CA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVECOVER ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:168-185
doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.3.168
© 2007 American Cancer Society
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Freely available CME: Take the course for this article:
 Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
Right arrow Submit a letter to the editor
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wolpin, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wolpin, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, R. J.

Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Brian M. Wolpin, MD, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, Harvey J. Mamon, MD, PhD and Robert J. Mayer, MD

Dr. Wolpin is Instructor in Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Dr. Meyerhardt is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Dr. Mamon is Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology and Clinical Director, Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Dr. Mayer is Professor of Medicine and Director, Center for Gastrointestinal Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

This article is available online at http://CAonline.AmCancerSoc.org
To earn free CME credit for successfully completing the online quiz based on this article, go to http://CME.AmCancerSoc.org


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common noncutaneous malignancy in the United States and the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death. Approximately three quarters of patients are diagnosed with disease limited to the bowel wall or surrounding lymph nodes. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in the treatment of localized colorectal cancer due to advances in surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. For patients with Stage III colon cancer, an overall survival benefit for fluorouracil-based chemotherapy has been firmly established, and recent data have shown further efficacy through the inclusion of oxaliplatin into adjuvant treatment programs. For patients with Stage II colon cancer, the use of adjuvant chemotherapy remains controversial, but may be appropriate in a subset of individuals at high risk for disease recurrence. In the treatment of patients with rectal cancer, improved outcomes have been noted with the use of total mesorectal excision and preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Current randomized clinical trials in the adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer are examining the value of adding agents known to be active in metastatic disease, including those that modify specific molecular targets.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common noncutaneous malignancy in the United States and the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death. In 2007, an estimated 153,760 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed, and 52,180 people will die from the disease.1 Approximately 70% of these cancers will arise in the colon, whereas 30% will occur in the rectum. Significant progress in adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer has been achieved since this topic was last reviewed in CA in 1999.2 Advances in chemotherapy (Table 1), surgery, and radiotherapy have improved outcomes for patients with colon and rectal cancer.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1 Chemotherapy Regimens for Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer

 

   STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Pathologic stage represents the most important prognostic factor for patients with colorectal cancer. The tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) system, as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), is the most commonly used staging system and is based on depth of invasion of the bowel wall, extent of regional lymph node involvement, and presence of distant sites of disease (Table 2).13–15 As the AJCC stage increases from Stage I to Stage IV, 5-year overall survival declines from greater than 90% to less than 10%.16,17


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2 Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) Staging System for Colorectal Cancer13–16

 
Several additional pathologic and clinical features have been identified that are associated with an increased risk for tumor recurrence, including poorly differentiated histology, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, T4 tumor stage, clinical bowel obstruction or perforation, and an elevated preoperative plasma level of carcinoembryonic antigen (Table 3).18,19,23–25 Molecular features of colon cancer may also provide prognostic information. Mutations or promoter hypermethylation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair genes can lead to errors in DNA replication and changes in short, repeated sequences of DNA, a condition known as microsatellite instability. Microsatellite instability is present in the tumors of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), as well as 15% to 20% of sporadic colon cancers.20,26 Patients with tumors possessing a high degree of microsatellite instability have a more favorable prognosis than those patients whose tumors are microsatellite stable.26,27 In addition, loss of heterozygosity at chromosome 18q has been reported in approximately 50% of colon cancers and has been associated with a worse prognosis, possibly due to the loss of the putative tumor suppressor gene, "deleted in colon cancer" (DCC).21,28


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3 Poor Prognostic Indicators Following Complete Surgical Resection of Colorectal Cancer18–22

 
Several features related to surgical technique have also been associated with a poorer outcome. The examination of an inadequate number of lymph nodes has been linked with increased mortality in patients with node-negative and node-positive disease.29–33 In an analysis of 35,787 patients with T3N0 colon cancer from the National Cancer Data Base, 5-year overall survival was positively associated with the number of lymph nodes identified (69%, 1–7 lymph nodes; 78%, 8–12 lymph nodes; 85%, ≥13 lymph nodes).29 A suboptimal number of examined lymph nodes may reflect a less complete operative procedure or an inadequate inspection of the pathologic specimen, and can mistakenly "understage" a tumor. Such inaccurate staging can lead to a higher than predicted rate of relapse due to the omission of adjuvant therapy. Based on the above data, current guidelines recommend the identification of 12 or more lymph nodes in the resected specimen for accurate colorectal cancer staging.13,34

In the surgical resection of rectal cancer, sharp dissection of the mesorectum en bloc with the rectum, as part of a total mesorectal excision (TME), has been associated with a lower risk of local recurrence.35,36 The mesorectum is the rectal mesentery that contains the rectum's vascular supply and lymphatic drainage. It is the initial site of spread for rectal cancer, making its complete removal in a single anatomic block an important feature of rectal cancer surgery.

Studies have demonstrated that higher patient volume for a hospital or individual surgeon can decrease postoperative morbidity and mortality and improve outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer.22,37,38 In a linked analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and Medicare databases, 30-day and 5-year mortality rates were higher by 2% and 4.4%, respectively, in patients treated at the lowest volume versus the highest volume hospitals.37 In addition, several studies of rectal cancer have demonstrated higher rates of sphincter-preserving surgery at high-volume hospitals.22,38


   COLON CANCER
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
    Intravenous Fluorouracil
The cornerstone of systemic treatment for colon cancer is fluorouracil, a fluorinated pyrimidine that acts primarily through inhibition of thymidylate synthetase, the rate-limiting enzyme in pyrimidine nucleotide synthesis.39 Yet, for many years, fluorouracil was thought to be ineffective as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. Clinical trials published during the 1970s failed to demonstrate a survival benefit for the adjuvant administration of fluorouracil,40–43 and a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 1987 demonstrated only a small, statistically insignificant benefit for adjuvant therapy.44 In retrospect, these randomized trials likely suffered from heterogeneous patient populations, inadequate sample size, and poor compliance with therapy. In the setting of these initially discouraging results, two subsequent approaches to adjuvant therapy for colon cancer revived interest in fluorouracil.

In an attempt to reduce the incidence of liver metastases, several clinical trials were designed to administer fluorouracil into the portal circulation during the immediate postoperative period.45–50 Although these studies failed to achieve their primary objective of reducing tumor spread to the liver, a meta-analysis of 10 such trials did demonstrate a modest overall survival benefit, supporting the value of a short exposure to adjuvant fluorouracil when compliantly administered.51

Additionally, adjuvant treatment with fluorouracil was reassessed when levamisole, an antihelminthic, was examined as an immunomodulating agent.52–54 The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG)55 and subsequently the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)56,57 compared the administration of fluorouracil and levamisole with observation in the adjuvant setting. Because levamisole was eventually shown to be inactive, these studies actually represented a reassessment of the adjuvant administration of fluorouracil. The NCCTG trial, involving 401 patients with Stage II or III colon cancer, demonstrated a 31% reduction in recurrence rate for patients with Stage III disease who received fluorouracil and levamisole.55 In the larger ECOG trial of 1,296 patients, adjuvant fluorouracil and levamisole reduced the risk of recurrence by 41% (P = 0.0001) and the risk of death by 33% (P = 0.006) compared with surgery alone in patients with Stage III disease.56 In contrast, no meaningful benefit was noted in the subset of patients with Stage II disease. In 1990, a National Cancer Institute consensus conference recommended fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy as standard of care for patients with resected Stage III colon cancer.58

