Article citationsMore>>

J. Gerard, D. Azria, S. Gourgou-Bourgade, I. Martel-Laffay, C. Hennequin, P. L. Etienne, V. Vendrely, E. Francois, G. de La Roche, O. Bouche, X. Mirabel, B. Denis, L. Mineur, J. F. Berdah, M. A. Mahe, Y. Becouarn, O. Dupuis, G. Lledo, C. Montoto-Grillot and T. Conroy, “Comparison of Two Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Regimens for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Results of the Phase III Trial ACCORD 12/0405-Prodige 2,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 28, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1638-1644. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: A Phase II Trial of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy with Oral DPD-Inhibitory Fluoropyrimidines in Patients with Advanced Rectal Cancer

  AUTHORS: Masanori Hotchi, Hiroshi Okitsu, Murato Miura, Madoka Hamada, Yasuhide Sonaka, Yoh Fukuda, Tsutomu Ando, Shinji Kuratate

  KEYWORDS: S-1; UFT; Chemoradiation; Rectal Cancer

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol.3 No.6A, November 30, 2012

  ABSTRACT: Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with 5-FU has been widely used to improve local control of disease and to preserve anal sphincter in the treatment of rectal cancer. UFT and S-1 as oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD)-inhibitory fluoropyrimidines enhance the therapeutic effect of 5-FU by modulating its metabolic pathways. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of CRT using UFT versus S-1 in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: Fifty-nine patients who received preoperative CRT (40 Gy radiotherapy) were randomly assigned to either UFT or S-1 groups. UFT and S-1 were administered during the radiotherapy course. Response to CRT was determined using a histopathologic examination and RECIST of surgically resected specimens and classified as responders (CR, PR and grade 2, 3) or nonresponders (SD, PD and grade 0, 1). Results: All patients were randomly allocated to S-1 group (n = 30) or UFT group (n = 29). Pathological response rate (Grade2 and Grade3) was 57% in the S-1 group and 45% in the UFT group (p = 0.36). Pathological complete response (CR) rate (Grade3) was 7% in the S-1 group and 4% in the UFT group (p = 0.98). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in regard to the response rate of RECIST (p = 0.52). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups based on the downstaging rate, resection of tumor, sphincter preservation and marginal invasion. The incidence of Grade 3 diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the S-1 group (7%) compared with the UFT group (0%) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The results supported the conclusion that CRT using UFT or S-1 is effective and feasible for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.