Combined intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy after curative resection for colonic adenocarcinoma

Establishment of an Experimental System for Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in a Rat Model

AIM

To establish an experimental system for comparing different methods of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a rat model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used six-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats, and created an early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) system using 18-gauge syringes and evacuators, and a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) system using two peristaltic pumps which controlled the flow rate and temperature. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was achieved using a nozzle for dispersing aerosols at a flow rate up to 41.5 ml/min. The distribution and intensity of 0.2% trypan blue dye was compared among three methods.

RESULTS

The distribution was limited and the intensity was weak after EPIC, and the dye stained moderately in gravity-dependent regions after HIPEC. On the other hand, the distribution was the most comprehensive, and the intensity was the greatest after PIPAC.

CONCLUSION

This experimental system in a rat model may reflect the comparative effect among EPIC, HIPEC and PIPAC in humans.

Recurrence Risk after Radical Colorectal Cancer Surgery-Less Than before, But How High Is It?

Simple Summary

Evidence indicates that recurrence risk after colon cancer today is less than it was when trials performed decades ago showed that adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk and prolong disease-free and overall survival. After rectal cancer surgery, local recurrence rates have decreased but it is unclear if systemic recurrences have. After a systematic review of available literature reporting recurrence risks after curative colorectal cancer surgery we report that the risks are lower today than they were in the past and that this risk reduction is not solely ascribed to the use of adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy always means overtreatment of many patients, already cured by the surgery. Fewer recurrences mean that progress in the care of these patients has happened but also that the present guidelines giving recommendations based upon old data must be adjusted. The relative gains from adding chemotherapy are not altered, but the absolute number of patients gaining is less.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy aims at eradicating tumour cells sometimes present after radical surgery for a colorectal cancer (CRC) and thereby diminish the recurrence rate and prolong time to recurrence (TTR). Remaining tumour cells will lead to recurrent disease that is usually fatal. Adjuvant therapy is administered based upon the estimated recurrence risk, which in turn defines the need for this treatment. This systematic overview aims at describing whether the need has decreased since trials showing that adjuvant chemotherapy provides benefits in colon cancer were performed decades ago. Thanks to other improvements than the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, such as better staging, improved surgery, the use of radiotherapy and more careful pathology, recurrence risks have decreased. Methodological difficulties including intertrial comparisons decades apart and the present selective use of adjuvant therapy prevent an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the decreased need. Furthermore, most trials do not report recurrence rates or TTR, only disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). Fewer colon cancer patients, particularly in stage II but also in stage III, today display a sufficient need for adjuvant treatment considering the burden of treatment, especially when oxaliplatin is added. In rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant treatment will be increasingly used, diminishing the need for adjuvant treatment.

Recurrence and cancer-specific death after adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage III colon cancer

AIM

The recommended standard of care for patients after resection of Stage III colon cancer is adjuvant 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy - FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin with oxaliplatin) - or CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin). This may be modified in older patients or depending on comorbidity. This has been challenged recently as the apparent benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may arise from improvements in surgery or preoperative imaging or pathology staging. This study compares recurrence and colon-cancer-specific death between patients who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not.

METHOD

Prospectively recorded data from 363 consecutive patients who had a resection for Stage III colonic adenocarcinoma between 1995 and 2010 inclusive were analysed. Surviving patients were followed for at least 5 years. The suitability of patients for chemotherapy was discussed routinely at multidisciplinary team meetings. The incidence of recurrence and colon-cancer-specific death was evaluated by competing risk methods.

RESULTS

After adjustment for the competing risk of non-colorectal cancer death, there was no significant difference in recurrence between the 204 patients who received chemotherapy and the 159 who did not [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.32, P = 0.700) and no significant difference in colon-cancer-specific death (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.04, P = 0.084; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57-1.36, P = 0.577 after adjustment for relevant covariates).

CONCLUSION

These findings question the routine use of chemotherapy after complete mesocolic excision for Stage III colon cancer. Recurrence and cancer-specific death, assessed by competing risk methods, should be the standard outcomes for evaluating the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy after potentially curative resection.

