in FOLFOX group[79]. CHRONICLE trial reported no benefit of oxaliplatin, however the study was considerably underpowered[32]. Three trials did not find improvement in pathological complete response (NSAPB R-04, ACCORD 12/0405-Prodige, STAR-01), however no data on survival were available. Although the evidence for oxaliplatin use in rectal cancer is limited, adjuvant chemotherapy incorporating oxaliplatin is widely used and is recommended by a number of international guidelines.

Irinotecan and biological agents

Irinotecan is a plant alkaloid, which inhibits DNA replication and repair by blocking topoisomerase I. Although irinotecan has been used with success in metastatic colon cancer, no benefit was found for stage III[80,81]. Only one trial investigated the benefits of irinotecan in rectal cancer[82]. The study recruited only 225 patients out of expected 3250 and was terminated because of the competing trial on bevacizumab. The investigators reported no benefit of addition of irinotecan to fluorouracil and leucovorin in neoadjuvant or adjuvant settings. Hence, currently irinotecan has no proven role in treatment of rectal cancer.

Biological agents such as anti-VEGF agent, bevacizumab, and monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab, which target epidermal growth factor receptor have been successfully used in metastatic colon cancer in patients who failed on first line chemotherapy regimens[83-85]. Although approved by FDA, NICE currently does not support their use[86]. The role of bevacizumab in non-metastatic rectal cancer is unknown. The on-going phase II BACCHUS trial is comparing FOLFOX with bevacizumab vs FOLFOXIRI with bevacizumab in the neoadjuvant setting in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, the trial does not directly test the independent benefits of bevacizumab and its role in adjuvant setting is not under investigation.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND TRIALS IN PROGRESS

Unfortunately, a definite answer regarding the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future. Most on-going trials compare different chemotherapeutic agent combinations or intensification regimes (PETACC-6, NSAPB R04, AERO-R98) and do not include an observation arm. Hence, the fundamental issue of whether or not adjuvant chemotherapy is effective is unaddressed. The only phase III trial ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01941979","term_id":"NCT01941979"}}NCT01941979) registered in the http://clinictrials.gov.uk website (accessed February 2015), which includes an observation arm is currently open and recruiting. The trial compares FOLFOX vs observation alone in patients with T3-4, N1, M0 who were treated with preoperative chemotherapy and showed poor response. The rationale of the study is based on the previous observations that only certain groups of patients with rectal cancer may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy[57,87].

Since rectal cancer is a highly heterogenous disease, more trials are needed to take a targeted approach when evaluating the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. It is still unclear what role adjuvant chemotherapy has in patients who responded well to preoperative chemotherapy as the evidence is conflicting. Hence, ideally a separate trial investigating adjuvant chemotherapy is needed in this patient population. At the other end of the spectrum, the optimal management of patients who did not show improvement with preoperative chemoradiotherapy is also unclear. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-responders appears to be unsupported by current evidence. However, there is scope for a more aggressive approach employing intensification regimens and combination treatments, including oxaliplatin and bevacizumab.

Reporting of the results based on stage may not be sensitive enough since there is high variability in prognosis within each TNM stage[88]. Valentini et al[89] produced nomograms based on the data from five major European RCTs on adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer (n = 2795), which take into account a large number of clinical and pathological variables. Using these nomograms to stratify patients with rectal cancer into low, intermediate and high risk groups may help identify with high accuracy patient subgroups, which would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, however a randomised control trial is needed to determine their benefit.

Accurate clinical staging before and after administration of preoperative chemotherapy is vital to avoid over-staging and subsequent overtreatment. CT and EUS assessment is far from adequate and instead MRI should be employed. Particular areas of interest are circumferential margin involvement and lymph node status, as these are the most important predictors of poor survival[43,49].

THE ROLE OF BIOMARKERS

It has been increasingly recognised that all cancers in general, including rectal cancer, are highly heterogenous diseases requiring personalised therapies. Identification of reliable biomarkers could potentially aid clinical decision-making regarding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Many studies have identified dozens of biomarkers (microsatellite instability, p53, KRAS, BRAF, thymidylate synthase) in colon cancer and a 12-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay) has been validated in the QUASAR trial as a reliable predictor for distant recurrence[90,91]. Whether similar assays can be used in rectal cancer is not known due to biological differences of colon and rectal cancer and requires separate validation. Biomarker analysis of the PROCTO-SCRIPT trial specimens is planned, which will hopefully help to identify patients who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy[34].