The antitumor activity of fluorouracil was subsequently shown to be enhanced when the drug was combined with leucovorin, a reduced folate that is thought to stabilize fluorouracil's interaction with thymidylate synthetase.3–5,59 A meta-analysis of 3,300 patients from 19 randomized trials found that modulation of fluorouracil with leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer doubles the response rate with a modest, but statistically significant, improvement in overall survival compared with fluorouracil alone.60 Thus, the combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin was evaluated in the adjuvant setting, where it was found to increase disease-free and overall survival.61–64 A pooled analysis of 7 randomized trials demonstrated an increase in 5-year disease-free survival from 42% to 58% and 5-year overall survival from 51% to 61% in patients with Stage III disease.65 Subsequent studies showed that adjuvant fluorouracil and leucovorin administered for 6 months was equivalent to fluorouracil and levamisole administered for 12 months, and that the addition of levamisole to fluorouracil and leucovorin did not provide added benefit.64,66,67 In addition, no administration schedule of fluorouracil was found to be superior to any other in the adjuvant setting,68–71 although different side effect profiles did emerge (Table 4). Neutropenia and stomatitis were the most frequent side effects when bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin were administered daily for 5 days every 4 to 5 weeks (the "Mayo Clinic regimen"), with mild alopecia and vomiting also commonly observed. Higher rates of debilitating diarrhea resulted when bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin were administered weekly for 6 of 8 weeks (the "Roswell Park regimen"). Schedules that administered fluorouracil as a continuous infusion were associated with less hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity, but with the appearance of hand-foot syndrome (a tender, erythematous rash involving the palms and soles).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4 Grade 3 or 4 Toxicity of Fluoropyrimidine-based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Randomized Clinical Trials in Colon Cancer

 
    Colon Cancer in Elderly and Minority Populations
Although nearly 75% of patients diagnosed with colon cancer are age 65 or older,73 such patients have been underrepresented in clinical trials and are less likely to receive adjuvant therapy.74,75 Pooled data analyses have repeatedly demonstrated a consistent and equivalent survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in all age groups.76–78 An analysis of 3,351 patients with Stage II or III colon cancer from 7 RCTs showed that 5-year overall survival was improved by a similar 24% in each of 4 age groups (less than age 50, age 51 to 60, age 61 to 70, greater than age 70; P for interaction = 0.61).77 Additionally, an assessment of 4,768 patients age 65 and older with Stage III colon cancer in the linked SEER-Medicare databases demonstrated a 34% reduction in risk of death with adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.76 In contrast, increased treatment-related toxicity was not consistently observed in older patients.77,79–82 Taken together, these studies indicate that fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy improves survival in older patients with Stage III colon cancer by a similar amount as it does in younger patients, without a clear increase in treatment-related toxicity.

When disease outcomes have been analyzed by race and ethnicity, higher colorectal cancer– specific mortality has been noted in African American than in White patients.83 For patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1995 and 2001, 5-year cancer-specific mortality was 65% in African Americans versus 55% in Whites.84 Several possible reasons for this discrepancy have been investigated, including differences in comorbid disease, sociodemographic factors, stage at presentation, tumor biology, and receipt of treatment.78,85–88 In subset analyses of RCTs, disease-free survival was similar in African American and White patients,89,90 suggesting that African Americans derive a similar degree of benefit from appropriately administered therapy as do Whites.

    Stage II Colon Cancer
No single randomized clinical trial has demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in patients with Stage II colon cancer. Subset analyses of trials that have included patients with Stage II and III disease have also repeatedly failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit for Stage II patients. A pooled analysis of 7 studies demonstrated a 5-year overall survival of 81% in patients who received fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy and 80% in patients who underwent surgery alone (P = 0.11).65

Two published reports have been cited as favoring the administration of adjuvant therapy in Stage II disease. A retrospective subset analysis of four consecutive National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trials noted a similar proportional survival benefit for Stage II and Stage III patients who received fluorouracil-based therapy, leading the authors to recommend adjuvant treatment for patients with both Stage II and III colon cancer.91 Results from the Quick and Simple and Reliable (QUASAR) study, a complex comparison of four different fluorouracil-based regimens with observation alone in a heterogeneous patient population, support a marginal survival benefit for patients with Stage II colon and rectal cancer; these results have thus far been reported only in abstract form.92

After systematically reviewing the available literature, the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care,93 an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO),94 and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)95 independently recommended against the routine administration of adjuvant therapy in patients with Stage II disease. In addition, the ASCO panel determined that a sample size of 9,680 patients per group would be required to detect a 2% survival difference between treatment and control arms (90% power with a significance level of 0.05).94

It has been proposed that adjuvant chemotherapy may benefit patients with Stage II disease and T4 tumor stage, bowel perforation, or clinical bowel obstruction.94 Although this hypothesis has not been validated in a prospective, randomized clinical trial, a retrospective subset analysis of 318 patients with Stage II disease enrolled in the ECOG INT-0035 study of fluorouracil and levamisole suggested a survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in these patient subgroups.25 Although other high-risk features, such as inadequate lymph node sampling, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, poorly differentiated histology, microsatellite stability, and loss of heterozygosity at chromosome 18q, are also known to carry a higher risk of recurrence,18 the potential benefit of chemotherapy is not known in patients with these factors.

    Oral Fluoropyrimidines
Attempts 30 years ago to administer fluorouracil orally proved unsuccessful; a randomized comparison of oral versus intravenous fluorouracil in metastatic colorectal cancer favored the intravenous route in terms of response rate and mean duration of response.96 These differences in response were thought to result from the erratic intestinal absorption of fluorouracil after oral administration, due to differing mucosal concentrations of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), a major catabolic enzyme of the drug. Two strategies were developed to circumvent this problem: the administration of a fluorouracil prodrug that is not catabolized by DPD97 and the coadministration of an inhibitor of DPD with oral fluorouracil.98

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of fluorouracil which is absorbed intact through the gastrointestinal mucosa and undergoes a three-step enzymatic conversion to fluorouracil.97 In RCTs, capecitabine was found to be therapeutically equivalent to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin (Mayo Clinic schedule) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.6,72 In the adjuvant treatment of 1,987 patients with Stage III colon cancer, capecitabine (1,250 mg/m2 administered twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks) was also shown to be similarly effective when compared with the Mayo Clinic regimen of bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin.99 In these studies, treatment with capecitabine was associated with an increased rate of hand-foot syndrome and hyperbilirubinemia but less stomatitis and neutropenia (Table 4).

Although capecitabine, at the recommended dose of 1,250 mg/m2 twice daily, appears therapeutically similar to monthly bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin with a somewhat less severe toxicity profile, it is uncertain whether the differences in toxicity profile would remain if capecitabine were compared with a more tolerable schedule of parenteral fluorouracil (ie, Roswell Park or infusional schedule). Additionally, it is unclear whether the more favorable convenience and cost-effectiveness profile that has been reported for capecitabine would persist if it were administered in combination with other intravenous chemotherapies, such as oxaliplatin.100

Tegafur uracil (UFT) circumvents the erratic intestinal absorption of fluorouracil by the coadministration of an oral fluoropyrimidine (tegafur) with an inhibitor of DPD (uracil), thereby allowing for a more uniform absorption and bioavailability of tegafur.101 In two randomized studies of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, UFT and oral leucovorin resulted in similar response rates and overall median survival times as parental fluorouracil and leucovorin.102,103 A large, randomized trial comparing UFT and leucovorin with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin as adjuvant therapy demonstrated similar rates of disease-free survival and overall survival between the two treatment arms, with a comparable toxicity profile.104 Although available in Europe and Asia, UFT has been withdrawn by its pharmaceutical manufacturer in the United States.

    Irinotecan
Irinotecan is a semisynthetic derivative of the natural alkaloid camptothecin and inhibits topoisomerase I, an enzyme that catalyzes breakage and rejoining of DNA strands during DNA replication.105,106 The efficacy of single-agent irinotecan was established in second-line treatment of metastatic disease, with a 2- to 3-month extension in median overall survival versus either best supportive care or continuous infusion fluorouracil.107,108 Diarrhea, myelosuppression, and alopecia were the most commonly observed side effects with use of irinotecan. Subsequent randomized trials demonstrated a benefit to combining irinotecan with either infusional7 or bolus109 fluorouracil and leucovorin. Based on these encouraging observations, it was anticipated that irinotecan would be useful in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

Three randomized trials of adjuvant irinotecan with either bolus or infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin have been reported in abstract form.110–112 The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) randomized 1,264 patients with resected Stage III colon cancer to receive either the Roswell Park regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin or irinotecan with weekly bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin (IFL).110

Surprisingly, although IFL had proven superior to fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic disease,109 it did not improve either disease-free or overall survival when administered as adjuvant therapy.