Standard Clinical Protocol for Bidirectional Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): Systemic Leucovorin, 5-Fluorouracil, and Heated Intraperitoneal Oxaliplatin in a Chloride-Containing Carrier Solution

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has an established role in the treatment of selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases. Oxaliplatin is highly suitable as a chemotherapeutic agent for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), but its use to date has been limited because of the morbidity caused by severe electrolyte and glycemic imbalances associated with 5% glucose as its carrier solution. This report provides an overview of the development, rationale, and application of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and the use of various drugs and carrier solutions. A novel, evidence-based protocol for bidirectional oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in a physiologic carrier solution (Dianeal PD4 dextrose 1.36%) is presented, and its impact on electrolyte and glucose levels is demonstrated.

METHODS

After implementation of the new protocol, the serum electrolyte (sodium, potassium, and chloride) levels, glucose levels, and intravenous insulin requirements were intensively measured in eight consecutive cases immediately before HIPEC (T = 0), immediately after HIPEC (T = 30), 1 h after HIPEC (T = 60), and 3 h after HIPEC (T = 180).

RESULTS

The median sodium levels were 140 mmol/L at T = 0, 138 mmol/L at T = 30, 140 mmol/L at T = 60, and 140 mmol/L at T = 180. The respective median potassium levels were 4.6, 4.2, 3.7, and 3.9 mmol/L, and the respective median chloride levels were 112, 111, 111, and 112 mmol/L. The respective median glucose levels were 9, 11.5, 10.7, and 8.6 mmol/L. The median insulin requirements were respectively 0.5, 1.5, 1.2, and 0 U/h. None of the patients were diabetic.

CONCLUSION

Using a novel protocol for bidirectional oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in Dianeal instead of 5% glucose, the observed fluctuations in this study were minimal and not clinically relevant compared with historical values for electrolyte and glycemic changes using 5% glucose as a HIPEC carrier solution. This novel protocol leads to only minimal and clinically irrelevant electrolyte and glycemic disturbances, and its adoption as the standard protocol for oxaliplatin-based HIPEC should be considered.

Adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage II colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is potentially curable by surgery. Although adjuvant chemotherapy benefits patients with stage III disease, there is uncertainty of such benefit in stage II colon cancer. A systematic review of the literature was performed to better define the potential benefits of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II colon cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of adjuvant therapy on overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Ovid MEDLINE (1986-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007), and EBM Reviews - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( to 2007) were searched using the medical headings "colonic neoplasms", "colorectal neoplasms", "adjuvant chemotherapy", "adjuvant radiotherapy" and "immunotherapy", and the text words "colon cancer" and "colonic neoplasms". In addition, proceedings from the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology (1996 to 2004) as well as personal files were searched for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials or meta-analyses containing data on stage II colon cancer patients undergoing adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

:Three reviewers summarized the results of selected studies. The main outcomes of interest were overall and disease-free survival, however, data on toxicity and treatment delivery were also recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

With regards to the effect of adjuvant therapy on stage II colon cancer, the pooled relative risk ratio for overall survival was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.05). With regards to disease-free survival, the pooled relative risk ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.75, 0.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no improvement in overall survival in the pooled analysis, we did find that disease-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer was significantly better with the use of adjuvant therapy. It seems reasonable to discuss the benefits of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with those stage II patients who have high risk features, including obstruction, perforation, inadequate lymph node sampling or T4 disease. The co-morbidities and likelihood of tolerating adjuvant systemic chemotherapy should be considered as well. There exists a need to further define which high-risk features in stage II colon cancer patients should be used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. Also, researchers must continue to search for other therapies which might be more effective, shorter in duration and less toxic than those available today.

A feasibility, pharmacokinetic and frequency-escalation trial of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in high risk gastrointestinal tract cancer

AIMS

To assess the feasibility, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerable frequency (MTF) of intraperitoneal (IP) 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) added, as a regional boost, to intravenous chemotherapy after resection of gastrointestinal cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients were recruited following gastrointestinal cancer resection (43 colon; 10 stomach/small bowel) with serosal involvement. Peritoneal ports were implanted and IP fluid distribution evaluated ultrasonically. Twelve patients were studied for pharmacokinetics; 44 (41 evaluable) for MTF. Treatment was weekly intravenous bolus FU/LV for 6 months; to this was added IP FU/LV (400/20 mg/m(2) in 1500 ml 4% icodextrin) with increasing frequency from 4 weekly to 1 weekly in four successive cohorts.

RESULTS

Peritoneal fluid distribution was excellent. Intraperitoneal FU exposure (AUC) after IP treatment was >1000-fold plasma AUC after IP treatment (regional pharmacokinetic advantage), and >100-fold plasma AUC after intravenous treatment (regional therapeutic advantage). IP therapy was well tolerated if given every 4, 3 or 2 weeks, but not weekly: 11/13, 7/8, 10/13 and 0/7 patients respectively completed treatment without IP modification in these cohorts. Problems with peritoneal access occurred in 20% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Adding fortnightly IP FU/LV to a standard intravenous regimen is safe, tolerable and provides high peritoneal FU exposure. More reliable peritoneal access is needed to improve the feasibility of this otherwise promising therapeutic approach.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a joint analysis of randomised trials by the Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumour Adjuvant Therapy Group

Due to uncertainties regarding clinically meaningful gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, several Nordic Groups in the early 1990s initiated randomised trials to prove or reject such gains. This report gives the joint analyses after a minimum 5-year follow-up. Between October 1991 and December 1997, 2 224 patients under 76 years of age with colorectal cancer stages II and III were randomised to surgery alone (n = 1 121) or adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 1 103) which varied between trials (5FU/levamisole for 12 months, n = 444; 5FU/leucovorin for 4-5 months according to either a modified Mayo Clinic schedule (n = 262) or the Nordic schedule (n = 397). Some centres also randomised patients treated with 5FU/leucovorin to+/-levamisole). A total of 812 patients had colon cancer stage II, 708 colon cancer stage III, 323 rectal cancer stage II and 368 rectal cancer stage III. All analyses were according to intention-to-treat. No statistically significant difference in overall survival, stratified for country or region, could be found in any group of patients according to stage or site. In colon cancer stage III, an absolute difference of 7% (p = 0.15), favouring chemotherapy, was seen. The present analyses corroborate a small but clinically meaningful survival gain from adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer stage III, but not in the other presentations.

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

PURPOSE

To develop a systematic review that would address the following question: Should patients with stage II colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy?

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to locate randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant therapy to observation.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials and 11 meta-analyses were included. The evidence for stage II colon cancer comes primarily from a trial of fluorouracil plus levamisole and a meta-analysis of 1,016 patients comparing fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus observation. Neither detected an improvement in disease-free or overall survival for adjuvant therapy. A recent pooled analysis of data from seven trials observed a benefit for adjuvant therapy in a multivariate analysis for both disease-free and overall survival. The disease-free survival benefits appeared to extend to stage II patients; however, no P values were provided. A meta-analysis of chemotherapy by portal vein infusion has also shown a benefit in disease-free and overall survival for stage II patients. A meta-analysis was conducted using data on stage II patients where data were available (n = 4,187). The mortality risk ratio was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P =.07).

CONCLUSION

There is preliminary evidence indicating that adjuvant therapy is associated with a disease-free survival benefit for patients with stage II colon cancer. These benefits are small and not necessarily associated with improved overall survival. Patients should be made aware of these results and encouraged to participate in active clinical trials. Additional investigation of newer therapies and more mature data from the presently available trials should be pursued.