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer has been a subject of controversy in recent years. The results of major trials, published in the last couple of years, do not support the use of postoperative chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, however many clinicians throughout the world are understandably reluctant to abandon adjuvant chemotherapy. Concerns exist regarding the quality of the studies including inadequate staging modalities, out-dated chemotherapeutic regimens, non-TME surgical approaches and small sample sizes. It is becoming evident that not all patients with rectal cancer need adjuvant treatment. Identification of groups at risk using advanced imaging modalities, nomograms and biomarkers is the future of personalised treatment of rectal cancer. Hopefully, these questions will be answered in the near future. In the meantime, patients should be informed of benefits and risks of postoperative chemotherapy and the decision regarding the need for further treatment should be made on individual basis.

Footnotes

Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors have no conflicts of interest.

Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Peer-review started: April 27, 2015

First decision: June 24, 2015

Article in press: September 7, 2015

P- Reviewer: Szczepanik AM, Zhong ZH

S- Editor: Ji FF L- Editor: A E- Editor: Li D

References

1. World Cancer Res. Fund (WCRF) AICR (Aicr) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. WCRF/AICR, Washington, DC; 2007. [Google Scholar]

2. Siegel R, Desantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:104–117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Cancer Research UK [Internet] [cited 2015 Mar 1] Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/bowel/incidence/uk-bowel-cancer-incidence-statistics.