The Pan European Trials in Adjuvant Colon Cancer 3 (PETACC 3) trial randomized 3,278 patients with resected Stage II or III colon cancer to receive infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without irinotecan.111 After a median follow up of 32 months, the addition of irinotecan did not significantly improve 3-year disease-free survival in 2,094 patients with Stage III disease (63.3% versus 60.3%, P = 0.09).

A smaller European trial, Accord 02, randomized 400 patients with resected high-risk Stage III colon cancer (more than 3 involved lymph nodes or any number of involved lymph nodes with colonic obstruction or perforation) to receive adjuvant therapy with infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin alone or with irinotecan.112 After a median follow up of 36 months, the rate of 3-year disease-free survival was actually poorer in patients who received irinotecan (53% versus 59%).

The addition of irinotecan to fluorouracil and leucovorin in each of these three clinical trials resulted in increased toxicity without a meaningful improvement in outcome. This unanticipated failure of irinotecan to prove beneficial underscores the importance of conducting rigorous RCTs before making changes in clinical practice.

    Oxaliplatin
Oxaliplatin is a diaminocyclohexane platinum compound that forms DNA adducts, leading to impaired DNA replication and cellular apoptosis.113,114 In preclinical testing, oxaliplatin was shown to be active as a single agent and synergistic when combined with fluorouracil in colorectal cancer cell lines,114,115 possibly due to oxaliplatin-induced downregulation of thymidylate synthetase.116 In patients with metastatic colon cancer, single-agent oxaliplatin has limited efficacy, but clinical benefit has been observed when it is administered with fluorouracil and leucovorin.8,9,117–120 A cumulative sensory neuropathy, characterized by paresthesias of the hands and feet and exacerbated by exposure to cold, is the primary toxic effect associated with oxaliplatin.

Oxaliplatin was evaluated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in two Phase III clinical trials, which demonstrated that the addition of oxaliplatin to infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin increased response rate and disease-free survival, with a trend toward improvement in overall survival.9,119 In a third study involving 795 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic disease, the combination of oxaliplatin, infusional fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) improved overall survival when compared with IFL or a combination of irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX).121

Three clinical trials have been initiated to evaluate oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. In the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/Fluorouracil/Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer (MOSAIC) study, 2,246 patients with Stage II (40%) or Stage III (60%) colon cancer were randomized to receive 6 months of infusional fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without oxaliplatin.122 After a median follow up of 49 months, the 4-year disease-free survival in patients with Stage III disease was statistically superior in those patients who received oxaliplatin (69.7% versus 61%).10,123 Although a statistically significant benefit was not observed in those patients with Stage II disease, a 5.4% absolute improvement in disease-free survival was noted in patients with high-risk Stage II disease, defined as the presence of T4 tumor stage, bowel obstruction, tumor perforation, poorly differentiated histology, venous invasion, or less than 10 examined lymph nodes. After 4 years of follow up, these improvements in disease-free survival have not yet resulted in a meaningful enhancement in overall survival (84.3% versus 82.7%) in patients with Stage II and III colon cancer.

In a second study, the NSABP randomized 2,407 patients with resected Stage II (29%) or Stage III (71%) colon cancer to receive adjuvant therapy with the Roswell Park regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 on weeks 1, 3, and 5 of each 8-week cycle) for 24 weeks.124 After a median follow up of 34 months, the probability of 3-year disease-free survival was significantly improved in patients who received oxaliplatin (76.5% versus 71.6%, P = 0.004) by nearly an identical amount to that seen in the MOSAIC trial. This similarity in outcome is noteworthy because the NSABP administered fluorouracil in a bolus manner, rather than the infusional program utilized in the MOSAIC study.

The addition of oxaliplatin in both the MOSAIC and NSABP trials resulted in increased treatment-related toxicity. In the MOSAIC study, Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common in patients receiving FOLFOX (41.1% versus 4.7%), although neutropenia complicated by fever or infection was relatively uncommon in both groups (1.8% versus 0.2%). Grade 3 paresthesia (severe objective sensory loss or paresthesias that interfere with function) was also more frequent in patients treated with FOLFOX (12.4% versus 0.2%), but was reported in only 1% of patients 12 months after completion of treatment. Patients receiving oxaliplatin as part of the NSABP protocol also experienced higher rates of neurotoxicity associated with pain or interfering with activities of daily living (Grade 3 on Sanofi National Cancer Institute neurotoxicity scale, 8% versus 1%). In these patients, 0.5% had persistent Grade 3 neurotoxicity 1 year after completing treatment. Additionally, increased gastrointestinal toxicity was reported in the NSABP trial when oxaliplatin was added to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin.124,125

A third study, known as the XELOXA trial, randomized 1,886 patients with resected Stage III colon cancer to receive either capecitabine and oxaliplatin or bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin.126 At present, only safety data are available from this study. Similar to the MOSAIC and NSABP trials, higher rates of neurologic toxicity have been noted in the oxaliplatin-containing arm (Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, 8.1% versus 0%).

Because disease recurrence is fatal in the vast majority of patients, disease-free survival has been proposed as a surrogate for overall survival. In an analysis of individualized patient data from 18 RCTs of adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, 3-year disease-free survival was highly correlative with 5-year overall survival.127 At present, the MOSAIC and NSABP trials have demonstrated improved disease-free survival when oxaliplatin is added to fluorouracil and leucovorin, but an overall survival benefit has not yet been observed in either of these two studies (Table 5).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 5 Efficacy of Adjuvant Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin in Patients with Resected Stage II or III Colon Cancer

 
    Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane glycoprotein that interacts with signaling pathways affecting cellular growth, proliferation, and programmed cell death.128 It is expressed in malignancies of multiple tissues, including those of the colon, lung, breast, and head and neck.129 In colorectal cancer, EGFR expression has been demonstrated in up to 80% of tumors,130,131 and tumors that express EGFR carry a poorer prognosis.132 Antibodies directed against the extracellular domain of EGFR and small molecular inhibitors of the intracellular tyrosine kinase domain have been developed to inhibit the function of this transmembrane receptor. Thus far, only the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab, have definitively demonstrated efficacy in colorectal cancer; experience to date with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been disappointing.133–135

In preclinical studies, antitumor activity was noted in colon cancer cell lines for cetuximab alone and in combination with chemotherapy.136 In addition, synergistic activity was observed with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan in tumor cells sensitive to and resistant to irinotecan, suggesting that EGFR inhibition may overcome cellular resistance to irinotecan.137 Due to these preclinical observations, trials of cetuximab were initiated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

In an initial Phase II study of 121 patients whose tumors expressed EGFR and were refractory to irinotecan, treatment with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan resulted in a response rate of 17%.11 To determine whether this antineoplastic effect was due to synergy between the 2 drugs or independent activity of cetuximab, 57 similar patients were treated with cetuximab alone, resulting in a 9% response rate.138 Confirming this synergistic activity, a randomized Phase II trial of 329 patients with irinotecan-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer demonstrated response rates of 22.9% with cetuximab and irinotecan and 10.8% with cetuximab alone.139

The role of cetuximab in adjuvant therapy of colon cancer has not yet been defined. The NCCTG and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) are each randomizing over 2,000 patients with resected Stage III colon cancer to receive FOLFOX alone or FOLFOX with cetuximab. These two randomized trials will provide data on the efficacy of cetuximab in the adjuvant setting.

