Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Dukes B Versus Dukes C Colon Cancer: Results From
|
|
- Kelly Watts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Dukes B Versus Dukes C Colon Cancer: Results From Four National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Adjuvant Studies (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04) By Eleftherios Mamounas, Samuel Wieand, Norman Wolmark, Harry D. Bear, James N. Atkins, Kyunghee Song, Judy Jones, and Howard Rockette Purpose: Although the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly established in patients with Dukes C colon cancer, such benefit has been questioned in patients with Dukes B disease. To determine whether patients with Dukes B disease benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and to evaluate the magnitude of the benefit, compared with that observed in Dukes C patients, we examined the relative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy according to Dukes stage in four sequential National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trials (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04) that compared different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens with each other or with no adjuvant treatment. Patients and Methods: The four trials included Dukes B and C patients and were conducted between 1977 and The eligibility criteria and follow-up requirements were similar for all four trials. Protocol C-01 compared adjuvant semustine, vincristine, and fluorouracil (5-FU) (MOF regimen) with operation alone. Protocol C-02 compared the perioperative administration of a portal venous infusion of 5-FU with operation alone. Protocol C-03 compared adjuvant 5-FU and leucovorin (LV) with adjuvant MOF. Protocol C-04 compared adjuvant 5-FU and LV with 5-FU and levamisole (LEV) and with the combination of 5-FU, LV, and LEV. ALTHOUGH THE BENEFIT from adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly established in Dukes C colon cancer patients, many oncologists still question the worth of such therapy in patients with Dukes B disease. In 1990, on the basis of information available at the time, a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on colorectal adjuvant therapy recommended that patients with stage III (Dukes C) colon cancer should receive adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil (5-FU) and levamisole (LEV). 1 This recommendation was primarily based on results from intergroup study 0035, 2 which indicated a significant survival benefit from adjuvant 5-FU LEV in patients with Dukes C colon cancer. The same conference did not recommend any specific adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II (Dukes B) colon cancer outside of clinical trials. Subsequent updates of results from the intergroup 0035 trial 3,4 failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in Dukes B patients, although, in these patients, a reduction in recurrence comparable with that documented for Dukes C patients was also observed. Results: Forty-one percent of the patients included in these four trials had resected Dukes B tumors. In all four studies, the overall, disease-free, and recurrencefree survival improvement noted for all patients was evident in both Dukes B and Dukes C patients. When the relative efficacy of chemotherapy was examined, there was always an observed reduction in mortality, recurrence, or disease-free survival event, irrespective of Dukes stage, and in most instances, the reduction was as great or greater for Dukes B patients as for Dukes C patients. When data from all four trials were examined in a combined analysis, the mortality reduction was 30% for Dukes B patients versus 18% for Dukes C patients. The mortality reduction in Dukes B patients occurred irrespective of the presence or absence of adverse prognostic factors. Conclusion: Patients with Dukes B colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and should be presented with this treatment option. Regardless of the presence or absence of other clinical prognostic factors, Dukes B patients seem to benefit from chemotherapy administration. J Clin Oncol 17: by American Society of Clinical Oncology. Several possible reasons for the discrepancy in clinical benefit have been entertained. Because of the lower recurrence rate in Dukes B patients, most adjuvant clinical trials contain an insufficient number of such patients to be able to address with adequate statistical power the study s primary questions in the subpopulation of Dukes B patients. The relatively large number of noncancer deaths in this patient population further complicates the problem. From the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations and Biostatistical Centers, Pittsburgh, PA. Submitted May 4, 1998; accepted December 16, Supported by public health service grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI-U10-CA-12027, NCI-U10-CA-37377, and NCI-U10- CA-39086) and by a grant from the American Cancer Society (ACS-R- 13). Address reprint requests to Norman Wolmark, MD, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, 4 Allegheny Center, 5th Floor, 320 E. North Ave, Pittsburgh, PA by American Society of Clinical Oncology X/99/ Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 17, No 5 (May), 1999: pp
2 1350 MAMOUNAS ET AL The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) has included Dukes B and C colon cancer patients in four adjuvant chemotherapy trials for which outcome results are available. These four trials (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04) compared different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens with each other or with no adjuvant treatment. Overall, 41% of the patients accrued in these four trials had Dukes B tumors. In all four trials, a disease-free survival (DFS) and/or survival benefit from chemotherapy (reaching or approaching statistical significance) has been demonstrated at 5 years of follow-up between at least two treatment arms. To address the question of whether Dukes B colon cancer patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and to determine the magnitude of such benefit compared with that observed in Dukes C patients, we examined the relative efficacy of adjuvant therapy in these four NSABP trials according to Dukes stage. Preliminary results were previously reported in abstract form 5 ; the current report is the first full analysis of our experience on the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy according to Dukes stage. Eligibility PATIENTS AND METHODS The four trials were conducted between 1977 and The eligibility criteria were generally similar for all four trials and have been described in detail in previous publications. 6-9 In summary, in C-01, C-03, and C-04, eligible patients had adenocarcinoma of the colon resected with curative intent with no evidence of gross residual or metastatic disease at the time of laparotomy. Patients with pathologically confirmed tumor extension into adjacent organs were eligible provided that all tumor was removed en bloc with negative resection margins. In C-02, in which randomization occurred before operative exploration, eligible patients were required to have a potentially curable adenocarcinoma, as documented by barium enema or endoscopic biopsy. Those patients having intraoperative extent of disease consistent with Dukes D tumors did not receive the randomized treatment and were treated at the discretion of the participating investigator. In all four trials, patients were classified as having Dukes B tumors if, on pathologic examination, the tumor demonstrated full-thickness penetration of the bowel wall (through the serosa or into the pericolic fat) with no regional lymph node involvement. 10 Patients were classified as having Dukes C tumors if, on pathologic examination, there was evidence of involvement of the regional lymph nodes. In all four trials, patients presenting with obstruction or contained perforation were eligible, but patients presenting with free perforation were not. Finally, in all four trials, eligible patients were required to have adequate hepatic or renal function and adequate WBC counts and platelet counts as well as an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2. Treatment and Patient Information Protocol C-01 6 compared adjuvant semustine, vincristine, and 5-FU (MOF regimen) with operation alone. In that protocol, a third arm tested the worth of postoperative administration of Bacille Calmette-Guérin. From 1977 to 1983, 773 patients were accrued to the operation and the MOF arms (Table 1). The MOF regimen consisted of eight 10-week cycles of semustine (130 mg/m 2 orally on day 1), vincristine (1 mg/m 2 intravenously [isqb] IV [rsqb] on days 1 and 36), and 5-FU (325 mg/m 2 IV on days 1 through 5 and 375 mg/m 2 IV on days 36 through 40). Protocol C-02 7 compared the perioperative administration of a portal venous infusion (PVI) of 5-FU with operation alone. From 1984 to 1988, 1,158 patients were accrued; of these, 718 patients had Dukes B and C lesions (Table 1), and 440 patients had Dukes A or Dukes D lesions and are not included in this analysis. The perioperative PVI of 5-FU was administered in a dose of 600 mg/m 2 along with 5,000 units of heparin as a continuous 24-hour infusion for 7 consecutive days. Protocol C-03 8 compared adjuvant 5-FU and leucovorin (LV) with adjuvant MOF. From 1987 to 1989, 1,081 patients were accrued (Table 1). The MOF regimen was identical to that used in C-01 but was given only for five cycles every 10 weeks. Each cycle of the 5-FU LV regimen consisted of LV (500 mg/m 2 given as a 2-hour IV infusion and repeated weekly for six doses) and 5-FU (500 mg/m 2 given as an IV bolus, 1 hour after the LV infusion and repeated weekly for six doses). A total of eight cycles were given. Protocol C-04 9 compared the same adjuvant 5-FU LV regimen with 5-FU LEV (as used in the intergroup adjuvant trials) and with the combination of 5-FU LV LEV. From 1989 to 1990, 1,434 patients were accrued in the 5-FU LV and the 5-FU LEV arms of the protocol (Table 1). The 5-FU LEV regimen consisted of 5-FU (450 mg/m 2 IV on days 1 through 5 and repeated on day 29 and weekly thereafter for 1 year) and LEV (50 mg orally tid for 3 days and repeated every 2 weeks for 1 year). Follow-Up Requirements During chemotherapy, patients were evaluated at intervals according to the specific treatment regimen. The follow-up requirements were similar for all four trials. During the first 2 years after surgery, investigators were required to submit patient follow-up forms every 3 months, reporting the results of a physical examination, complete blood Table 1. Stage Distribution in NSABP C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04 All C-01 C-02 C-03 C-04 No. % MOF OP PVI OP 5-FU LV MOF 5-FU LV FU LEV Total 4, Ineligible Eligible/no F/U Unable to determine Dukes B or C* Included in analysis 3, Dukes B 1, Dukes C 2, Abbreviations: OP, operation; F/U, follow-up. *Full-thickness tumor penetration of the bowel wall.
