This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
PURPOSE It remains controversial whether primary tumor resection (PTR) before chemotherapy improves survival in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with asymptomatic primary tumor and synchronous unresectable metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized phase III study investigated the superiority of PTR followed by chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in relation to overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable stage IV asymptomatic CRC and three or fewer unresectable metastatic diseases confined to the liver, lungs, distant lymph nodes, or peritoneum. Chemotherapy regimens of either mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or CapeOX plus bevacizumab were decided before study entry. The primary end point was OS, which was analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS Between June 2012 and September 2019, a total of 165 patients were randomly assigned to either chemotherapy alone (84 patients) or PTR plus chemotherapy (81 patients). When the first interim analysis was performed in September 2019 with 50% (114/227) of the expected events observed among 160 patients at the data cutoff date of June 5, 2019, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the trial because of futility. With a median follow-up of 22.0 months, median OS was 25.9 months (95% CI, 19.9 to 31.5) in the PTR plus chemotherapy arm and 26.7 (95% CI, 21.9 to 32.5) in the chemotherapy-alone arm (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.59; one-sided P = .69). Three postoperative deaths occurred in the PTR plus chemotherapy arm. CONCLUSION Given that PTR followed by chemotherapy showed no survival benefit over chemotherapy alone, PTR should no longer be considered a standard of care for patients with CRC with asymptomatic primary tumors and synchronous unresectable metastases.
PURPOSE Adjuvant chemotherapy after hepatectomy is controversial in liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). We conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine if adjuvant modified infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) is superior to hepatectomy alone for liver-only metastasis from CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this phase II or III trial (JCOG0603), patients age 20-75 years with confirmed CRC and an unlimited number of liver metastatic lesions were randomly assigned to hepatectomy alone or 12 courses of adjuvant mFOLFOX6 after hepatectomy. The primary end point of phase III was disease-free survival (DFS) in intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS Between March 2007 and January 2019, 300 patients were randomly assigned to hepatectomy alone (149 patients) or hepatectomy followed by chemotherapy (151 patients). At the third interim analysis of phase III with median follow-up of 53.6 months, the trial was terminated early according to the protocol because DFS was significantly longer in patients treated with hepatectomy followed by chemotherapy. With median follow-up of 59.2 months, the updated 5-year DFS was 38.7% (95% CI, 30.4 to 46.8) for hepatectomy alone compared with 49.8% (95% CI, 41.0 to 58.0) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92; one-sided P = .006). However, the updated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 83.1% (95% CI, 74.9 to 88.9) with hepatectomy alone and 71.2% (95% CI, 61.7 to 78.8) with hepatectomy followed by chemotherapy. In the chemotherapy arm, the most common grade 3 or higher severe adverse event was neutropenia (50% of patients), followed by sensory neuropathy (10%) and allergic reaction (4%). One patient died of unknown cause after three courses of mFOLFOX6 administration. CONCLUSION DFS did not correlate with OS for liver-only metastatic CRC. Adjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFOX6 improves DFS among patients treated with hepatectomy for CRC liver metastasis. It remains unclear whether chemotherapy improves OS.
Background
Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0212 (http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT00190541) was a non‐inferiority phase III trial of patients with clinical stage II–III rectal cancer without lateral pelvic lymph node enlargement. The trial compared mesorectal excision (ME) with ME and lateral lymph node dissection (LLND), with a primary endpoint of recurrence‐free survival (RFS). The planned primary analysis at 5 years failed to confirm the non‐inferiority of ME alone compared with ME and LLND. The present study aimed to compare ME alone and ME with LLND using long‐term follow‐up data from JCOG0212.
Methods
Patients with clinical stage II–III rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and no lateral pelvic lymph node enlargement were included in this study. After surgeons confirmed R0 resection by ME, patients were randomized to receive ME alone or ME with LLND. The primary endpoint was RFS.
Results
A total of 701 patients from 33 institutions were assigned to ME with LLND (351) or ME alone (350) between June 2003 and August 2010. The 7‐year RFS rate was 71.1 per cent for ME with LLND and 70·7 per cent for ME alone (hazard ratio (HR) 1·09, 95 per cent c.i. 0·84 to 1·42; non‐inferiority P = 0·064). Subgroup analysis showed improved RFS among patients with clinical stage III disease who underwent ME with LLND compared with ME alone (HR 1·49, 1·02 to 2·17).
Conclusion
Long‐term follow‐up data did not support the non‐inferiority of ME alone compared with ME and LLND. ME with LLND is recommended for patients with clinical stage III disease, whereas LLND could be omitted in those with clinical stage II tumours.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.