The most common side effects of cetuximab are dermatologic, including an acne-like rash, xerosis (dry skin), and fissures of the skin.139,140 Although some degree of acneiform rash occurs in most patients, severe eruptions resulting in significant pain or infectious sequelae are less common. Interestingly, the presence and severity of the cetuximab-induced rash, but not the degree of EGFR expression on the surface of tumor cells, appear to correlate with the likelihood of response.139 In addition to dermatologic toxicities, severe hypersensitivity infusional reactions can occur with administration of cetuximab, although these reactions are uncommon, occurring in less than 3% of patients.

Panitumumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to EGFR that has shown similar single-agent activity as cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. In a Phase II trial, 9% of 148 patients whose cancers had progressed after treatment with fluorouracil and either irinotecan or oxaliplatin experienced a partial response to panitumumab.141 This response rate is comparable to response rates observed in clinical trials of cetuximab in a similar patient population.138,139 In a randomized Phase III trial of 463 patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer, preliminary results have suggested a progression-free survival benefit for panitumumab when compared with best supportive care.142

    Angiogenesis Inhibitors
The inhibition of new blood vessel formation has been explored as a strategy to control malignant proliferation and spread.143 Currently, the most successful antiangiogenic therapy has focused on inhibiting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a soluble protein that stimulates blood vessel proliferation.144 Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF that has been examined in combination with chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.12,145,146 In a randomized, Phase III trial of 815 previously untreated patients with metastatic disease, the addition of bevacizumab to IFL led to a statistically significant improvement in response rate (44.8% versus 34.8%, P = 0.004) and a 4.7-month prolongation in median overall survival (20.3 months versus 15.6 months, P = 0.001).146 In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have received fluorouracil and irinotecan, the combination of FOLFOX and bevacizumab has also demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with FOLFOX alone.147 Bevacizumab was relatively well tolerated in both trials, with reversible hypertension and proteinuria representing two of the most common adverse events attributable to bevacizumab. Nonetheless, rare but serious side effects have been observed with bevacizumab, including a 1% to 2% risk of bowel perforation, a 3% risk of serious bleeding events, a 2% to 3% risk of arterial embolic events, and less than 1% risk of reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome.146,148,149

The role of bevacizumab in adjuvant therapy for colon cancer is under examination in several randomized trials in the United States and Europe. Until the results of these trials are available, it is premature to recommend the incorporation of bevacizumab into adjuvant treatment programs for colon cancer.

    Recommendations and Future Questions in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer
Currently available data in 2006 (Table 6) support the use of 6 months of postoperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin in patients with Stage III colon cancer. Such adjuvant therapy appears to be equally effective in older and younger patients. If a patient is to receive therapy with a fluoropyrimidine alone, then capecitabine is an acceptable alternative to intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin. Current data do not support the use of irinotecan, cetuximab, or bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer, outside of a clinical trial.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 6 Recommendations for Adjuvant Treatment of Stage II and Stage III Colon Cancer

 
In patients with Stage II colon cancer, prospective data have not demonstrated a benefit for adjuvant therapy, and current guidelines do not recommend its routine use. Administration of adjuvant therapy to patients with Stage II disease and one or more high risk features appears to be reasonable, but the value of such treatment has not yet been prospectively validated.

Several questions remain unanswered regarding adjuvant therapy for colon cancer, including whether capecitabine can be used in place of intravenous fluorouracil in combination adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, such as with oxaliplatin; how best to incorporate new, targeted agents into current cytotoxic treatments; and whether specific subgroups of patients with Stage II disease may benefit from adjuvant treatment. Ongoing RCTs are addressing some of these questions (Table 7).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 7 Ongoing Clinical Trials in Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer

 

   RECTAL CANCER
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
    Differences in Management of Colon and Rectal Cancer
The rectum is located within the pelvis and extends from the transitional mucosa of the anal dentate line to the sigmoid colon at the peritoneal reflection, which measures between 10 and 15 cm from the anal verge by rigid sigmoidoscopy. The bony constraints of the pelvis limit surgical access to the rectum, leading to a lower likelihood of achieving widely negative margins and a higher risk of local recurrence. Due to the increased risk of local recurrence and a poorer overall prognosis, the management of rectal cancer varies somewhat from that of colon cancer, including differences in surgical technique, the use of radiotherapy, and method of chemotherapy administration.

    Surgical Management of Rectal Cancer
In rectal cancer, the surgical approach to resection varies with the location of the tumor. Proximal tumors are resected by a low anterior resection (LAR) and primary anastomosis. Most midrectal tumors can also be resected by a LAR, although when the anastomosis is low in the pelvis, a temporary ileostomy or colostomy may be required to divert the fecal stream from the anastomosis and facilitate proper healing. Distal rectal tumors typically require an abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent colostomy because the anal sphincter cannot be preserved.150 A small subset of superficial, distal rectal tumors with favorable histologic features may be amenable to local excision.151–154

Total mesorectal excision has become accepted as the standard surgical technique in rectal cancer resection. Historically, rectal cancer surgery involved blunt dissection within the rectal mesentery, known as the mesorectum, which contains the rectum's vascular supply and lymphatic drainage. TME requires sharp dissection beyond the plane of the mesorectum with well-defined circumferential margins, so that the rectum with its surrounding perirectal fat and lymph nodes is removed as a single specimen. In a study conducted by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, the local recurrence rate 2 years after TME was 8.2%, substantially less than historically reported rates of 20% to 25%.36,155,156

    Perioperative Radiation Therapy Alone
To further reduce the risk of local recurrence, clinical trials have evaluated 3 schedules of radiation therapy administered in addition to surgery: a postoperative protracted-course therapy over 4 to 6 weeks; a protracted preoperative regimen; and a preoperative short-course, high-dose fraction therapy delivered over 1 week. In the postoperative setting, radiation was administered to a total dose of 40 to 50 Gy in 1.8- to 2-Gy fractions over 4 to 7 weeks and resulted in an improvement in the rate of local control, but not overall survival.157,158 Preoperatively, the EORTC evaluated a total dose of 34.5 Gy administered as 15 daily fractions of 2.3 Gy and also noted a decrease in local recurrence rate, without a significant improvement in overall survival.159 Short-course preoperative therapy was evaluated in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial, in which patients receiving radiotherapy to a total dose of 25 Gy over 5 days experienced enhanced local control and prolonged survival compared with patients who underwent surgery alone.160

To compare preoperative and postoperative schedules, a Swedish trial randomized 471 patients to surgery with either preoperative (25.5 Gy in 5 5.1-Gy fractions over 1 week) or postoperative (60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions over 6 to 7 weeks) radiation.161 Local recurrence was lower in the preoperative radiation group (12% versus 21%, P = 0.02), but no difference was noted in overall survival. The Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group (CCCG) performed a meta-analysis of radiation therapy in 8,507 patients from 22 randomized trials.162 After 5 years of follow up, both preoperative and postoperative radiation approaches were associated with a lower risk of local recurrence when compared with surgery alone, although neither schedule of radiotherapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival. In the subsequent Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group study of TME with or without radiation, patients who underwent preoperative radiotherapy had a lower risk of local recurrence (8.2% versus 2.4%, P = 0.001), confirming the benefit of radiation, even in the setting of TME.36 This reduction in risk was most notable in patients with tumors located in the distal rectum. The addition of radiation therapy, however, did not prolong survival.

    Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy
Randomized studies published in the late 1980s and early 1990s established combined postoperative chemotherapy and radiation as the standard of care for patients with resected Stage II or III rectal cancer.155,156,163,164 The Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group (GITSG) randomized 227 patients with resected T3 to T4 or node-positive rectal adenocarcinoma to 1 of 4 treatment arms: observation, radiation alone, chemotherapy alone, or combined radiation and intravenous fluorouracil.155,163 Combined modality therapy resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rate of local recurrence and an increase in the rate of overall survival when compared with surgery alone—an outcome that was not observed for patients receiving either adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone.163 These improvements in local control and overall survival for combined modality therapy were confirmed in a subsequent NCCTG trial.156 Due to the findings of these 2 studies, a National Cancer Institute consensus conference in 1990 recommended the use of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for Stage II and III rectal cancer.58

This recommendation was refined when a comparison of radiotherapy given concurrently with either infusional or bolus fluorouracil demonstrated that continuous infusion fluorouracil was associated with a lower risk of tumor recurrence (37% versus 47%, P = 0.01) and an improvement in 4-year overall survival (70% versus 60%, P = 0.005).164 Interestingly, the rate of local recurrence was not significantly different between the two groups, implicating more effective treatment of distant disease as the cause of the overall survival benefit.

Two subsequent cooperative group studies conducted in North America demonstrated that the addition of leucovorin to fluorouracil during radiation did not improve disease-free or overall survival.165,166 In addition, two studies performed by the NSABP showed that postoperative chemotherapy alone was associated with an increased risk of local recurrence when compared with postoperative radiation alone or combined modality therapy.167,168

Perhaps to parallel the 6 months of adjuvant therapy in colon cancer, an additional 4 months of fluorouracil-based chemotherapy are typically administered in association with concurrent chemoradiation. Although it has not been validated in randomized clinical studies, a "sandwich" approach to therapy has been employed most commonly, in which bolus fluorouracil is administered both before and after concurrent chemoradiation therapy.164

    Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
The efficacy of adjuvant combined modality therapy led investigators to evaluate preoperative chemotherapy and radiation. Due to shrinkage of the tumor before resection, preoperative treatment was thought to allow for a greater number of sphincter-preserving surgeries. In addition, it had the potential to cause less gastrointestinal toxicity because less small bowel would typically be located in the radiation field at the time of treatment. The merits of the preoperative therapeutic approach, however, could only be established through a randomized clinical trial.

In 2004, the German Rectal Cancer Study Group published the results of such a randomized trial comparing preoperative and postoperative therapy in 823 patients with T3 to T4 or node-positive rectal cancer.169 Patients randomized to preoperative therapy received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with a 120-hour infusion of fluorouracil at 1000 mg/m2/day during the first and fifth weeks of radiation. One month after surgery, patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, consisting of 4 cycles of bolus fluorouracil at 500 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 4 weeks. Patients randomized to receive surgery as initial treatment received the same chemoradiation and subsequent fluorouracil postoperatively, with the exception of an additional 5.4-Gy radiation boost to the tumor bed.

This study demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiation therapy doubled the rate of sphincter-sparing operations and lowered the rates of local recurrence, acute toxicity, and long-term toxicity (Table 8). However, no difference in disease-free or overall survival was observed between the two treatment arms. Although all patients underwent a preoperative endorectal ultrasound, nearly 20% of patients who were randomized to initial surgery were found to have Stage I disease on pathologic review of the surgical specimen, implying that approximately 20% of patients in the preoperative treatment arm were likely "over"-treated.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 8 Safety and Efficacy of Postoperative Versus Preoperative Chemoradiation in Stage II and III Rectal Cancer—Data from the German Rectal Cancer Study Group*167

 
    Recommendations and Future Questions in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer
The clinical management of rectal cancer in 2006 (Table 9) is performed most effectively by a multidisciplinary team, which includes representatives from gastroenterology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Early and accurate determination of tumor location within the rectum and AJCC TNM stage is particularly important because such information will determine the type of surgery that is performed and the need for chemoradiation. For patients with Stage II or III rectal cancer, data support the use of preoperative concurrent radiation and continuous infusion fluorouracil, and resection performed by total mesorectal excision. Chemoradiation and surgery are typically followed by four months of adjuvant chemotherapy. Currently, randomized data are not available to support the use of bevacizumab, capecitabine, cetuximab, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin in the adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 9 Recommendations for Treatment of Stage II and Stage III Rectal Cancer

 
Several questions remain unanswered regarding therapy for rectal cancer, including whether capecitabine can be used in place of intravenous fluorouracil and whether the incorporation of newer cytotoxic and targeted agents into current treatment regimens can decrease morbidity and mortality associated with this disease. Several clinical trials are currently underway to address some of these questions (Table 10).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 10 Ongoing Clinical Trials in Adjuvant Treatment of Rectal Cancer

 