3 CHEMOTHERAPY FOR DUKES B COLON CANCER 1351 cell count, and chemistry profile, including liver function tests; a chest x-ray and carcinoembryonic antigen levels were required every 6 months (for C-04, a chest x-ray was required yearly), and a barium enema and/or colonoscopy was required yearly. During the third through fifth years after surgery, a physical examination, including weight and performance status assessment as well as complete blood cell count, chemistry profile including liver function tests, chest x-ray, and carcinoembryonic antigen levels, was required every 6 months (for C-04, a chest x-ray was required yearly); a barium enema and/or colonoscopy was required yearly; after the fifth year postsurgery, the status of disease was reported on a yearly basis. Statistical Methods All P-values for comparisons of survival, disease-free survival, and relapse-free survival between treatments or between groups were derived from a stratified log-rank statistic and are two-sided. For the analyses from individual protocols, the stratification factors were those used in the original reports. When analyses used data from combined protocols, the protocol was included as a stratification factor. The term absolute improvement in survival refers to the difference in the 5-year survival rates obtained using the life-table method of Cutler and Ederer. 11 Estimates for the reduction in event rates were obtained from computing the cumulative odds. 12 In all analyses, only data from the first 5 years of follow-up were used. The 5-year interval was chosen in order to be consistent across protocols. One set of analyses presented in this paper used data from all of the trials for which a chemotherapy regimen was shown to have a benefit. The purpose of this analysis was to take advantage of the additional information available from multiple trials in order to obtain estimates of treatment effect that were sufficiently stable to determine whether there was a differential treatment effect in Dukes B versus Dukes C patients. The method used computed the estimated cumulative odds for treatment benefit in Dukes B patients and the estimated cumulative odds for treatment benefit in Dukes C patients and took the ratio of these estimates (estimated ratio for Dukes B patients divided by the estimated ratio for Dukes C patients) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for this ratio. The CI was obtained by determining the 95% CI for the difference in the logarithms of the cumulative odds and then taking the exponential value of the interval end points. If the upper bound for the CI for the ratio was less than 1, it would indicate that the observed reduction in risk was greater in the Dukes B patients than in Dukes C patients, ie, there was more of a treatment effect in Dukes B patients than Dukes C patients. If the lower bound was greater than one, this would indicate that the observed reduction in risk was less in the Dukes B patients than in Dukes C patients, ie, there was a greater treatment effect in Dukes C patients than in Dukes B patients. If the CI contained 1, this would indicate that there was no significant difference in the treatment effect according to Dukes class. RESULTS Of the 4,006 Dukes B and C patients accrued in the four studies, 162 (4.0%) were found to be ineligible, and six eligible patients (0.1%) had no follow-up. In 18 patients (0.4%) with full-thickness tumor penetration of the bowel wall, the nodal status could not be determined. Thus, 3,820 patients (95.4%) were available for analysis. Of these, 1,565 patients (41%) were Dukes B, and 2,255 (59%) were Dukes C (Table 1). The patient and tumor characteristics for the 1,565 Dukes B and 2,255 Dukes C patients are provided in Table 2. The distribution of age, sex, and tumor location was wellbalanced between the Dukes B and C patient cohorts. Whereas 26% of the Dukes B population had high-risk characteristics (defined as the presence of obstruction, bowel perforation [contained], or extension of tumor into adjacent organs, only 5% of patients were in the latter category. In each of the four trials, the 5-year results demonstrated a difference in overall survival for all patients for at least two of the arms (Table 3). In C-01, the administration of the MOF regimen resulted in a 7% absolute improvement in Table 2. Patient and Tumor Characteristics in Dukes B and Dukes C Patients According to Treatment Arm Dukes B (%) Dukes C (%) All (n 1,565) Treatment 1 (n 793) Treatment 2 (n 772) All (n 2,255) Treatment 1 (n 1,131) Treatment 2 (n 1,124) Sex Male Female Age, years Location Right colon Left colon Sigmoid/rectosigmoid Multiple Unknown 1 1 High-risk characteristics: presence of obstruction, perforation, or extension to adjacent organs No Yes Unknown
4 1352 MAMOUNAS ET AL Table 3. 5-Year Overall Survival Results in NSABP C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04, According to Stage of Disease All Dukes B Dukes C Study No. Survival (%) P No. Survival (%) P No. Survival (%) P C-01 Operation MOF C-02 Operation PVI C-03 MOF FU LV C-04 5-FU LEV FU LV survival over operation alone (P.07); in C-02, perioperative PVI of 5-FU resulted in a 7% absolute improvement in survival over operation alone (P.08); in C-03, the administration of 5-FU LV resulted in a 10% improvement in survival over MOF (P.0008); and in C-04, the administration of 5-FU LV resulted in a 5% absolute improvement in survival over 5-FU LEV (P.06). Similar differences were also observed for disease-free and recurrence-free survival (not shown). It should be noted that protocol C-02 was designed to use a one-sided test for the final conclusions, and this is