4. Gunderson LL, Sargent DJ, Tepper JE, Wolmark N, O’Connell MJ, Begovic M, Allmer C, Colangelo L, Smalley SR, Haller DG, et al. Impact of T and N stage and treatment on survival and relapse in adjuvant rectal cancer: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1785–1796. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Gunderson LL, Callister M, Marschke R, Young-Fadok T, Heppell J, Efron J. Stratification of rectal cancer stage for selection of postoperative chemoradiotherapy: current status. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2008;2:25–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rödel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, Martus P, Tschmelitsch J, Hager E, Hess CF, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1731–1740. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Boland PM, Fakih M. The emerging role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5:362–373. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Bosetti C, Levi F, Rosato V, Bertuccio P, Lucchini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Recent trends in colorectal cancer mortality in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:180–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Poulsen LØ, Qvortrup C, Pfeiffer P, Yilmaz M, Falkmer U, Sorbye H. Review on adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer - why do treatment guidelines differ so much? Acta Oncol. 2015;54:437–446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Bosset JF, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Stojanovic-Rundic S, Bensadoun RJ, Bardet E, Beny A, Ollier JC, Bolla M, et al. Fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: long-term results of the EORTC 22921 randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:184–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Anderson H, Palmer MK. Measuring quality of life: impact of chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Experience from two recent large phase III trials. Br J Cancer. 1998;77 Suppl 2:9–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Gray R, Barnwell J, McConkey C, Hills RK, Williams NS, Kerr DJ. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised study. Lancet. 2007;370:2020–2029. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Taal BG, Van Tinteren H, Zoetmulder FA. Adjuvant 5FU plus levamisole in colonic or rectal cancer: improved survival in stage II and III. Br J Cancer. 2001;85:1437–1443. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Goodman PJ, Ungerleider JS, Emerson WA, Tormey DC, Glick JH. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:352–358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Fransén K, Klintenäs M, Osterström A, Dimberg J, Monstein HJ, Söderkvist P. Mutation analysis of the BRAF, ARAF and RAF-1 genes in human colorectal adenocarcinomas. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:527–533. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. The Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487:330–337. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Birkenkamp-Demtroder K, Olesen SH, Sørensen FB, Laurberg S, Laiho P, Aaltonen LA, Orntoft TF. Differential gene expression in colon cancer of the caecum versus the sigmoid and rectosigmoid. Gut. 2005;54:374–384. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Lee YC, Lee YL, Chuang JP, Lee JC. Differences in survival between colon and rectal cancer from SEER data. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78709. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:303–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Petersen SH, Harling H, Kirkeby LT, Wille-Jørgensen P, Mocellin S. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer operated for cure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD004078. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Hafström L, Domellöf L, Rudenstam CM, Norryd C, Bergman L, Nilsson T, Hansson K, Wählby L, Asklöf G, Kugelberg C. Adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, vincristine and CCNU for patients with Dukes’ C colorectal cancer. The Swedish Gastrointestinal Tumour Adjuvant Therapy Group. Br J Surg. 1990;77:1345–1348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Glimelius B, Dahl O, Cedermark B, Jakobsen A, Bentzen SM, Starkhammar H, Grönberg H, Hultborn R, Albertsson M, Påhlman L, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a joint analysis of randomised trials by the Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumour Adjuvant Therapy Group. Acta Oncol. 2005;44:904–912. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Kodaira S. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with mitomycin C and UFT for rectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 1997;11:40–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Schmoll HJ, Van Cutsem E, Stein A, Valentini V, Glimelius B, Haustermans K, Nordlinger B, van de Velde CJ, Balmana J, Regula J, et al. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2479–2516. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1465–1472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Radiation therapy and fluorouracil with or without semustine for the treatment of patients with surgical adjuvant adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:549–557. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, Wieand HS, Collins RT, Beart RW, Kubista TP, Poon MA, Meyers WC, Mailliard JA. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:709–715. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, Redmond C, Deutsch M, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Caplan R, Jones J, Lerner H. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rectal cancer: results from NSABP protocol R-01. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80:21–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. NIH consensus conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA. 1990;264:1444–1450. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Ceelen WP, Van Nieuwenhove Y, Fierens K. Preoperative chemoradiation versus radiation alone for stage II and III resectable rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;124:CD006041. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. McCarthy K, Pearson K, Fulton R, Hewitt J. Pre-operative chemoradiation for non-metastatic locally advanced rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD008368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Glynne-Jones R, Counsell N, Quirke P, Mortensen N, Maraveyas A, Meadows HM, Ledermann J, Sebag-Montefiore D. Chronicle: results of a randomised phase III trial in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation randomising postoperative adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus control. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1356–1362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Sainato A, Cernusco Luna Nunzia V, Valentini V, De Paoli A, Maurizi ER, Lupattelli M, Aristei C, Vidali C, Conti M, Galardi A, et al. No benefit of adjuvant Fluorouracil Leucovorin chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cancer of the rectum (LARC): Long term results of a randomized trial (I-CNR-RT) Radiother Oncol. 2014;113:223–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Breugom AJ, van Gijn W, Muller EW, Berglund Å, van den Broek CB, Fokstuen T, Gelderblom H, Kapiteijn E, Leer JW, Marijnen CA, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision: a Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:696–701. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Bujko K, Glynne-Jones R, Bujko M. Does adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy provide a benefit for patients with resected rectal cancer who have already received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy? A systematic review of randomised trials. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:1743–1750. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Breugom AJ, Swets M, Bosset JF, Collette L, Sainato A, Cionini L, Glynne-Jones R, Counsell N, Bastiaannet E, van den Broek CB, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery for patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:200–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Petrelli F, Coinu A, Lonati V, Barni S. A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30:447–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Wibe A, Møller B, Norstein J, Carlsen E, Wiig JN, Heald RJ, Langmark F, Myrvold HE, Søreide O. A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer--implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:857–866. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Tilney HS, Heriot AG, Purkayastha S, Antoniou A, Aylin P, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP. A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;247:77–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Dickman R, Kundel Y, Levy-Drummer R, Purim O, Wasserberg N, Fenig E, Sulkes A, Brenner B. Restaging locally advanced rectal cancer by different imaging modalities after preoperative chemoradiation: a comparative study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:278. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Vliegen R, Dresen R, Beets G, Daniels-Gooszen A, Kessels A, van Engelshoven J, Beets-Tan R. The accuracy of Multi-detector row CT for the assessment of tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia in primary rectal cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:604–610. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Tan YN, Li XF, Li JJ, Song YM, Jiang B, Yang J, Yuan Y. The accuracy of computed tomography in the pretreatment staging of colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014;61:1207–1212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Blomqvist L, Swift IR, Sebag-Montefiore D, Tekkis P, Brown G. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:34–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Simpson GS, Eardley N, McNicol F, Healey P, Hughes M, Rooney PS. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity after MRI assessment and adjuvant treatment in 189 patients undergoing rectal cancer resection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:585–590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Klos CL, Shellito PC, Rattner DW, Hodin RA, Cusack JC, Bordeianou L, Sylla P, Hong TS, Blaszkowsky L, Ryan DP, et al. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy on the prognostic value of lymph nodes after rectal cancer surgery. Am J Surg. 2010;200:440–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Madariaga ML, Berger DL. The quandary of N0 disease after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;3:299–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Morcos B, Baker B, Al Masri M, Haddad H, Hashem S. Lymph node yield in rectal cancer surgery: effect of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:345–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Peschaud F, Benoist S, Julié C, Beauchet A, Penna C, Rougier P, Nordlinger B. The ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes is a powerful independent prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1067–1073. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Leibold T, Shia J, Ruo L, Minsky BD, Akhurst T, Gollub MJ, Ginsberg MS, Larson S, Riedel E, Wong WD, et al. Prognostic implications of the distribution of lymph node metastases in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2106–2111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Biagi JJ, Raphael MJ, Mackillop WJ, Kong W, King WD, Booth CM. Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305:2335–2342. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Des Guetz G, Nicolas P, Perret GY, Morere JF, Uzzan B. Does delaying adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery for colorectal cancer impair survival? A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1049–1055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Gunduz N, Fisher B, Saffer EA. Effect of surgical removal on the growth and kinetics of residual tumor. Cancer Res. 1979;39:3861–3865. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Eggermont AM, Steller EP, Sugarbaker PH. Laparotomy enhances intraperitoneal tumor growth and abrogates the antitumor effects of interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells. Surgery. 1987;102:71–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Ono I, Gunji H, Suda K, Iwatsuki K, Kaneko F. Evaluation of cytokines in donor site wound fluids. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1994;28:269–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Das P, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Feig BW, Chang GJ, Hoff PM, Eng C, Wolff RA, Janjan NA, Delclos ME, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival in patients treated with chemoradiation and mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2006;29:219–224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P, Radosevic-Jelic L, Daban A, Bardet E, Beny A, Ollier JC. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1114–1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. De Stefano A, Moretto R, Bucci L, Pepe S, Romano FJ, Cella AC, Attademo L, Rosanova M, De Falco S, Fiore G, et al. Adjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer patients after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: when, and for whom? Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014;13:185–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Janjan NA, Crane C, Feig BW, Cleary K, Dubrow R, Curley S, Vauthey JN, Lynch P, Ellis LM, Wolff R, et al. Improved overall survival among responders to preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24:107–112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Fietkau R, Barten M, Klautke G, Klar E, Ludwig K, Thomas H, Brinckmann W, Friedrich A, Prall F, Hartung G, et al. Postoperative chemotherapy may not be necessary for patients with ypN0-category after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1284–1292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Huh JW, Kim HR. Postoperative chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery for rectal cancer: is it essential for patients with ypT0-2N0? J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:387–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Burgess AN, Nisar PJ, Kalady MF, Lavery IC. Is adjuvant chemotherapy really needed after curative surgery for rectal cancer patients who are node-negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1206–1212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Ruo L, Tickoo S, Klimstra DS, Minsky BD, Saltz L, Mazumdar M, Paty PB, Wong WD, Larson SM, Cohen AM, et al. Long-term prognostic significance of extent of rectal cancer response to preoperative radiation and chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 2002;236:75–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Gao P, Song YX, Sun JX, Chen XW, Xu YY, Zhao JH, Huang XZ, Xu HM, Wang ZN. Which is the best postoperative chemotherapy regimen in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy? BMC Cancer. 2014;14:888. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. You KY, Huang R, Ding PR, Qiu B, Zhou GQ, Chang H, Xiao WW, Zeng ZF, Pan ZZ, Gao YH. Selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients with ypN0. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:529–538. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Lin HH, Chang YY, Lin JK, Jiang JK, Lin CC, Lan YT, Yang SH, Wang HS, Chen WS, Lin TC, et al. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:1237–1243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. O'Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, Krook JE, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Mayer RJ, Gunderson LL, Rich TA. Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:502–507. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Smalley SR, Benedetti JK, Williamson SK, Robertson JM, Estes NC, Maher T, Fisher B, Rich TA, Martenson JA, Kugler JW, et al. Phase III trial of fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimens plus radiotherapy in postoperative adjuvant rectal cancer: GI INT 0144. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3542–3547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Das P, Lin EH, Bhatia S, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Feig BW, Chang GJ, Hoff PM, Eng C, Wolff RA, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus protracted infusion 5-fluorouracil for rectal cancer: a matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:1378–1383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Allegra CJ, Yothers GOM. Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: Mature results from NSABP protocol R-04. Cancers of the Colon and Rectum. J Clin Oncol. 2014:32: 546. [Google Scholar]