   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
During the past 10 years, substantial progress has been made in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In patients with metastatic disease, the incorporation of new cytotoxic drugs and targeted agents has led to an increase in median overall survival from less than 9 months without treatment to greater than 20 months.16 In patients with potentially resectable tumors, advances in surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have all contributed to increased rates of cure. Higher volume medical centers have become models for improving surgical quality, and the use of total mesorectal excision has decreased rates of local recurrence in rectal cancer. The precision of radiation delivery has improved, and the benefits of preoperative chemoradiotherapy have been established in rectal cancer. Oxaliplatin has been incorporated into adjuvant treatment programs for colon cancer, and new targeted agents are currently in preclinical development and ongoing clinical trials. In 1999, Macdonald concluded that, "All of this innovative clinical and basic science focused on the improvement of adjuvant therapy bodes well for the care of patients with resected colon cancer, now and in the future."2 The same statement can be made today. As in the past, further progress depends on the completion of well-designed RCTs.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 STAGING AND PROGNOSIS
 COLON CANCER
 RECTAL CANCER
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Macdonald JS. Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1999;49:202–219.[Abstract]
  3. Zhang ZG, Harstrick A, Rustum YM. Modulation of fluoropyrimidines: role of dose and schedule of leucovorin administration. Semin Oncol 1992;19(Suppl 3):10–15.[Medline]
  4. de Gramont A, Bosset JF, Milan C, et al. Randomized trial comparing monthly low-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus with bimonthly high-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus plus continuous infusion for advanced colorectal cancer: a French intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:808–815.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Petrelli N, Douglass HO Jr, Herrera L, et al. The modulation of fluorouracil with leucovorin in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a prospective randomized phase III trial. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1419–1426.[Abstract]
  6. Hoff PM, Ansari R, Batist G, et al. Comparison of oral capecitabine versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment in 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2282–2292.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000;355:1041–1047.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Rothenberg ML, Oza AM, Bigelow RH, et al. Superiority of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil-leucovorin compared with either therapy alone in patients with progressive colorectal cancer after irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin: interim results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2059–2069.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Giacchetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:136–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Hickish T, Boni C, Navarro M, et al. FOLFOX4 as adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer: subpopulation data from the MOSAIC trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(suppl):14s. Abstract 3619.
  11. Saltz L, Rubin M, Hochster H, et al. Cetuximab (IMC-C225) plus irinotecan (CPT-11) is active in CPT-11-refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) that expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:3a.
  12. Kabbinavar F, Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Phase II, randomized trial comparing bevacizumab plus fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) with FU/LV alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:60–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al., eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2002.
  14. Greene FL, Stewart AK, Norton HJ. A new TNM staging strategy for node-positive (stage III) colon cancer: an analysis of 50,042 patients. Ann Surg 2002;236:416–421.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Greene FL, Stewart AK, Norton HJ. New tumor-node-metastasis staging strategy for node-positive (stage III) rectal cancer: an analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1778–1784.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Meyerhardt JA, Mayer RJ. Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:476–487.[Free Full Text]
  17. O'Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY. Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1420–1425.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, Fielding LP. American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group. Cancer 2000;88:1739–1757.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Krasna MJ, Flancbaum L, Cody RP, et al. Vascular and neural invasion in colorectal carcinoma. Incidence and prognostic significance. Cancer 1988;61:1018–1023.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med 2005;352:1851–1860.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Shibata D, Reale MA, Lavin P, et al. The DCC protein and prognosis in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1727–1732.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Hodgson DC, Zhang W, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:708–716.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Wanebo HJ, Rao B, Pinsky CM, et al. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level as a prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1978;299:448–451.[Abstract]
  24. Wolmark N, Fisher B, Wieand HS, et al. The prognostic significance of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels in colorectal cancer. Results from NSABP (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project) clinical trials. Ann Surg 1984;199:375–382.[Medline]
  25. 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 1995;13:2936–2943.[Abstract]
  26. Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh ET, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;342:69–77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Watanabe T, Wu TT, Catalano PJ, et al. Molecular predictors of survival after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1196–1206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Popat S, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between chromosome 18q genotype, DCC status and colorectal cancer prognosis. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2060–2070.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Swanson RS, Compton CC, Stewart AK, Bland KI. The prognosis of T3N0 colon cancer is dependent on the number of lymph nodes examined. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:65–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL, et al. Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2912–2919.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Berger AC, Sigurdson ER, LeVoyer T, et al. Colon cancer survival is associated with decreasing ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8706–8712.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Stocchi L, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, et al. Impact of surgical and pathologic variables in rectal cancer: a United States community and cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3895–3902.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Tepper JE, O'Connell MJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Impact of number of nodes retrieved on outcome in patients with rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:157–163.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Compton CC, Greene FL. The staging of colorectal cancer: 2004 and beyond. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:295–308.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, et al. Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997. Arch Surg 1998;133:894–899.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;345:638–646.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Schrag D, Cramer LD, Bach PB, et al. Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA 2000;284:3028–3035.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:166–174.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Sobrero A, Guglielmi A, Grossi F, et al. Mechanism of action of fluoropyrimidines: relevance to the new developments in colorectal cancer chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 2000;27(Suppl 10):72–77.[Medline]
  40. Higgins GA, Humphrey E, Juler G, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in the surgical treatment of large bowel cancer. Cancer 1976;38:1461–1467.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Higgins GA, Donaldson RC, Humphrey EW, et al. Adjuvant therapy for large bowel cancer: update of Veterans Administration Surgical Oncology Group Trials. Surg Clin North Am 1981;61:1311–1320.[Medline]
  42. Grossi CE, Wolff WI, Nealon TF Jr, et al. Intraluminal fluorouracil chemotherapy adjunct to surgical procedures for respectable carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977;145:549–554.[Medline]
  43. Grage TB, Moss SE. Adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer of the colon and rectum: demonstration of effectiveness of prolonged 5-FU chemotherapy in a prospectively controlled, randomized trial. Surg Clin North Am 1981;61:1321–1329.[Medline]
  44. Buyse M, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Chalmers TC. Adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer. Why we still don't know. JAMA 1988;259:3571–3578.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Taylor I, Machin D, Mullee M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of adjuvant portal vein cytotoxic perfusion in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1985;72:359–363.[Medline]
  46. Wereldsma JC, Bruggink ED, Meijer WS, et al. Adjuvant portal liver infusion in colorectal cancer with 5-fluorouracil/heparin versus urokinase versus control. Results of a prospective randomized clinical trial (colorectal adenocarcinoma trial I). Cancer 1990;65:425–432.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Beart RW Jr, Moertel CG, Wieand HS, et al. Adjuvant therapy for resectable colorectal carcinoma with fluorouracil administered by portal vein infusion. A study of the Mayo Clinic and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Arch Surg 1990;125:897–901.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. 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 1990;8:1466–1475.[Abstract]
  49. Fielding LP, Hittinger R, Grace RH, Fry JS. Randomised controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy by portal-vein perfusion after curative resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma. Lancet 1992;340:502–506.[CrossRef][Medline]
  50. Long-term results of single course of adjuvant intraportal chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Lancet 1995;345:349–353.[Medline]
  51. Portal vein chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 4000 patients in 10 studies. Liver Infusion Meta-analysis Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:497–505.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Bedikian AY, Valdivieso M, Mavligit GM, et al. Sequential chemoimmunotherapy of colorectal cancer: evaluation of methotrexate, Baker's Antifol and levamisole. Cancer 1978;42:2169–2176.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Buroker TR, Moertel CG, Fleming TR, et al. A controlled evaluation of recent approaches to biochemical modulation or enhancement of 5-fluorouracil therapy in colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:1624–1631.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Windle R, Bell PR, Shaw D. Five year results of a randomized trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and levamisole in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1987;74:569–572.[Medline]
  55. Laurie JA, Moertel CG, Fleming TR, et al. Surgical adjuvant therapy of large-bowel carcinoma: an evaluation of levamisole and the combination of levamisole and fluorouracil. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group and the Mayo Clinic. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1447–1456.[Abstract]
  56. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, et al. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322:352–358.[Abstract]
  57. 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 1995;122:321–326.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. NIH consensus conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 1990;264:1444–1450.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Poon MA, O'Connell MJ, Moertel CG, et al. Biochemical modulation of fluorouracil: evidence of significant improvement of survival and quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1407–1418.[Abstract]