reflected in all previous reports of this study; to maintain consistency across protocols, a two-sided test for P values was used in the current analysis. A DFS event was defined as consisting of tumor recurrence, second primary cancer, or death. The 5-year outcome results according to stage of disease indicated that in all four studies the observed difference in overall survival was in the same direction for Dukes B and Dukes C patients (Table 3). In C-01, the administration of MOF, compared with operation alone, resulted in a 3% absolute improvement in survival in Dukes B patients (P.73) and a 9% absolute improvement in survival in Dukes C patients (P.05). In C-02, there was a 12% improvement in survival for Dukes B patients (P.005) and a 2% improvement for Dukes C patients (P.81) with the perioperative PVI of 5-FU, compared with operation alone. In C-03, there was an 8% improvement in survival in Dukes B patients (P.03) and an 11% improvement in Dukes C patients (P.003) with 5-FU LV, compared with MOF. Finally, in C-04, there was a 4% improvement in survival in Dukes B patients (P.25) and a 4% improvement in Dukes C patients with 5-FU LV, compared with 5-FU LEV (P.21). Again, similar differences were also noted for recurrence-free survival and DFS (not shown). As is demonstrated in Fig 1, there was always an observed reduction in mortality, recurrence, or DFS event rate from chemotherapy, irrespective of Dukes stage, and in most cases, the reduction was as great or greater for Dukes B patients as for Dukes C patients. In C-01, the administration of MOF resulted in a 7% reduction in mortality for Dukes B patients, compared with a 26% reduction for Dukes C patients. In C-02, 7 days of perioperative PVI of 5-FU resulted in a 51% reduction in mortality for Dukes B patients, compared with a 4% reduction for Dukes C patients. In C-03, 5-FU LV compared with MOF resulted in a 53% reduction in mortality for Dukes B patients, compared with a 31% reduction for Dukes C patients. Finally, in C-04, 5-FU LV compared with 5-FU LEV resulted in a 21% reduction in mortality for Dukes B patients, compared with a 14% reduction for Dukes C patients. The results were very similar for recurrence or DFS event (Fig 1). The above results are presented to demonstrate that in all four studies the treatment effect was similar between Dukes B and Dukes C patients. Because there was a limited number of Dukes B and Dukes C patients in each of these trials, in any one trial individually one could not rule out with confidence a substantial difference in treatment effect according to Dukes stage. To address this specific question, we combined the data from these four trials into two treatment groups. Treatment 1 included the treatment groups from each trial with the inferior overall, disease-free, and recurrence-free survival for all patients (operation groups in C-01 and C-02, MOF group in C-03, and 5-FU LEV group in C-04). Treatment 2 included the treatment groups from each trial with the superior overall, disease-free, and recurrence-free survival for all patients (MOF group in C-01, perioperative PVI of 5-FU in C-02, 5-FU LV in
5 CHEMOTHERAPY FOR DUKES B COLON CANCER 1353 Fig 1. Reduction in cumulative odds of death, recurrence, and DFS event according to Dukes stage for the four clinical trials (with 95% CIs). C-03 and C-04) (Fig 2). There were no significant differences in patient and tumor characteristics between treatment 1 and treatment 2 and for Dukes B and Dukes C patients (Table 2). To estimate the differential effect of treatment according to Dukes stage, we calculated the cumulative odds of death in the better treatment group (treatment 2) relative to the poorer treatment group (treatment 1) for both Dukes B and Dukes C patients (Fig 3). The cumulative odds of death in the Dukes B patients was 0.70 (indicating that at any point during the 5 years of follow-up, a Dukes B patient receiving treatment 2 was estimated to be 0.70 times as likely to die as a Dukes B patient receiving treatment 1) and was 0.82 in Dukes C patients (indicating that a Dukes C patient receiving treatment 2 was estimated to be 0.82 times as likely to die as a Dukes C patient receiving treatment 1). It should be noted that a smaller value of the cumulative odds of death represents a greater benefit from treatment. The ratio of these cumulative odds was 0.86 (0.701/0.816) (95% CI, ). Finally, the mortality reduction was examined in Dukes B patients according to the presence or absence of clinical adverse prognostic factors. The effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in Dukes B patients was evident whether patients presented with or without adverse prognostic factors (Fig 4). Twenty-six percent of the Dukes B cohort possessed high-risk characteristics. Patients who did not have a high-risk characteristic had a 32% reduction in mortality (cumulative odds, 0.68; 95% CI, ; P.01), whereas those with one or more high-risk characteristic had a 20% reduction in mortality (cumulative odds, 0.80; 95% CI, ; P.26). This reduction in mortality was translated into an absolute improvement in survival of 5% in each risk category (treatment 2, 87%, v treatment 1, 82%, in the low-risk category and treatment 2, 75%, v treatment 1, 70%, in the high-risk category). DISCUSSION Two major arguments are given by those who do not recommend administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Dukes B colon cancer. The first relates to the Fig 2. Combined-analysis treatment arms. Fig 3. Reduction in cumulative odds (treatment 2 v treatment 1) of death, recurrence, and DFS event according to Dukes stage in the combined analysis (with 95% CIs).