Review article: non-systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of colorectal cancer-portal vein, hepatic arterial and intraperitoneal approaches

Loco-regional chemotherapy, an alternative to systemic chemotherapy in the management of colorectal cancer, has been evaluated in both adjuvant and palliative settings. The rationale for loco-regional delivery is to achieve higher dose concentrations of drugs at the tumour site or at the most common sites of tumour recurrence, while limiting systemic exposure and associated toxicity. Adjuvant intraportal chemotherapy and palliative hepa-tic arterial chemotherapy have been most extensively investigated. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has also been studied as an adjuvant treatment after complete resection of colorectal cancer or cytoreductive surgery in patients with established peritoneal carcinomatosis. The results obtained have been disappointing, and none of these procedures can be considered as a standard therapeutic option today. However, methodological difficulties were encountered in most published studies, and the investigated schedules and doses may not have been optimal. New combinations of cytotoxic drugs and new indications are currently under consideration. Promising results have recently been published for adjuvant intraperitoneal chemotherapy and hepatic arterial chemotherapy following surgical resection of hepatic metastases, but additional well-designed multicentre phase III trials are needed to determine the true benefits of these treatment modalities and to address the issues of cost and quality of life.

Adjuvant intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil in high-risk colon cancer: A multicenter phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of a prospective multicenter randomized study of adjuvant intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) administered during 6 days shortly after resection of stages II and III colon cancers.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Systemic adjuvant chemotherapy improves the survival of patients with stage III colon cancer receiving treatment for 6 months. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy theoretically combines peritoneal and hepatic effects.

METHODS

After resection, 267 patients were randomized into two groups. Patients in group 1 (n = 133) underwent resection followed by intraperitoneal administration of 5-FU (0.6 g/m2/day) for 6 days (day 4 to day 10). These patients also received intravenous 5-FU (1 g) during surgery. Patients in group 2 underwent resection alone (n = 134).

RESULTS

In group 1, 103 patients received the total dose, 18 received a partial dose as a result of technical or tolerance problems, and 12 did not receive the chemotherapy. Rates of surgical death and complications were similar in both groups. Tolerance to treatment was excellent or fair in 97% of the patients and poor in 3%. After a median follow-up of 58 months, 5-year overall survival rates were 74% in group 1 and 69% in group 2; disease-free survival rates were 68% and 62%, respectively. Survival curves were superimposed until 3 years after treatment and began diverging thereafter. Among patients receiving the full treatment, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was improved in the treatment group in patients with stage II cancers but was unchanged in patients with stage III cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy with intraperitoneal 5-FU administered during a short period after surgery was well tolerated but was not sufficient to reduce the risk of death significantly. However, it reduced the risk of recurrence in stage II cancers. These results suggest that it should be associated with systemic chemotherapy to reduce both local and distant recurrences.

[Multi-modal therapy concepts in gastrointestinal tumors]

A large variety of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment concepts were developed during the recent years to improve the results of gastrointestinal tumors. There exist generally accepted guidelines for adjuvant treatment of colon and rectal cancer, while for the tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract convincing results of randomized studies are still missing. Therefore ongoing and future studies have to find out, which patients could have a benefit from multimodal therapy.

Combined intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy with fluorouracil + leucovorin vs fluorouracil + levamisole for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma

Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil (FU) and levamisole or FU/leucovorin (LV) has been established as effective adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer. Among several other promising treatment strategies in resected colon cancer, intraperitoneal anti-cancer drug administration with its appealing rationale of counteracting microscopic residual disease on peritoneal surfaces and occult metachronous liver metastases by achieving high intraportal drug concentrations has not yet undergone sufficient clinical evaluation. To determine whether a combination of this locoregional therapeutic concept with systemic intravenous administration of FU/LV would yield better results than conventional adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with FU/levamisole, the present randomized study was initiated. A total of 241 patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II (T4N0M0) colon cancer were randomly assigned to 'standard therapy' with FU and levamisole, given for a duration of 6 months, or to an investigational arm, consisting of LV 200 mg m(-2) plus FU 350 mg m(-2), both administered intravenously (days 1-4) and intraperitoneally (days 1 and 3) every 4 weeks for a total of six courses. In patients with stage II disease, no significant difference was noted between the two arms after a median follow-up time of 4 years (range 2.5-6 years). Among 196 eligible patients with stage III disease, however, a comparative analysis of the two treatment groups suggested both an improvement in disease-free survival (P = 0.0014) and a survival advantage (P = 0.0005), with an estimated 43% reduction in mortality rate (95% confidence interval 26-70%) in favour of the investigational arm. In agreement with its theoretical rationale, combined intraperitoneal and intravenous FU/LV was particularly effective in reducing locoregional tumour recurrences with or without liver or other organ site involvement (9 vs 25 patients in the FU/levamisole arm; P = 0.005). Treatment-associated side-effects were infrequent and generally mild in both arms, although a lower rate of severe (WHO grade 3) adverse reactions was noted in patients receiving locoregional plus intravenous chemotherapy (3% vs 12%; P = 0.01). The results of this trial suggest that combined intraperitoneal plus systemic intravenous chemotherapy with FU/LV is a promising adjuvant treatment strategy in patients with surgically resected stage III colon carcinoma.