  60. Thirion P, Michiels S, Pignon JP, et al. Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3766–3775.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Wolmark N, Rockette H, Fisher B, et al. The benefit of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-03. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1879–1887.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Francini G, Petrioli R, Lorenzini L, et al. Folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil as adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer. Gastroenterology 1994;106:899–906.[Medline]
  63. O'Connell MJ, Mailliard JA, Kahn MJ, et al. Controlled trial of fluorouracil and low-dose leucovorin given for 6 months as postoperative adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:246–250.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Wolmark N, Rockette H, Mamounas E, et al. Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3553–3559.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Gill S, Loprinzi CL, Sargent DJ, et al. Pooled analysis of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for stage II and III colon cancer: who benefits and by how much? J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1797–1806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. O'Connell MJ, Laurie JA, Kahn M, et al. Prospectively randomized trial of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:295–300.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Haller DG. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: five years final report of INT-0089. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;17:256. Abstract 982.
  68. Haller DG, Catalano PJ, Macdonald JS, et al. Phase III study of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in high-risk stage II and III colon cancer: final report of Intergroup 0089. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8671–8678.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Andre T, Colin P, Louvet C, et al. Semimonthly versus monthly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin administered for 24 or 36 weeks as adjuvant therapy in stage II and III colon cancer: results of a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2896–2903.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Chau I, Norman AR, Cunningham D, et al. A randomised comparison between 6 months of bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin and 12 weeks of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2005;16:549–557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Poplin EA, Benedetti JK, Estes NC, et al. Phase III Southwest Oncology Group 9415/Intergroup 0153 randomized trial of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole versus fluorouracil continuous infusion and levamisole for adjuvant treatment of stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1819–1825.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Van Cutsem E, Twelves C, Cassidy J, et al. Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a large phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4097–4106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Yancik R, Ries LA. Aging and cancer in America. Demographic and epidemiologic perspectives. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000;14:17–23.[CrossRef][Medline]
  74. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, et al. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med 1999;341:2061–2067.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Schrag D, Cramer LD, Bach PB, Begg CB. Age and adjuvant chemotherapy use after surgery for stage III colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:850–857.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Sundararajan V, Mitra N, Jacobson JS, et al. Survival associated with 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy among elderly patients with node-positive colon cancer. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:349–357.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Sargent DJ, Goldberg RM, Jacobson SD, et al. A pooled analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1091–1097.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Jessup JM, Stewart A, Greene FL, Minsky BD. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: implications of race/ethnicity, age, and differentiation. JAMA 2005;294:2703–2711.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  79. Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Fuchs CS, et al. Use of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for colorectal cancer in a population-based cohort. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1293–1300.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Popescu RA, Norman A, Ross PJ, et al. Adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in patients 70 years or older. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2412–2418.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Aschele C, Guglielmi A, Tixi LM, et al. Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in the Elderly. Cancer Control 1995;2(Suppl 1):36–38.[Medline]
  82. Sargent D, Goldberg RM, Bleiberg H, et al. A pooled safety and efficacy analysis of the FOLFOX4 regimen (bi-monthly oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin) in elderly compared to younger patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3517.[Free Full Text]
  83. Polite BN, Dignam JJ, Olopade OI. Colorectal cancer and race: understanding the differences in outcomes between African Americans and whites. Med Clin North Am 2005;89:771–793.[CrossRef][Medline]
  84. Polite BN, Dignam JJ, Olopade OI. Colorectal cancer model of health disparities: understanding mortality differences in minority populations. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2179–2187.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Marcella S, Miller JE. Racial differences in colorectal cancer mortality. The importance of stage and socioeconomic status. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:359–366.[CrossRef][Medline]
  86. Mayberry RM, Coates RJ, Hill HA, et al. Determinants of black/white differences in colon cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1686–1693.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Bach PB, Schrag D, Brawley OW, et al. Survival of blacks and whites after a cancer diagnosis. JAMA 2002;287:2106–2113.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  88. Baldwin LM, Dobie SA, Billingsley K, et al. Explaining black-white differences in receipt of recommended colon cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1211–1220.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  89. McCollum AD, Catalano PJ, Haller DG, et al. Outcomes and toxicity in african-american and caucasian patients in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial for colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1160–1167.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  90. Dignam JJ, Ye Y, Colangelo L, et al. Prognosis after rectal cancer in blacks and whites participating in adjuvant therapy randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:413–420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  91. Mamounas E, Wieand S, Wolmark N, et al. 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). J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1349–1355.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  92. Gray RG, Barnwell J, Hills R, et al. QUASAR: a randomized study of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation including 3238 colorectal cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;22:245s. Abstract 3501.
  93. Figueredo A, Charette ML, Maroun J, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3395–3407.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  94. Benson AB III, Schrag D, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3408–3419.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  95. Winn R, McClure J. The NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Comprehensive Cancer Network 2003;1:9.
  96. Hahn RG, Moertel CG, Schutt AJ, Bruckner HW. A double-blind comparison of intensive course 5-flourouracil by oral vs. intravenous route in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1975;35:1031–1035.[CrossRef][Medline]
  97. Pentheroudakis G, Twelves C. The rational development of capecitabine from the laboratory to the clinic. Anticancer Res 2002;22:3589–3596.[Medline]
  98. Meropol NJ. Oral fluoropyrimidines in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1509–1513.[CrossRef][Medline]
  99. Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP, et al. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2696–2704.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  100. Ward S, Kaltenthaler E, Cowan J, Brewer N. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1–93.[Medline]
  101. Sulkes A, Benner SE, Canetta RM. Uracil-ftorafur: an oral fluoropyrimidine active in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3461–3475.[Abstract]
  102. Carmichael J, Popiela T, Radstone D, et al. Randomized comparative study of tegafur/uracil and oral leucovorin versus parenteral fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3617–3627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  103. Douillard JY, Hoff PM, Skillings JR, et al. Multicenter phase III study of uracil/tegafur and oral leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3605–3616.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  104. Lembersky BC, Wieand HS, Petrelli NJ, et al. Oral uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin compared with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin in stage II and III carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol C-06. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2059–2064.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  105. Iyer L, Ratain MJ. Clinical pharmacology of camptothecins. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1998;42(suppl):S31–S43.[CrossRef][Medline]
  106. Bleiberg H. CPT-11 in gastrointestinal cancer. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:371–379.[CrossRef][Medline]
  107. Rougier P, Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998;352:1407–1412.[CrossRef][Medline]
  108. Cunningham D, Pyrhonen S, James RD, et al. Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998;352:1413–1418.[CrossRef][Medline]
  109. Saltz LB, Cox JV, Blanke C, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:905–914.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  110. Saltz LB, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, et al. Irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin (IFL) versus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FL) in stage III colon cancer (intergroup trial CALGB C89803). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;22(suppl):246s. Abstract 3500.
  111. Van Cutsem E, Labianca R, Hossfeld G, et al. Randomized phase III trial comparing infused irinotecan/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (IF) versus 5-FU/FA (F) in stage III colon cancer patients (PETACC 3). J Clin Oncol 2005;23(suppl):3s. Abstract 8.
  112. Ychou MR, Raoul JL, Douillard JY, et al. A phase III randomized trial of LV5FU2+CPT-11 vs. LV5FU2 alone in adjuvant high risk colon cancer (FNCLCC Accord02/FFCD9802). J Clin Oncol 2005;23(suppl):16s. Abstract 3502.
  113. Raymond E, Chaney SG, Taamma A, Cvitkovic E. Oxaliplatin: a review of preclinical and clinical studies. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1053–1071.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  114. Raymond E, Faivre S, Woynarowski JM, Chaney SG. Oxaliplatin: mechanism of action and antineoplastic activity. Semin Oncol 1998;25(suppl 5):4–12.[Medline]
  115. Rixe O, Ortuzar W, Alvarez M, et al. Oxaliplatin, tetraplatin, cisplatin, and carboplatin: spectrum of activity in drug-resistant cell lines and in the cell lines of the National Cancer Institute's Anticancer Drug Screen panel. Biochem Pharmacol 1996;52:1855–1865.[CrossRef][Medline]
  116. Raymond E, Faivre S, Chaney S, et al. Cellular and molecular pharmacology of oxaliplatin. Mol Cancer Ther 2002;1:227–235.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  117. Becouarn Y, Ychou M, Ducreux M, et al. Phase II trial of oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Digestive Group of French Federation of Cancer Centers. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2739–2744.[Abstract]
  118. Diaz-Rubio E, Sastre J, Zaniboni A, et al. Oxaliplatin as single agent in previously untreated colorectal carcinoma patients: a phase II multicentric study. Ann Oncol 1998;9:105–108.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  119. de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al. Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2938–2947.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  120. Tournigand C, Andre T, Achille E, et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:229–237.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  121. Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:23–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  122. Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–2351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  123. De Gramont A, Boni C, Navarro M, et al. Oxaliplatin/5FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of stage II and stage III colon cancer: efficacy results with a median follow-up of 4 years. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23:246s. Abstract 3501.