6 1354 MAMOUNAS ET AL Fig 4. Reduction in cumulative odds (treatment 2 v treatment 1) of death, recurrence, and DFS event according to the presence of high-risk characteristics in the combined analysis of Dukes B patients (with 95% CIs). relatively good prognosis of these patients after curative resection alone that could minimize any potential gains, particularly in light of the toxicity and cost of adjuvant chemotherapy. The second relates to the possibility of differential effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy between Dukes B and Dukes C colon cancer patients, because one cannot assume that the biology of tumors confined to the bowel wall is the same as that of a tumor that involves the regional nodes. These results, from a large, well-controlled population of Dukes B patients, contradict both of these arguments. The results demonstrate that the 5-year survival of patients with Dukes B colon cancer treated with surgery alone, at least those entered onto the NSABP trials, is such that effective adjuvant chemotherapy would be desirable. In other malignancies, such as node-negative breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is widely administered in patients with recurrence rates lower than those observed in our trials for Dukes B colon cancer patients. This is mainly because available data have convinced the oncologic community of the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer. Thus, the question of chemotherapy effectiveness in Dukes B patients becomes the more important one in considering adjuvant therapy for these patients. Again, the results from this analysis indicate that adjuvant chemotherapy is as effective in patients with Dukes B tumors as in those with Dukes C tumors. We believe that these results provide important supplemental information that was unavailable at the time of the last National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. We recognize the limitations in combining several randomized studies that were conducted in different time periods with changing standards of care; nevertheless, there are several factors that lend credibility to these results. The eligibility criteria were similar across the studies, and there was uniformity in follow-up procedures; there was balance in patient and tumor characteristics between the two treatment arms for both Dukes B and Dukes C patients. We excluded from the present analysis the Bacille Calmette-Guérin group in protocol C-01, because it does not represent chemotherapeutic intervention. We also excluded the 5-FU LV LEV group from protocol C-04, because it contained both LV and LEV, and it would be difficult to select a control group for comparison. This group has demonstrated disease-free and overall survival equivalent to that of the 5-FU LV group. When the mortality reduction observed with 5-FU LV LEV versus 5-FU LEV for all patients (13%) was examined according to Dukes stage, similar results were observed (23% reduction for Dukes B patients and 8% reduction for Dukes C patients). Since the initial presentation of our results in 1996, 5 two other studies have examined the relative efficacy of chemotherapy in Dukes B patients. The first study, 13 a metaanalysis of 4,000 patients in 10 studies evaluating the efficacy of short, continuous infusion of portal vein chemotherapy, demonstrated that the observed treatment benefit was present both in Dukes A/B patients as well as in Dukes C patients. The second study, 14,15 a pooled analysis of five randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of adjuvant 5-FU and folinic acid (LV) in patients with Dukes B colon cancer, demonstrated a modest improvement in event-free survival and overall survival. The 5-year event-free survival was 73% for the untreated control group versus 76% in the group receiving adjuvant 5-FU and folinic acid (hazards ratio, 0.83; 90% CI, ); the 5-year overall survival was 80% for the untreated control group versus 82% for the group receiving chemotherapy (hazards ratio, 0.86; 90% CI, ). Dukes B patients were compared only with untreated controls, and data on relative risk comparing Dukes B and C patients were not provided. Whereas the authors concluded that these differences were not significant, we believe that they are not inconsistent with our own results. Moertel et al 4 reported the results of an intergroup trial in which 318 Dukes B2 (stage II) patients were randomized to 5-FU LEV or observation only (INT-0035). At a follow-up time of 7 years, 5-FU LEV reduced the recurrence rate by 31%; this reduction was not statistically significant (P.10). It should be emphasized that this study, by design, was underpowered to detect reductions in recurrence of less than 50%. Thus, the results from our analysis and those of the intergroup trial are not discordant in terms of colon cancer recurrence. In the intergroup study, although there was no difference in overall survival, there was a nonsignificant 20% reduction in the rate of colon cancer related deaths in the group receiving 5-FU LEV. The lack of an overall survival benefit may have been due to the relatively high non cancer-related death rate in Dukes B patients. Some investigators who oppose the routine administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in all Dukes B patients agree that such therapy may be indicated in a subset of patients presenting with high-risk prognostic characteristics. Our
7 CHEMOTHERAPY FOR DUKES B COLON CANCER 1355 results indicated that the benefit of adjuvant therapy in Dukes B patients was not related to the presence or absence of high-risk characteristics. The 5-year survival for patients in the treatment 1 category who received less effective therapy and who did not possess high-risk characteristics was only 82%, underscoring our contention that a conservative approach in this group is unwarranted. In summary, our results indicate that patients with Dukes B colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy to a similar extent as do those with Dukes C tumors. These results further demonstrate that the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy seen in Dukes B patients is not confined to those patients at high risk for recurrence but extends to those patients with none of the clinical adverse prognostic factors, in whom the benefit is comparable. Furthermore, the results indicate that the prognosis of Dukes B patients with tumors demonstrating none of these known clinical adverse prognostic factors is not good enough to exclude consideration of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy. With the emergence of molecular and genetic prognostic markers such as 18q chromosomal deletion, 16 DNA mismatch repair gene mutations, 17,18 thymidylate synthase levels, 19 and p53 mutations, 20,21 it may become possible to identify subgroups of Dukes B patients with such a good prognosis that adjuvant chemotherapy can be avoided. However, until such biomarkers become validated in prospective studies, all Dukes B patients should be considered for adjuvant chemotherapy after discussion of the risk and benefit of such treatment. 1. NIH Consensus Conference: Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 264: , Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al: Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 322: , Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al: Fluorouracil plus levamisole as effective adjuvant therapy after resection of stage III colon carcinoma: A final report. Ann Intern Med 122: , Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al: Intergroup study of fluorouracil plus levamisole as adjuvant therapy for stage II/Dukes B2 colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: , Mamounas EP, Rockette H, Jones J, et al: Comparative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Dukes B vs Dukes C colon cancer: Results from four NSABP adjuvant studies (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15:205a, 1996 (abstr 461) 6. Wolmark N, Fisher B, Rockette H, et al: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or BCG for colon cancer: Results from NSABP protocol C-01. J Natl Cancer Inst 80:30-36, Wolmark N, Rockette H, Wickerham DL, et al: Adjuvant therapy of Dukes A, B, and C adenocarcinoma of the colon with portal-vein fluorouracil hepatic infusion: Preliminary results of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-02. J Clin Oncol 8: , Wolmark N, Rockette H, Fisher B, et al: The benefit of leucovorinmodulated fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer: Results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-03. J Clin Oncol 11: , Wolmark N, Rockette H, Mamounas EP, et al: The relative efficacy of 5-FU leucovorin (FU-LV), 5-FU levamisole (FU- LEV), and 5-FU leucovorin levamisole (FU-LV-LEV) in patients with Dukes B and C carcinoma of the colon. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15:205a, 1996 (abstr 460) 10. Dukes CE: The classification of cancer of the rectum. J Pathol 35: , 1932 REFERENCES 11. Cutler SJ, Ederer F: Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. J Chron Dis 8: , Mantel N, Haenszel W: Statistical aspects of the analysis of the data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: , Portal vein chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of 4000 patients in 10 studies Liver Infusion Meta-Analysis Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: , Erlichman C, Marsoni S, Seitz JF, et al: Event free and overall survival is increased by FUFA in resected B colon cancer: A pooled analysis of five randomized trials (RCTS). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:280a, 1997 (abstr 991) 15. International Multicentre Pooled Analysis of B2 Colon Cancer Trials (IMPACT B2) Investigators: Efficacy of adjuvant fluorouracil and folinic acid in B2 colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: , Jen J, Kim H, Piantadosi S, et al: Allelic loss of chromosome 18q and prognosis in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 331: , Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT, et al: Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hmlh1 is associated with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature 368: , Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, Liu B, et al: Mutations in two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 371:75-80, Johnston PG, Fisher ER, Rockette HE, et al: The role of thymidylate synthase expression in prognosis and outcome of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 12: , Bosari S, Viale G, Possi P, et al: Cytoplasmic accumulation of p53 protein: An independent prognostic indicator in colorectal adenocarcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: , Zeng Z-S, Sarkis AS, Zhang Z-F, et al: p53 nuclear overexpression: An independent predictor of survival in lymph node positive colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 12: , 1994
Adjuvant therapies for large bowel cancer Wasantha Rathnayake, MD
LEADING ARTICLE Adjuvant therapies for large bowel cancer Wasantha Rathnayake, MD Consultant Clinical Oncologist, National Cancer Institute, Maharagama, Sri Lanka. Key words: Large bowel; Cancer; Adjuvant
More informationNorthwestern University, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Key Words. Colon cancer Stage II Adjuvant chemotherapy
The Oncologist Dialogues in Oncology Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II Colon Cancer: Current Approaches LISA BADDI, AL BENSON III Northwestern University, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chicago, Illinois,
More informationEfficacy and Toxicity of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Colon Carcinoma
1931 Efficacy and Toxicity of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Colon Carcinoma A 10-Year Experience of the Geisinger Medical Center Farid Fata, M.D. 1 Ayoub Mirza, M.D. 2 G. Craig Wood, M.S.
