2,842
Views
35
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review article/Acta Oncologica Young Investigator

Review on adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer – why do treatment guidelines differ so much?

, , , , &
Pages 437-446 | Received 29 Jun 2014, Accepted 26 Nov 2014, Published online: 22 Mar 2015
 

Abstract

Background. The use of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is controversial for rectal adenocarcinoma. Both international and national guidelines display a great span varying from recommending no adjuvant chemotherapy at all, over single drug 5-fluororuacil (5-FU), to combinations of 5-FU/oxaliplatin.

Methods. A review of the literature was made identifying 24 randomized controlled trials on adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer based on about 10 000 patients. The trials were subdivided into a number of clinically relevant subgroups.

Results. As regards patients treated with preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy, four randomized studies were found where use of adjuvant chemotherapy showed no benefit in survival. Three trials were found in which a subset of patients received preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy. Two of these trials showed a statistically significant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Twenty trials were identified in which the patients did not receive preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy, including five Asian studies in which a statistically significant benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was reported.

Conclusions. Most of the data found did not support the use of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients already treated with preoperative (chemo) radiotherapy. For patients not treated preoperatively, several studies support the use of single agent 5-FU chemotherapy. Treatment guidelines seem to differ according to if preoperative chemoradiation is considered of importance for use of adjuvant chemotherapy and if adjuvant colon cancer studies are considered transferrable to rectal cancer patients regardless of the molecular differences.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Supplementary material available online

Supplementary Appendix 1 available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0284186X.2014.993768

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.