It remains controversial as to whether a long interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and surgery may provide clinical benefits for patients with local advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The addition of consolidation chemotherapy during the resting period was recently considered as a treatment option. The present study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of consolidation chemotherapy during the resting period in patients with LARC. A total of 156 patients with local advanced stage T3-4N0-2 rectal cancer were enrolled between January 2010 and July 2016. Patients were divided into two groups, those who received consolidation chemotherapy prior to surgery (n=76) and the control group who did not (n=80). Multivariate logistic regression and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to explore the predictors of pathological complete response (pCR) and survival. The demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The consolidation group yielded significantly higher pCR and near pCR rates compared with the control group (P=0.015). Patients in the consolidation group who also underwent standard adjuvant chemotherapy displayed improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) compared with the control group (P=0.036). Notably, the addition of consolidation chemotherapy between NCRT and surgery did not significantly increase the incidence of surgical complications and grade 3 or 4 toxicities when compared with the control group. Consolidation chemotherapy was associated with increased pCR/near pCR rates and improved 3-year DFS, and displayed a manageable safety profile. The present study provided primary evidence for the efficacy and safety of consolidation chemotherapy in LARC. Further prospective studies are warranted in the future to verify these results.
Hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield, when compared to mobilization with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches are associated with high costs. To circumvent this, several institutions use a so-called “just-in-time” plerixafor (JIT-P) approach, where plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such a JIT-P approach is cost effective has not been confirmed to date. We present here, results of 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with two different approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between Jan 2010-Oct 2012 (n=76) patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor (routine G+P cohort). To reduce mobilization costs, between Nov 2012-Jun 2014 (n=60) patients were mobilized with JIT-P where plerixafor was only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Patients in routine G+P group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 vs. 29 cells/μL, p<0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ cell yield (2.9 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 2.1 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.001). The median total CD34+ cell collection was also higher in routine G+P group (5.8 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 4.5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.007). In the JIT-P group 40% (n=24) completed adequate HPC collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean number of plerixafor doses utilized in JIT-P was lower (1.3 vs. 2.1, p=0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine G+P group was higher than that in the JIT-P group (USD 27,513 vs. USD 23,597, p=0.01). Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a JIT-P approach is a safe, effective and cost efficient strategy for HPC collection.
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.