More informationCurrent Status of Adjuvant Therapy for Colorectal Cancer
Review Article [1] May 01, 2004 By Michael J. O connell, MD [2] Adjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy in addition to surgery improves outcome for patients with high-risk carcinomas
More informationAdjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Resected Dukes C and High-risk B2 Colon Cancer with Fluorouracil and Levamisole
733 Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Resected Dukes C and High-risk B2 Colon Cancer with Fluorouracil and Levamisole E Au,*FAMS, M Med (Int Med), MRCP, P T Ang,**FAMS, FACP, FRCP (Edin), F Seow-Choen,***FAMS,
More informationPeritoneal Involvement in Stage II Colon Cancer
Anatomic Pathology / PERITONEAL INVOLVEMENT IN STAGE II COLON CANCER Peritoneal Involvement in Stage II Colon Cancer A.M. Lennon, MB, MRCPI, H.E. Mulcahy, MD, MRCPI, J.M.P. Hyland, MCh, FRCS, FRCSI, C.
More informationPRINCESS MARGARET CANCER CENTRE CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
PRINCESS MARGARET CANCER CENTRE CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES GASTROINTESTINAL RECTAL CANCER GI Site Group Rectal Cancer Authors: Dr. Jennifer Knox, Dr. Mairead McNamara 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. SCREENING AND
More informationFactors associated with delayed time to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage iii colon cancer
Curr Oncol, Vol. 21, pp. 181-186 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1963 DELAYED TIME TO ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY ORIGINAL ARTICLE Factors associated with delayed time to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage
More informationCase Conference. Craig Morgenthal Department of Surgery Long Island College Hospital
Case Conference Craig Morgenthal Department of Surgery Long Island College Hospital Neoadjuvant versus Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Rectal Carcinoma Epidemiology American Cancer Society statistics for
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Neoplasms Commons
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine DigitalCommons@PCOM PCOM Physician Assistant Studies Student Scholarship Student Dissertations, Theses and Papers 2015 Will the Addition of Oxaliplatin to 5-Fluorouracil
More informationThe International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy study: implications for clinical practice
Editorial The International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy study: implications for clinical practice Marwan Fakih Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive
More informationStage III Colon Cancer Susquehanna Cancer Center Warren L Robinson, MD, FACP May 9, 2007
Stage III Colon Cancer Susquehanna Cancer Center 1997-21 Warren L Robinson, MD, FACP May 9, 27 Stage III Colon Cancer Susquehanna Cancer Center 1997-21 Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer
More informationFINDINGS from a clinical trial (Protocol B-06) conducted
1456 THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Nov. 30, 1995 REANALYSIS AND RESULTS AFTER 12 YEARS OF FOLLOW-UP IN A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING TOTAL MASTECTOMY WITH LUMPECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT IRRADIATION
More informationAdvances in gastric cancer: How to approach localised disease?
Advances in gastric cancer: How to approach localised disease? Andrés Cervantes Professor of Medicine Classical approach to localised gastric cancer Surgical resection Pathology assessment and estimation
More informationJonathan Dickinson, LCL Xeloda
Xeloda A blockbuster in the making Jonathan Dickinson, LCL Xeloda Xeloda unique tumor-activated mechanism Delivering more cancer-killing agent straight into cancer Highly effective comparable efficacy
More informationMultiple localized metachronous recurrences in a patient of colon cancer and therapeutic controversies in stage II colon cancer
Case Report Multiple localized metachronous recurrences in a patient of colon cancer and therapeutic controversies in stage II colon cancer Vijai Simha, Rakesh Kapoor, Saniya Sharma Post Graduate Institute
More informationCitation for published version (APA): Bleeker, W. A. (2001). Therapeutic considerations in Dukes C colon cancer s.n.
University of Groningen Therapeutic considerations in Dukes C colon cancer Bleeker, Willem Aldert IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite
More informationEfficiency and tolerability of 5- fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma
Turkish Journal of Cancer Volume 34, No.4, 2004 139 Efficiency and tolerability of 5- fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma LHAN ÖZTOP 1, ARZU YAREN 1,
More informationAdjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer
March 01, 2008 By Scott Kopetz, MD [1], Daniela Freitas, MD [2], Aknar F. C. Calabrich, MD [3], and Paulo M. Hoff, MD, FACP [4] Adjuvant therapy is defined as any treatment administered after surgical
More informationSurgical Management of Advanced Stage Colon Cancer. Nathan Huber, MD 6/11/14
Surgical Management of Advanced Stage Colon Cancer Nathan Huber, MD 6/11/14 Colon Cancer Overview Approximately 50,000 attributable deaths per year Colorectal cancer is the 3 rd most common cause of cancer-related
More informationRetrospective analysis of the effect of CAPOX and mfolfox6 dose intensity on survival in colorectal patients in the adjuvant setting
ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAPOX AND mfolfox6 DOSE INTENSITY AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN STAGE III CRC, Mamo et al. Retrospective analysis of the effect of CAPOX and mfolfox6 dose intensity on survival in colorectal
More informationHigh risk stage II colon cancer
High risk stage II colon cancer Joel Gingerich, MD, FRCPC Assistant Professor Medical Oncologist University of Manitoba CancerCare Manitoba Disclaimer No conflict of interests 16 October 2010 Overview
More informationPatient Presentation. 32 y.o. female complains of lower abdominal mass CEA = 433, CA125 = 201
Patient Presentation 32 y.o. female complains of lower abdominal mass CEA = 433, CA125 = 201 CT shows: Thickening of the right hemidiaphragm CT shows: Fluid in the right paracolic sulcus CT shows: Large
More informationM D..,., M. M P.. P H., H, F. F A.. A C..S..