Pre-clinical evaluation of the Gastrimmune immunogen alone and in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in a rat colorectal cancer model

Mature and post-translational precursor gastrin forms are growth factors for colorectal tumours. The immunogen Gastrimmune is composed of the amino terminus of gastrin-17 linked to diphtheria toxoid and raises antibodies in situ which neutralise amidated and glycine-extended gastrin-17. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of treatment with 5-fluorouracil(5-FU)/leucovorin on the antibody titres induced by Gastrimmune and the effect of combination therapy on the growth of the rat colon tumour DHDK12. Gastrimmune was administered to rats s.c. at 3 weekly intervals. The rat colon tumour line DHDK12 was injected into the abdominal wall of BDIX rats. Combinations of 5-FU/leucovorin were injected i.v. on days 1, 3 and 5, with the cycle repeated every 4 weeks. Antibody titres were measured by an ELISA technique. Antibody titres were followed for 40 weeks after Gastrimmune (500 microg.ml(-1)) immunization, with titres peaking between 10 and 20 weeks after a single immunisation and falling by week 30. At termination, no effect was observed on either the histological appearance of the gastro-intestinal tract or the proliferation of the colonic mucosa. Pre- and post-treatment with 5-FU/leucovorin (30 mg.kg(-1)) had no effect on the kinetics and level of antibody response to Gastrimmune. Gastrimmune (200 microg.ml(-1)) and 5-FU/leucovorin combinations (12.5 and 20 mg.kg(-1)) increased the therapeutic effects on the in vivo growth of DHDK12 tumors when compared to the agents given singly. Gastrimmune immunisation may be a therapeutic option for the treatment of colorectal cancer in combination with 5-FU/leucovorin.

Adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer: present and future perspectives

In recent years, adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer has advanced considerably. This article reviews these advances and provides an update of the most recent and ongoing trials. In 1990, adjuvant therapy became the "standard of care" for patients with Stage III colon cancer (Dukes C) in the United States. Recent clinical trial data indicate that adjuvant treatment may also be effective in patients with Stage II (Dukes B2) colon cancer. The combination of 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin may slightly improve survival (5-10 percent) compared with the standard 5-fluorouracil plus levamisole combination. The three-drug regimen (5-fluorouracil plus levamisole plus leucovorin) is more toxic, with no superior effect on survival. Intraportal chemotherapy, although it may significantly improve patient survival, does not decrease the frequency of liver metastases. However, it is still a promising form of adjuvant therapy owing to its short treatment period and relatively equivalent effects in survival compared with that of systemic therapy. For patients with Stage II or Stage III rectal cancer, postoperative systemic 5-fluorouracil plus radiation therapy plus protracted venous 5-fluorouracil infusion is the most effective postoperative adjuvant regimen. However, results from several studies show that preoperative radiation alone or chemoradiation for advanced local rectal cancers might also be effective while also improving resectability, decreasing morbidity, and increasing the chance that a sphincter-sparing procedure may be performed. The role of leucovorin in rectal cancer remains to be determined. Immune therapies with agents such as interferon-alpha-2a, monoclonal antibody 17-1A, and autologous tumor vaccines are being assessed and could further improve survival.