User login
Key clinical point: Consolidation chemotherapy (CC) with 1-2 cycles of capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) without extending the interval between NCRT and surgery was safe and improved the complete response (CR) rate without improving long-term outcomes in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).
Major finding: After propensity matching, the CR rate was significantly higher in the group receiving vs not receiving CC after NCRT (27.6% vs 16.2%; P = .045); however, the 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival (P = .865), overall survival (P = .612), and grade ≥2 acute toxicity (P = .492) did not differ significantly between the groups.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 265 high-risk patients with LARC who either received (n = 136) or did not receive (n = 129) CC after NCRT.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research, and National Natural Science Foundation, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sheng XQ et al. Consolidation chemotherapy with capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: Propensity score study. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;14(9):1711-1726 (Sep 15). Doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711
Key clinical point: Consolidation chemotherapy (CC) with 1-2 cycles of capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) without extending the interval between NCRT and surgery was safe and improved the complete response (CR) rate without improving long-term outcomes in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).
Major finding: After propensity matching, the CR rate was significantly higher in the group receiving vs not receiving CC after NCRT (27.6% vs 16.2%; P = .045); however, the 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival (P = .865), overall survival (P = .612), and grade ≥2 acute toxicity (P = .492) did not differ significantly between the groups.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 265 high-risk patients with LARC who either received (n = 136) or did not receive (n = 129) CC after NCRT.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research, and National Natural Science Foundation, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sheng XQ et al. Consolidation chemotherapy with capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: Propensity score study. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;14(9):1711-1726 (Sep 15). Doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711
Key clinical point: Consolidation chemotherapy (CC) with 1-2 cycles of capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) without extending the interval between NCRT and surgery was safe and improved the complete response (CR) rate without improving long-term outcomes in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).
Major finding: After propensity matching, the CR rate was significantly higher in the group receiving vs not receiving CC after NCRT (27.6% vs 16.2%; P = .045); however, the 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival (P = .865), overall survival (P = .612), and grade ≥2 acute toxicity (P = .492) did not differ significantly between the groups.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study of 265 high-risk patients with LARC who either received (n = 136) or did not receive (n = 129) CC after NCRT.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research, and National Natural Science Foundation, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Sheng XQ et al. Consolidation chemotherapy with capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: Propensity score study. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;14(9):1711-1726 (Sep 15). Doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711