Implications of NSABP B-32 and Loco-Regional Therapy Considerations After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Terry Mamounas, M.D., M.P.H, F.A.C.S. Professor of Surgery Northeastern Ohio Medical University Medical
More informationRectal Cancer. GI Practice Guideline
Rectal Cancer GI Practice Guideline Dr. Brian Dingle MSc, MD, FRCPC Dr. Francisco Perera MD, FRCPC (Radiation Oncologist) Dr. Jay Engel MD, FRCPC (Surgical Oncologist) Approval Date: 2006 This guideline
More informationCOLON CANCER CARE GUIDELINES NON-METASTATIC DISEASE
COLON CANCER CARE GUIDELINES NON-METASTATIC DISEASE Guideline Authors: Todd S. Crocenzi, M.D.; Mark Whiteford, M.D.; Matthew Solhjem, M.D.; Carlo Bifulco, M.D.; Melissa Li, M.D.; Christopher Cai, M.D.;
More informationADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY FOR RECTAL CANCER
ESMO Preceptorship Programme Colorectal Cancer Barcelona November, 25-26, 2016 ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY FOR RECTAL CANCER Andrés Cervantes Professor of Medicine OLD APPROACH TO RECTAL CANCER Surgical resection
More informationLymph node ratio as a prognostic factor in stage III colon cancer
Lymph node ratio as a prognostic factor in stage III colon cancer Emad Sadaka, Alaa Maria and Mohamed El-Shebiney. Clinical Oncology department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Egypt alaamaria1@hotmail.com
More informationChemotherapy of colon cancers
Chemotherapy of colon cancers Stage distribution Stage I : 15% T 1,2 NO Stage IV: 20 25% M+ Stage II : 20 30% T3,4 NO Stage III N+: 30 40% clinical stages I, II, or III colon cancer are at risk for having
More informationLoco-Regional Management After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
1 Loco-Regional Management After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Terry Mamounas, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S. Medical Director, Comprehensive Breast Program UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health Professor of Surgery,
More informationADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY...
Colorectal Pathway Board: Non-Surgical Oncology Guidelines October 2015 Organization» Table of Contents ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY... 2 DUKES C/ TNM STAGE 3... 2 DUKES B/ TNM STAGE 2... 3 LOCALLY ADVANCED
More informationPharmacologyonline 1: (2010)
THE EFFECT OF USING COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY IN COLORECTAL CANCER IN INDIA: A SINGLE INSTITUTE SURVEY Adiga Sachidananda*, Meena Kumari K**, Bairy KL***, Mohan Babu A**, Vadiraja BM+, Vidyasagar MS++ *Associate
More informationDisclosures. Colorectal Cancer Update GAFP November Risk Assessment. Colon and Rectal Cancer The Challenge. Issues in Colon and Rectal Cancer
Disclosures Colorectal Cancer Update GAFP November 2006 Robert C. Hermann, MD Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education Northwest Georgia Oncology Centers, PC WellStar Health System Marietta,
More informationRadiation Therapy for Resectable Colon Cancer
Review Article [1] February 01, 2006 By Brian G. Czito, MD [2], Johanna C. Bendell, MD [3], and Christopher G. Willett, MD [4] Colon cancer is a major public health problem. The primary treatment is resection.
More informationNeoadjuvant Treatment of. of Radiotherapy
Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer: Role of Radiotherapy Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Many new questions for radiation oncology? lack of path stage to guide indications should treatment response affect
More informationAdjuvant Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer in 2009: Where Are We? Highlights from the 45 th ASCO Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL, USA. May 29 - June 2, 2009
HIGHLIGHT ARTICLE - Slide Show Adjuvant Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer in 2009: Where Are We? Highlights from the 45 th ASCO Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL, USA. May 29 - June 2, 2009 Muhammad Wasif Saif
More informationLoco-Regional Management After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
1 Loco-Regional Management After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Terry Mamounas, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S. Medical Director, Comprehensive Breast Program UF Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health Professor of Surgery,
More informationEvaluation of the Efficacy of Modified De Gramont and Modified FOLFOX4 Regimens for Adjuvant Therapy of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Efficacy of Modified De Gramont and FOLFOX4 Regimens for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer RESEARCH COMMUNICATION Evaluation of the Efficacy of Modified De Gramont and Modified FOLFOX4 Regimens for Adjuvant
More informationS u p p o r t e d b y a n i n d e p e n d e n t E d u c a t i o n a l G r a n t f r o m B a y e r
EXPERTS KNOWLEDGE SHARE with Prof. Köhne, Dr. Modest and Dr. Vecchione Madrid (Spain) Sunday September 10 th 2017 S u p p o r t e d b y a n i n d e p e n d e n t E d u c a t i o n a l G r a n t f r o m
More informationPosition Statement on Management of the Axilla in Patients with Invasive Breast Cancer
- Official Statement - Position Statement on Management of the Axilla in Patients with Invasive Breast Cancer Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has replaced axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for the
More informationCetuximab plus 5-FU/FA/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a large-scale Phase II study (OPUS)
Cetuximab plus 5-FU/FA/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a large-scale Phase II study (OPUS) C Bokemeyer, E Staroslawska, A Makhson, I Bondarenko, JT Hartmann,
More informationAdjuvant/neoadjuvant systemic treatment of colorectal cancer
5th ESO-ESMO Eastern Europe and Balkan Region Masterclass in Medical Oncology Belgrade, June 19 th 2018 Adjuvant/neoadjuvant systemic treatment of colorectal cancer Carlotta Antoniotti Polo Oncologico
More informationMeasure Description. Denominator Statement
CMS ID/CMS QCDR ID: CAP 18 Title: Mismatch Repair (MMR) or Microsatellite Instability (MSI) Biomarker Testing to Inform Clinical Management and Treatment Decisions in Patients with Primary or Metastatic
More informationSupplementary Online Content
Supplementary Online Content Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz H-J, et al. Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced
More informationTreatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Current Concepts
Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Current Concepts James J. Stark, MD, FACP Medical Director, Cancer Program and Palliative Care Maryview Medical Center Professor of Medicine, EVMS Case Presentation
More informationRECTAL CANCER CLINICAL CASE PRESENTATION
RECTAL CANCER CLINICAL CASE PRESENTATION Francesco Sclafani Medical Oncologist, Clinical Research Fellow The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK esmo.org Disclosure I have nothing to declare
More informationOriginal article. E. Mitry 1 *, J.-Y. Douillard 2, E. Van Cutsem 3, D. Cunningham 4, E. Magherini 5, D. Mery-Mignard 5, L. Awad 5 & P.
Original article Annals of Oncology 15: 1013 1017, 2004 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh267 Predictive factors of survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an individual data analysis of 602 patients
More informationPresent Status and Perspectives of Colorectal Cancer in Asia: Colorectal Cancer Working Group Report in 30th Asia-Pacific Cancer Conference
Present Status and Perspectives of Colorectal Cancer in Asia: Colorectal Cancer Working Group Report in 30th Asia-Pacific Cancer Conference Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010;40(Supplement 1)i38 i43 doi:10.1093/jjco/hyq125
More informationCorporate Medical Policy
Corporate Medical Policy Multigene Expression Assay for Predicting Recurrence in Colon File Name: Origination: Last CAP Review: Next CAP Review: Last Review: multigene_expression_assay_for_predicting_recurrence_in_colon_cancer
More informationRadiotherapy for rectal cancer. Karin Haustermans Department of Radiation Oncology
Radiotherapy for rectal cancer Karin Haustermans Department of Radiation Oncology O U T L I N E RT with TME surgery? Neoadjuvant or adjuvant RT? 5 x 5 Gy or long-course CRT? RT with new drugs? Selection
More informationThis clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.
abcd Clinical Study for Public Disclosure This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data. The synopsis which is part of the clinical
More informationLung Cancer in Women: A Different Disease? James J. Stark, MD, FACP
Lung Cancer in Women: A Different Disease? James J. Stark, MD, FACP Medical Director, Cancer Program and Director of Palliative Care Maryview Medical Center Professor of Medicine Eastern Virginia Medical
More informationNational Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Foundation Annual Progress Report: 2009 Formula Grant
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Foundation Annual Progress Report: 2009 Formula Grant Reporting Period July 1, 2012 June 30, 2013 Formula Grant Overview The National Surgical
More informationDoctor, How Am I Doing? Conditional Survival Analyses
Doctor, How Am I Doing? Conditional Survival Analyses Background Survival rates usually reported from time of diagnosis only Doesn't reflect changing hazard rates over time: early: higher hazard rate late:
More informationSequential Dose-Dense Adjuvant Therapy With Doxorubicin, Paclitaxel, and Cyclophosphamide
Sequential Dose-Dense Adjuvant Therapy With Doxorubicin, Paclitaxel, and Cyclophosphamide Review Article [1] April 01, 1997 By Clifford A. Hudis, MD [2] The recognition of paclitaxel's (Taxol's) activity
More informationExploring and Validating Surrogate Endpoints in Colorectal Cancer. Center, Pittsburgh, USA
Page 1 Exploring and Validating Surrogate Endpoints in Colorectal Cancer Tomasz Burzykowski, PhD 1,2, Marc Buyse, ScD 1,3, Greg Yothers PhD 4, Junichi Sakamoto, PhD 5, Dan Sargent, PhD 6 1 Center for Statistics,
More informationBy: Tania Cortas, MD Arizona Oncology 03/10/2015
By: Tania Cortas, MD Arizona Oncology 03/10/2015 Epidemiology In the United States, CRC incidence rates have declined about 2 to 3 percent per year over the last 15 years Death rates from CRC have declined
More informationWeekly 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: achieving lower toxicity with higher dose-intensity in adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer resection
Original article Annals of Oncology 15: 568 573, 2004 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh134 Weekly 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: achieving lower toxicity with higher dose-intensity in adjuvant chemotherapy after
More informationThe Neoadjuvant Model as a Translational Tool for Drug and Biomarker Development in Breast Cancer
The Neoadjuvant Model as a Translational Tool for Drug and Biomarker Development in Breast Cancer Laura Spring, MD Breast Medical Oncology Massachusetts General Hospital Primary Mentor: Dr. Aditya Bardia
More informationNCCP Chemotherapy Regimen
Modified Roswell Park (Fluorouracil 500mg/m 2 and Folinic Acid 50mg weekly x 6) Regimen INDICATIONS FOR USE: Regimen INDICATION ICD10 Code Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer C18 00427a Adjuvant
More informationDisclosures. Clinical and molecular features to guide adjuvant therapy. Personalized Medicine - Decision Tools -
Disclosures Clinical and molecular features to guide adjuvant therapy Daniel Sargent Professor of Biostatistics & Oncology Mayo Clinic Consulting activities Amgen Pfizer Roche/Genentech Sanofi-Aventis
More informationAdjuvant chemotherapy outcomes in patients over 65 years with early stage colorectal carcinoma
JBUON 2014; 19(4): 906-912 ISSN: 1107-0625, online ISSN: 2241-6293 www.jbuon.com E-mail: editorial_office@jbuon.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE Adjuvant chemotherapy outcomes in patients over 65 years with early
More informationThe Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Axillary Dissection
The Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Axillary Dissection Henry Mark Kuerer, MD, PhD, FACS Department of Surgical Oncology University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center SLN Biopsy Revolutionized surgical
More informationRadiation and DCIS. The 16 th Annual Conference on A Multidisciplinary Approach to Comprehensive Breast Care and Imaging
Radiation and DCIS The 16 th Annual Conference on A Multidisciplinary Approach to Comprehensive Breast Care and Imaging Einsley-Marie Janowski, MD, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Radiation Oncology
More informationAdjuvant Chemotherapy
State-of-the-art: standard of care for resectable NSCLC Adjuvant Chemotherapy JY DOUILLARD MD PhD Professor of Medical Oncology Integrated Centers of Oncology R Gauducheau University of Nantes France Adjuvant
More informationKey Words. Adjuvant therapy Breast cancer Taxanes Anthracyclines
The Oncologist Mayo Clinic Hematology/Oncology Reviews Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: Recommendations for Management Based on Consensus Review and Recent Clinical Trials BETTY A. MINCEY, a,b FRANCES
More informationColorectal Cancer in 2006: New Developments
James J. Stark, MD Colorectal Cancer in 2006: New Developments Melissa Bennett, MS, CGC Myriad Genetic Laboratories Thomas Duntemann,, MD Ray Ramirez, Jr., MD Hereditary Colon Cancer and Genetic Testing
More informationEmerging Approaches for (Neo)Adjuvant Therapy for ER+ Breast Cancer
Emerging Approaches for (Neo)Adjuvant Therapy for E+ Breast Cancer Cynthia X. Ma, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine Washington University in St. Louis Outline Current status of adjuvant endocrine
More informationRadiotherapy Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Julia White MD Professor, Radiation Oncology
Radiotherapy Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Julia White MD Professor, Radiation Oncology Agenda Efficacy of radiotherapy in the management of breast cancer in the Adjuvant
More informationAssessment of Risk Recurrence: Adjuvant Online, OncotypeDx & Mammaprint
Assessment of Risk Recurrence: Adjuvant Online, OncotypeDx & Mammaprint William J. Gradishar, MD Professor of Medicine Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University Classical
More informationHow much colon should be resected?
Colon Cancer Surgical Standard of Care and Operative Techniques Madhulika G. Varma MD Professor and Chief Section of Colorectal Surgery University of California, San Francisco How much colon should be
More informationIrinotecan (CPT-11) in Patients with Advanced Colon Carcinoma Relapsing after 5-Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Combination
Clinical Report Chemotherapy 2002;48:94 99 Irinotecan (CPT-11) in Patients with Advanced Colon Carcinoma Relapsing after 5-Fluorouracil-Leucovorin Combination N.B. Tsavaris a A. Polyzos b K. Gennatas c
More informationCitation for published version (APA): Bleeker, W. A. (2001). Therapeutic considerations in Dukes C colon cancer s.n.
University of Groningen Therapeutic considerations in Dukes C colon cancer Bleeker, Willem Aldert IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite
More informationSponsor / Company: Sanofi Drug substance(s): Docetaxel (Taxotere )
These results are supplied for informational purposes only. Prescribing decisions should be made based on the approved package insert in the country of prescription. Sponsor / Company: Sanofi Drug substance(s):
More informationAppendix E - Summary form Oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer table of consultee comments
Oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer table of consultee comments Section Consultees Comments Action Objective Roche RCP RCP As far as capecitabine is concerned, the objective
More informationThe impact of lymph node examination on survival of stage II colorectal cancer patients: Are 12 nodes adequate?