70. Hofheinz RD, Wenz F, Post S, Matzdorff A, Laechelt S, Hartmann JT, Müller L, Link H, Moehler M, Kettner E, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:579–588. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. André T, Boni C, Navarro M, Tabernero J, Hickish T, Topham C, Bonetti A, Clingan P, Bridgewater J, Rivera F, et al. Improved overall survival with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment in stage II or III colon cancer in the MOSAIC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3109–3116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Kuebler JP, Wieand HS, O’Connell MJ, Smith RE, Colangelo LH, Yothers G, Petrelli NJ, Findlay MP, Seay TE, Atkins JN, et al. Oxaliplatin combined with weekly bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin as surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and III colon cancer: results from NSABP C-07. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2198–2204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Schmoll HJ, Haustermans KPT. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin versus capecitabine alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: disease-free survival results at interim analysis. 2014;ASCO Annual Meeting; 2014 May 30-Jun 3; 33; Chicago, IL, USA:Abstr 3501. [Google Scholar]

74. Roh M, Yothers G, O’Connell M. The impact of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment in patients with carcinoma of the rectum: NSABP R-04. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3503. [Google Scholar]

75. Aschele C, Cionini L, Lonardi S, Pinto C, Cordio S, Rosati G, Artale S, Tagliagambe A, Ambrosini G, Rosetti P, et al. Primary tumor response to preoperative chemoradiation with or without oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer: pathologic results of the STAR-01 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2773–2780. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. Rödel C, Liersch T, Becker H, Fietkau R, Hohenberger W, Hothorn T, Graeven U, Arnold D, Lang-Welzenbach M, Raab HR, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:679–687. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Gérard JP, Azria D, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Martel-Laffay I, Hennequin C, Etienne PL, Vendrely V, François E, de La Roche G, Bouché O, et al. Comparison of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the phase III trial ACCORD 12/0405-Prodige 2. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1638–1644. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Hong YS, Nam BH, Kim KP, Kim JE, Park SJ, Park YS, Park JO, Kim SY, Kim TY, Kim JH, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin as adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (ADORE): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1245–1253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

79. Schmoll HJ, Haustermans K, Price TJ, Nordlinger B, Hofheinz RD, Daisne JF, Janssens J, Brenner B, Schmidt P, Reinel H, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin versus capecitabine alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: Disease-free survival results at interim analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:abstr 3501. [Google Scholar]

80. Saltz LB, Douillard JY, Pirotta N, Alakl M, Gruia G, Awad L, Elfring GL, Locker PK, Miller LL. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer: a new survival standard. Oncologist. 2001;6:81–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Saltz LB, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Goldberg RM, Hantel A, Thomas JP, Fields AL, Mayer RJ. Irinotecan fluorouracil plus leucovorin is not superior to fluorouracil plus leucovorin alone as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer: results of CALGB 89803. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3456–3461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

82. Kalofonos HP, Bamias A, Koutras A, Papakostas P, Basdanis G, Samantas E, Karina M, Misailidou D, Pisanidis N, Pentheroudakis G, et al. A randomised phase III trial of adjuvant radio-chemotherapy comparing Irinotecan, 5FU and Leucovorin to 5FU and Leucovorin in patients with rectal cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1693–1700. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Loupakis F, Cremolini C, Masi G, Lonardi S, Zagonel V, Salvatore L, Cortesi E, Tomasello G, Ronzoni M, Spadi R, et al. Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1609–1618. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, Bets D, Mueser M, Harstrick A, Verslype C, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:337–345. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, Canon JL, Van Laethem JL, Maurel J, Richardson G, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1658–1664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Cetuximab, bevacizumab and panitumumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy [Internet]