Adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer: a systematic review from the Cancer Care Ontario Program in evidence-based care's gastrointestinal cancer disease site group. Neoadjuvant treatment of advanced stage esophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. A prospective, randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy alone in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resectable head and neck cancer: a subset analysis of the Head and Neck Contracts Program. Adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer after complete resection. Provincial Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group. Prolonged intermittent adjuvant chemotherapy with CCNU and hydroxyurea after resection of carcinoma of the lung. Adjuvant active specific immunotherapy of stage II and stage III colon cancer with an autologous tumor cell vaccine: first randomized phase III trials show promise. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6.
To develop a systematic review that would address the following question: Should patients with stage II colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy?
                A systematic review was undertaken to locate randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant therapy to observation.
                Thirty-seven trials and 11 meta-analyses were included. The evidence for stage II colon cancer comes primarily from a trial of fluorouracil plus levamisole and a meta-analysis of 1,016 patients comparing fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus observation. Neither detected an improvement in disease-free or overall survival for adjuvant therapy. A recent pooled analysis of data from seven trials observed a benefit for adjuvant therapy in a multivariate analysis for both disease-free and overall survival. The disease-free survival benefits appeared to extend to stage II patients; however, no P values were provided. A meta-analysis of chemotherapy by portal vein infusion has also shown a benefit in disease-free and overall survival for stage II patients. A meta-analysis was conducted using data on stage II patients where data were available (n = 4,187). The mortality risk ratio was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P =.07).
                There is preliminary evidence indicating that adjuvant therapy is associated with a disease-free survival benefit for patients with stage II colon cancer. These benefits are small and not necessarily associated with improved overall survival. Patients should be made aware of these results and encouraged to participate in active clinical trials. Additional investigation of newer therapies and more mature data from the presently available trials should be pursued. Sophisticated surgical approaches have a definite but limited role in esophageal cancer. The majority have systemic disease at presentation, minimal residual disease following resection or co-morbid conditions that preclude extensive surgery. This paper examines whether neoadjuvant therapy is effective in advanced-stage disease. A randomized trial, closing September 1995, was followed up to determine results at 5 years. All patients were followed up for more than 5 years. Median survival, based on intention-to-treat, was 17 months for multimodal therapy vs. 12 months for surgery alone (P=0.002). Survival based on treatment received was 27 months vs. 14 months (P=0.0006). Multimodal therapy enhances survival for patients with minimal residual disease. This is consistent with the literature. Under-powered trials cannot prove a real difference to be significant. Future trials should target patients with minimal residual disease. To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice.
                An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003.
                A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology.
                Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials. A prospective, randomized study was performed to determine the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy over radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
                From January 1991 to December 1998, 80 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients with locoregional carcinoma of the nasopharynx were randomized to receive two courses of chemotherapy, consisting of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CDDP-5FU), that were administered before radiation therapy (CT arm) or radiotherapy alone. The patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were treated with radiation therapy, which was scheduled to commence 2 weeks after the second course chemotherapy.
                With a median follow-up of 49 months, a trend toward improved overall survival or disease free survival favoring the CT arm was observed (5-year overall survival rate, 60% vs. 48%; 5-year disease free survival rate, 55% vs. 43%), although this difference was not significant. There were no differences in locoregional failure free survival between the two arms. However, metastasis free survival favored the CT arm, although this difference was not significant. The results also demonstrated that most patients in the CT arm who experienced recurrent disease developed locoregional recurrences before distant metastases, suggesting that improvements in locoregional control may lead to improved disease free survival.
                The use of CDDP-5FU chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma did not result in a significant improvement in disease free survival or overall survival. However, there was a positive tendency in favor of the CT arm for distant metastasis free survival, although there was no improvement in the locoregional recurrence free survival rate.
                Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society. To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with advanced head and neck squamous cancer, the Head and Neck Contracts Program conducted a three-arm study comparing standard surgery and radiation, induction chemotherapy (cisplatin and bleomycin) plus standard therapy, and induction chemotherapy plus standard therapy followed by maintenance cisplatin for 6 months. As previously reported, this trial of 462 patients demonstrated no significant difference in disease-free survival or survival, but a significantly lower metastatic rate in the maintenance arm. To determine whether particular subgroups may have benefited from adjuvant therapy, we evaluated results based on primary site, and tumor (T) and node (N) stage. Of the 192 patients with oral cavity cancer, those on the maintenance arm had a significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (67%) compared with the standard arm (49%) or induction arm (44%) (overall P = .05). For hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers there was no marked overall benefit. For the 106 patients with T1 plus T2 disease, there was marginal improvement in disease-free survival for the maintenance group (72%) compared with the standard group (47%) or induction group (43%) (overall P = .09). There was no advantage for patients with T3 and T4 disease. There was superior disease-free survival for patients with N1 disease on the maintenance arm (70%) compared with the standard arm (42%) (P = .024). The same was true for disease-free survival in 109 patients with N2 disease: standard (52%), induction (30%), maintenance (84%) (overall P less than .001). There was no benefit for N3 disease. A significant survival advantage with maintenance chemotherapy was only seen for N2 disease (overall P = .04). Since head and neck cancer patients are a heterogeneous group, there may be particular sites and stages for which adjuvant chemotherapy would be advantageous, and subset analysis can help indicate directions for new trials. Should patients with resected stage II colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy?