Formosan Journal of Surgery (2011) 44, 176e180 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.e-fjs.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE The impact of lymph node examination on survival of stage II colorectal
More informationConsiderations in Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology
Considerations in Adjuvant Chemotherapy Joyce O Shaughnessy, MD Baylor Sammons Cancer Center Texas Oncology US Oncology 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 EBCTCG 2005/6 Overview Control Arms with No Systemic Treatment
More informationPreoperative or Postoperative Therapy for the Management of Patients with Stage II or III Rectal Cancer
Evidence-Based Series 2-4 Version 2 A Quality Initiative of the Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC), Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Preoperative or Postoperative Therapy for the Management of Patients with
More informationA superficial radiotherapy B single pass curettage C excision with 2 mm margins D excision with 5 mm margins E Mohs micrographic surgery.
1- A 63-year-old woman presents with a non-healing lesion on her right temple that has been present for over two years. On examination there is a 6 mm well defined lesion with central ulceration, telangiectasia
More informationOutcomes and Toxicity in African-American and Caucasian Patients in a Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial for Colon Cancer
Outcomes and Toxicity in African-American and Caucasian Patients in a Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial for Colon Cancer A. David McCollum, Paul J. Catalano, Daniel G. Haller, Robert J. Mayer, John
More informationEffect of Occult Metastases on Survival in Node-Negative Breast Cancer
T h e n e w e ngl a nd j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e original article Effect of Occult Metastases on Survival in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Donald L. Weaver, M.D., Takamaru Ashikaga, Ph.D., David N.
More informationTitle: What is the role of pre-operative PET/PET-CT in the management of patients with
Title: What is the role of pre-operative PET/PET-CT in the management of patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastasis? Pablo E. Serrano, Julian F. Daza, Natalie M. Solis June
More informationEASTERN COOPERATIVE ONCOLOGY GROUP
EASTERN COOPERATIVE ONCOLOGY GROUP E5204 INTERGROUP RANDOMIZED PHASE III STUDY OF POSTOPERATIVE OXALIPLATIN, 5-FLUOROURACIL AND LEUCOVORIN VS OXALIPLATIN, 5-FLUOROURACIL, LEUCOV- ORIN AND BEVACIZUMAB FOR
More informationPhysical activity, Obesity, Diet and Colorectal Cancer Prognosis. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, MD, MPH Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Boston, MA
Physical activity, Obesity, Diet and Colorectal Cancer Prognosis Jeffrey Meyerhardt, MD, MPH Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Boston, MA Colorectal Cancer Incidence ~148,000 cases in US annually and ~50,000
More informationAdjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. Ezra EW Cohen University of Chicago. Financial Support
Adjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Ezra EW Cohen University of Chicago Financial Support This program is made possible by an educational grant from Eli Lilly Oncology, who had no
More informationImpact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Curatively Resected Stage IV Colorectal Cancer
Impact of in Patients With Curatively Resected Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Hirotoshi Kobayashi, MD, FACS, Kenjiro Kotake, MD, and Kenichi Sugihara, MD, Study Group for Peritoneal Metastasis from Colorectal
More informationADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER: UNRESECTABLE OR BORDERLINE RESECTABLE (GROUP 1) CHEMOTHERAPY +/- TARGETED AGENTS. Andrés Cervantes. Professor of Medicine
ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER: UNRESECTABLE OR BORDERLINE RESECTABLE (GROUP 1) CHEMOTHERAPY +/- TARGETED AGENTS Andrés Cervantes Professor of Medicine 1995 One option Advances in the treatment of mcrc 2000
More informationLocally Advanced Colon Cancer. Feiran Lou MD. MS. Richmond University Medical Center Department of Surgery
Locally Advanced Colon Cancer Feiran Lou MD. MS. Richmond University Medical Center Department of Surgery Case 34 yo man presented with severe RLQ abdominal pain X 24 hrs. No nausea/vomiting/fever. + flatus.
More informationOncotype DX testing in node-positive disease
Should gene array assays be routinely used in node positive disease? Yes Christy A. Russell, MD University of Southern California Oncotype DX testing in node-positive disease 1 Validity of the Oncotype
More information11/21/13 CEA: 1.7 WNL
Case Scenario 1 A 70 year-old white male presented to his primary care physician with a recent history of rectal bleeding. He was referred for imaging and a colonoscopy and was found to have adenocarcinoma.
More informationTargeted Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Update
Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Update ASCO 2007: Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Update Bevacizumab is effective in combination with XELOX or FOLFOX-4 Bevacizumab
More informationCarcinoma del retto: Highlights
Carcinoma del retto: Highlights Stefano Cordio Struttura Complessa di Oncologia Medica ARNAS Garibaldi Catania Roma 17 Febbraio 2018 Disclosures Advisory Committee, research funding and speakers bureau
More informationReliable Evaluation of Prognostic & Predictive Genomic Tests
Reliable Evaluation of Prognostic & Predictive Genomic Tests Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute http://brb.nci.nih.gov Different Kinds of Biomarkers Prognostic
More informationColon, or Colorectal, Cancer Information
Colon, or Colorectal, Cancer Information Definition Colon, or colorectal, cancer is cancer that starts in the large intestine (colon) or the rectum (end of the colon). Other types of cancer can affect
More informationCOLORECTAL CANCER FAISALGHANISIDDIQUI MBBS; FCPS; PGDIP-BIOETHICS; MCPS-HPE
COLORECTAL CANCER FAISALGHANISIDDIQUI MBBS; FCPS; PGDIP-BIOETHICS; MCPS-HPE PROFESSOR OF SURGERY & DIRECTOR, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE J I N N A H S I N D H M E D I C A L U N I V E R S I T Y faisal.siddiqui@jsmu.edu.pk
More informationWilliam J. Gradishar MD
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy For Postmenopausal Women SOBO 2013 William J. Gradishar MD Betsy Bramsen Professor of Breast Oncology Director, Maggie Daley
More informationIndex. Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type.
Index Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type. A Abdominal drainage, after hepatic resection, 159 160 Ablation, radiofrequency, for hepatocellular carcinoma, 160 161 Adenocarcinoma, pancreatic.
More informationShould we still be performing IHC on all sentinel nodes?
Miami Breast Cancer Conference 31 st Annual Conference March 8, 2014 Should we still be performing IHC on all sentinel nodes? Donald L. Weaver, MD Professor of Pathology University of Vermont USA Miami
More informationAdjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Are we making progress?
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Are we making progress? Hagen Kennecke, MD, MHA, FRCPC Division Of Medical Oncology British Columbia Cancer Agency October 25, 2008 Objectives Review milestones
More informationChoosing between different hormonal therapies. Rudy Van den Broecke UZ Ghent
Choosing between different hormonal therapies Rudy Van den Broecke UZ Ghent What is the golden standard in premenopausal hormonal sensitive early breast cancer? Ovarian Suppression alone 5 years Tamoxifen
More information