  124. Wolmark N, Wieand HS, Keubler JP, et al. A phase III trial comparing FULV to FULV + oxaliplatin in stage II or III carcinoma of the colon: results of NSABP protocol C-07. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(suppl):16s. Abstract 3500.
  125. Smith RE, Colangelo L, Wieand S, et al. The occurrence of severe enteropathy among patients with stage II/III resected colon cancer treated with 5-FU/leucovorin plus Oxaliplatin (FLOX). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:1181.
  126. Schmoll H, Tabernero J, Nowacki M, et al. Early safety findings from a phase III trial of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs. bolus 5-FU/LV as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(suppl): 16s. Abstract 3523.
  127. Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Haller DG, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8664–8670.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  128. Baselga J. Why the epidermal growth factor receptor? The rationale for cancer therapy. Oncologist 2002;7(suppl 4):2–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  129. Spaulding DC, Spaulding BO. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression and measurement in solid tumors. Semin Oncol 2002;29(Suppl 14):45–54.[Medline]
  130. Messa C, Russo F, Caruso MG, Di Leo A. EGF, TGF-alpha, and EGF-R in human colorectal adenocarcinoma. Acta Oncol 1998;37:285–289.[CrossRef][Medline]
  131. Porebska I, Harlozinska A, Bojarowski T. Expression of the tyrosine kinase activity growth factor receptors (EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3) in colorectal adenocarcinomas and adenomas. Tumour Biol 2000;21:105–115.[CrossRef][Medline]
  132. Mayer A, Takimoto M, Fritz E, et al. The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, epidermal growth factor receptor, and mdr gene expression in colorectal cancer. Cancer 1993;71:2454–2460.[CrossRef][Medline]
  133. Venook AP. Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted treatment for advanced colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103:2435–2446.[CrossRef][Medline]
  134. Rothenberg ML, LaFleur B, Levy DE, et al. Randomized phase II trial of the clinical and biological effects of two dose levels of gefitinib in patients with recurrent colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9265–9274.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  135. Blanke CD. Gefitinib in colorectal cancer: if wishes were horses. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5446–5449.[Free Full Text]
  136. Herbst RS, Kim ES, Harari PM. IMC-C225, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody, for treatment of head and neck cancer. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2001;1:719–732.[CrossRef][Medline]
  137. Prewett MC, Hooper AT, Bassi R, et al. Enhanced antitumor activity of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody IMC-C225 in combination with irinotecan (CPT-11) against human colorectal tumor xenografts. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:994–1003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  138. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr, et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1201–1208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  139. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:337–345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  140. Segaert S, Van Cutsem E. Clinical signs, pathophysiology and management of skin toxicity during therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1425–1433.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  141. Malik I, Hecht JR, Patnaik A, et al. Safety and efficacy of panitumumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(suppl):251s. Abstract 3520.
  142. Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Siena S, et al. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of panitumamab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Paper presented at: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Meeting 2006; April 1, 2006; Washington, DC. Abstract CP-1.
  143. Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 1971;285:1182–1186.[Medline]
  144. Ferrara N, Gerber HP, LeCouter J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med 2003;9:669–676.[CrossRef][Medline]
  145. Kabbinavar FF, Schulz J, McCleod M, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3697–3705.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  146. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–2342.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  147. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, et al. High-dose bevacizumab improves survival when combined with FOLFOX4 in previously treated advanced colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study E3200. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23:1s. Abstract 2.
  148. Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, Hainsworth JD, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin: an active regimen for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3502–3508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  149. Glusker P, Recht L, Lane B. Reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome and bevacizumab. N Engl J Med 2006;354:980–982.[Free Full Text]
  150. Shellito PC, Clark JW, Willett CG, Caplan AP. Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Weekly clinicopathological exercises. Case 18–2004. A 61-year-old man with rectal bleeding and a 2-cm mass in the rectum. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2500–2509.[Free Full Text]
  151. Willett CG, Compton CC, Shellito PC, Efird JT. Selection factors for local excision or abdominoperineal resection of early stage rectal cancer. Cancer 1994;73:2716–2720.[CrossRef][Medline]
  152. Steele GD Jr, Herndon JE, Bleday R, et al. Sphincter-sparing treatment for distal rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:433–441.[CrossRef][Medline]
  153. Greenberg J, Bleday R. Local excision of rectal cancer oncologic results. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 2005;16:40–46.[CrossRef]
  154. Wirsing K, Lorenzo-Rivero S, Luchtefeld M, et al. Local excision of stratified T1 rectal cancer. Am J Surg 2006;191:410–412.[CrossRef][Medline]
  155. Douglass HO Jr, Moertel CG, Mayer RJ, et al. Survival after postoperative combination treatment of rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1294–1295.[Medline]
  156. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:709–715.[Abstract]
  157. Bentzen SM, Balslev I, Pedersen M, et al. A regression analysis of prognostic factors after resection of Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Does post-operative radiotherapy change the prognosis? Br J Cancer 1988;58:195–201.[Medline]
  158. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party. Randomised trial of surgery alone versus surgery followed by radiotherapy for mobile cancer of the rectum. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party. Lancet 1996;348:1610–1614.[CrossRef][Medline]
  159. Gerard A, Buyse M, Nordlinger B, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy as adjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. Final results of a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Ann Surg 1988;208:606–614.[Medline]
  160. Improved survival with preoperative radiotherapy in resectable rectal cancer. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. N Engl J Med 1997;336:980–987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  161. Frykholm GJ, Glimelius B, Pahlman L. Preoperative or postoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of the rectum: final treatment results of a randomized trial and an evaluation of late secondary effects. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:564–572.[CrossRef][Medline]
  162. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group. Adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic overview of 8,507 patients from 22 randomised trials. Lancet 2001;358:1291–1304.[CrossRef][Medline]
  163. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. N Engl J Med 1985;312:1465–1472.[Abstract]
  164. O'Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, et al. Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med 1994;331:502–507.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  165. Tepper JE, O'Connell MJ, Petroni GR, et al. Adjuvant postoperative fluorouracil-modulated chemotherapy combined with pelvic radiation therapy for rectal cancer: initial results of intergroup 0114. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2030–2039.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  166. Smalley S, Benedetti J, Williamson S, et al. Intergroup 0144—phase III trial of 5-FU based chemotherapy regimens plus radiotherapy (X) in postoperative adjuvant rectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:251.
  167. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rectal cancer: results from NSABP protocol R-01. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988;80:21–29.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  168. Wolmark N, Wieand HS, Hyams DM, et al. Randomized trial of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy for carcinoma of the rectum: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-02. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:388–396.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  169. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1731–1740.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anticancer ResHome page
J. C. KIM, S. A. ROH, D. H. CHO, T. W. KIM, S. N. YOON, C. W. KIM, C. S. YU, S. Y. KIM, and Y. S. KIM
Chemoresponsiveness Associated with Canonical Molecular Changes in Colorectal Adenocarcinomas
Anticancer Res, August 1, 2009; 29(8): 3115 - 3123.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
M. M. Bertagnolli, D. Niedzwiecki, C. C. Compton, H. P. Hahn, M. Hall, B. Damas, S. D. Jewell, R. J. Mayer, R. M. Goldberg, L. B. Saltz, et al.
Microsatellite Instability Predicts Improved Response to Adjuvant Therapy With Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Stage III Colon Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Protocol 89803
J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2009; 27(11): 1814 - 1821.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
A. Gondos, F. Bray, T. Hakulinen, H. Brenner, and the EUNICE Survival Working Group
Trends in cancer survival in 11 European populations from 1990 to 2009: a model-based analysis
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2009; 20(3): 564 - 573.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
S. A. Waldman, T. Hyslop, S. Schulz, A. Barkun, K. Nielsen, J. Haaf, C. Bonaccorso, Y. Li, and D. S. Weinberg
Association of GUCY2C Expression in Lymph Nodes With Time to Recurrence and Disease-Free Survival in pN0 Colorectal Cancer
JAMA, February 18, 2009; 301(7): 745 - 752.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
B. M. Wolpin, J. A. Meyerhardt, A. T. Chan, K. Ng, J. A. Chan, K. Wu, M. N. Pollak, E. L. Giovannucci, and C. S. Fuchs
Insulin, the Insulin-Like Growth Factor Axis, and Mortality in Patients With Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2009; 27(2): 176 - 185.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
K. Koyanagi, A. J. Bilchik, S. Saha, R. R. Turner, D. Wiese, M. McCarter, P. Shen, L. Deacon, D. Elashoff, and D. S.B. Hoon
Prognostic Relevance of Occult Nodal Micrometastases and Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer in a Prospective Multicenter Trial
Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2008; 14(22): 7391 - 7396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
I. Zlobec, L. M. Terracciano, and A. Lugli
Local Recurrence in Mismatch Repair-Proficient Colon Cancer Predicted by an Infiltrative Tumor Border and Lack of CD8+ Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes
Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 14(12): 3792 - 3797.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
E. C. de Bruin, C. J.H. van de Velde, J. H. J.M. van Krieken, C. A.M. Marijnen, and J. P. Medema
Epithelial Human Leukocyte Antigen-DR Expression Predicts Reduced Recurrence Rates and Prolonged Survival in Rectal Cancer Patients
Clin. Cancer Res., February 15, 2008; 14(4): 1073 - 1079.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer
Gianluigi Ferretti MD, PhD, et al.
CA Online, 6 Jul 2007 [Full text]
Authors’ response to the comments of Ferretti et al.
Brian M. Wolpin, MD, et al.
CA Online, 6 Jul 2007 [Full text]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Freely available CME: Take the course for this article:
 Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
Right arrow Submit a letter to the editor
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wolpin, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wolpin, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, R. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVECOVER ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS