4.2 Article

A phase II study of Preoperative capecitabine and radiation therapy in patients with rectal cancer

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318033ed63

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K08 CA091975] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative capecitabine and radiation therapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum stage >= T3 or >= N1 were treated with capecitabine 1330 mg/m(2) per day in 2 divided doses days l to 42 and 50.4 Gy of RT in 28 1.8-Gy fractions. Patients with metastatic disease were eligible provided that operative intervention on primary site was anticipated. Surgery resection occurred 4 to 6 weeks after completion of preoperative therapy. Results: Thirty eligible patients were enrolled at two institutions. Median age and performance status were 62 years and 90%, respectively. Twenty-eight patients (93%) completed combined modality therapy and 27 underwent resection, including 17 abdominal-perineal and 9 low anterior resections. Three of 27 (11%) had pathologic complete response (pCR) with an additional 7 (26%) having minimal residual disease. Two patients who were felt to require abdominal perineal resection prior to combined modality therapy (CMT) were able to have sphincter-sparing surgery. No patients had progression during CMT which precluded surgical resection. Treatment was well tolerated with >= grade 3 toxicities limited to diarrhea (5 patients), hand-foot syndrome (1 patient), dermatitis (1 patient). Twenty-four patients are living, 18 with no evidence of disease. Conclusions: The combination of preoperative capecitabine and RT in patients with LARC has significant antitumor activity, efficacy, and a low toxicity profile.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available