                To make recommendations regarding the use of adjuvant therapy in the treatment of resected stage II colon cancer.
                Overall survival is the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes are disease-free survival and adverse effects of the treatment regimens.
                Evidence was selected and reviewed by 2 members of the Provincial Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group (GI DSG) of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative. The recommendations resulting from this review have been approved by the GI DSG, which comprise medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons and epidemiologists. Community representatives did not participate in the development of this practice guideline but will do so in future guidelines development.
                There are 25 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis. The GI DSG pooled data from 11 of the 25 RCTs that provided adequate data.
                The 25 RCTs are grouped according to the type of therapy and whether the control patients received no treatment (observation) or other adjuvant therapy after resection. Because the trials usually included patients with stage II and III cancer, the complete trial results and those for a subset of patients with stage II disease were analysed. Although the overall trial results showed a survival benefit for adjuvant treatments, the benefit was not significant for stage II patients. A meta-analysis of 11 trials comparing adjuvant treatment with observation in patients with stage II cancer indicated no significant reduction in the odds ratio (OR) for death (OR 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 1.10). The OR for death among patients receiving chemotherapy by portal vein infusion (PVI) was 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.11).
                The toxic effects of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with either levamisole or leucovorin, or both, were mild to moderate and consisted mostly of stomatitis, diarrhea and myelosuppression; 5% of patients required hospital admission. 5-FU plus levamisole was associated with transient neurotoxic effects in 18% of patients. Toxic effects associated with PVI were mild, rare and mostly consisted of leukopenia and diarrhea; 1% of patients experienced bowel perforation.
                Adjuvant therapy is not recommended at this time for the routine management of patients with resected stage II colon cancer. Patients with stage II disease and high-risk factors (bowel obstruction, tumour adhesion, invasion, perforation or aneuploidy) have a poorer prognosis, similar to that of patients with stage III colon cancer. For individual management, these patients should be made aware of their prognosis; treatment can be considered after the uncertainty of the value of adjuvant therapy has been explained to the patient. The enrolment of patients with high-risk stage II disease in clinical trials is encouraged. Trials comparing adjuvant therapy with observation are needed and are ethically acceptable in stage II colon cancer. Eight hundred sixty-five patients with a microscopically curative resection for carcinoma of the lung were accepted for study, none of whom were excluded from analysis. Adjuvant therapy was randomly assigned about the tenth to 14th postoperative day; 432 patients (treated) were to receive CCNU and hydroxyurea for one year, while 433 patients (controls) were to receive no adjuvant therapy. Toxic reactions to therapy were reported, but only 1% were severe enough to require stopping therapy. No evidence of improved survival or delayed recurrence of disease was seen in treated patients as a whole or when examined by cell type and by postsurgical TNM category. On the contrary, survival beyond the second year of follow-up may have been impaired by the drugs when administered to patients without evidence of tumor spread to the lymph nodes. We performed three multi-institutional, prospectively randomized, controlled clinical trials, assessing the therapeutic effect of post-resection adjuvant active specific immunotherapy in patients with stage II and stage III colon cancer. In each study four outcomes were considered: time-to-disease recurrence, overall survival intervals, disease-free survival intervals, and recurrence-free survival intervals using the Kaplan-Meir method for generating curves and the log-rank test used to compare efficacy distributions. In addition, a meta-analysis of the three phase III trials was performed since the trials had proven homogeneity. Two main analyses were performed: (1) the intent-to-treat colon cancer patients from all three studies; and (2) analyzable colon cancer patients in all three studies. The conclusion of these analyses is that adjuvant active specific immunotherapy provided significant clinical benefits in patients with stage II colon cancer and appears to be an important new adjuvant treatment for these patients. The aim of this study was to assess a potential advantage in survival by neoadjuvant as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy. 414 premenopausal patients with T2-T3 N0-N1 M0 breast cancer were randomised to receive either four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil), followed by local-regional treatment (group I) or four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy after primary irradiation +/- surgery (group II). Surgery was limited to those patients with a persisting mass after irradiation, and aimed to be as conservative as possible. 390 patients were evaluable. With a median follow-up of 54 months, we observed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.039) in survival in favour of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. A similar trend was seen when the time to metastatic recurrence was evaluated (P = 0.09). At this stage, no difference in disease-free interval or local recurrence between these two groups could be observed. The mean total dose of chemotherapy administered was similar in both groups. On average, group I had more intensive chemotherapy regimes (doxorubicin P = 0.02) but fewer treatment courses (P = 0.008) as compared to the treated patients in group II. Haematological tolerance was reduced when chemotherapy succeeded to exclusive irradiation. Breast conservation was identical for both groups at the end of primary treatment (82 and 77% for groups I and II, respectively). Of the 191 evaluable patients in the neoadjuvant treatment arm, 65% had an objective response (> 50% regression) following four cycles of chemotherapy. The objective response rate to primary irradiation (55 Gy) was 85%. Improved survival figures in the neoadjuvant treatment arm could be the result of the early initiation of chemotherapy, but we cannot exclude that this difference might be attributable to a slightly more aggressive treatment. So far, the trend in favour of decreased metastases was not statistically significant. The local control appeared similar in both subgroups.
There is no clear evidence for efficacy of any of the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant protocols reviewed, but there is some evidence to suggest that adjuvant therapy may be beneficial offering prolonged disease-free survival. In order to detect a realistic treatment advantage, larger trials with lower risk of systematic error will have to be conducted.