Adjuvant Postoperative Combined-Modality Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Oncology, ONCOLOGY Vol 13 No 7, Volume 13, Issue 7

A number of advances have been made in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer. Whereas pelvic radiation therapy has been shown to increase local control in patients with clinically resectable

ABSTRACT: A number of advances have been made in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer. Whereas pelvic radiation therapy has been shown to increase local control in patients with clinically resectable disease, systemic chemotherapy is needed in addition to further improve local control and overall survival. In this review, the experience treating patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer in the postoperative adjuvant setting will be examined. Data from ongoing and recently completed randomized trials as well as the design of innovative phase I/II programs will be discussed. [ONCOLOGY 7(Suppl 3):132-135, 1999]


For patients with T3 and/or nodepositive rectal cancer, postoperative combined-modality therapy significantly improves local control and survival. The focus of the Intergroup trials of postoperative combined radiation/chemotherapy has been the identification of the optimal chemotherapeutic agents and their method of administration. Data from ongoing and recently completed randomized trials in the postoperative setting will be discussed in this article. Preoperative chemotherapy in clinically resectable disease[1] and locally advanced/unresectable disease[2] has been previously reviewed and will not be examined here.

Postoperative Combined-Modality Therapy Rationale

The majority of patients with rectal cancer in the United States undergo surgery and, if necessary, receive postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation therapy. The most compelling benefit achieved with this approach is the opportunity for pathologic staging. Although advances in preoperative imaging techniques allow for more accurate patient selection than was previously possible, surgical staging still remains the most common approach to treatment. Disadvantages include an increased amount of small bowel in the radiation field,[3] a potentially hypoxic postsurgical bed, and, if the patient has undergone an abdominoperineal resection, extension of the radiation field to include the perineal scar.


Based on nonrandomized data, conventional doses of radiation alone (4,500 to 5,500 cGy) have been reported to decrease local failure to between 4% and 31% in patients with stage T3-4, N0, M0 rectal cancer and to between 8% and 53% in patients with stage T3-4, N1-2, M0 disease.[4-6] Data from five randomized trials failed to show improvement in overall survival when adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy was used alone in stages T3 and/or N1-2 rectal cancer,[7-13] although local failure rates decreased in two trials (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] R-01: 16% vs 25%, P = .06[7]; and the Medical Research Council: 21% vs 34%, P = .001[12]). Of the five trials, the NSABP is the only one in which radiation was delivered as a continuous course with full doses and modern techniques.

Randomized trials from the Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group (GITSG)[14] and Mayo/North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 79-47-51[15] revealed a significant improvement in local control (Mayo/NCCTG) and survival (GITSG and Mayo/NCCTG) among patients with rectal cancer who received postoperative radiation plus bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/semustine (MeCCNU). Based on these results, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute Consensus Conference concluded that combined-modality therapy is the standard postoperative adjuvant treatment for patients with T3 and/or N+ disease.[16] Since that time, Intergroup postoperative trials have focused on identifying the optimal chemotherapeutic agents and their methods of administration.

In a follow-up study to NCCTG 79-47-51, the Mayo/NCCTG designed a four-arm trial (86-47-51) to determine if MeCCNU benefits the treatment regimen and to compare the relative efficacy of bolus vs continuous-infusion 5-FU. Since MeCCNU did not improve local control or survival, it is no longer recommended for use in the adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer.[17]

Continuous Infusion vs Bolus

Compared with bolus 5-FU (±MeCCNU), patients who received continuous-infusion 5-FU experienced a significant decrease in overall tumor relapse rate (37% vs 47%, P = .01) and distant metastasis (31% vs 40%, P = .03), and realized an improvement in 4-year survival (70% vs 60%, P = .005). These data suggest that single-agent 5-FU is more effective as a continuous infusion than as a bolus when combined with radiation therapy. There also are differences in the acute toxicities of continuous-infusion and bolus 5-FU. For example, during combined-modality treatment, patients who received continuous-infusion 5-FU had significantly more grade 3+ diarrhea (24% vs 14%, P < .01) but significantly less grade 3+ leukopenia (2% vs 11%, P < .01) than did patients receiving bolus 5-FU.

Building on the positive results reported with continuous-infusion 5-FU, an Intergroup trial (INT 0144) was designed to determine whether there is benefit associated with postoperative continuous-infusion 5-FU throughout the complete chemotherapy course (six cycles) as compared with continuous-infusion only during the combined-modality segment (two cycles) and bolus 5-FU during the remaining four cycles. A control arm (arm 4) included bolus 5-FU/levamisole (Ergamisol). The trial opened in 1993 and is actively accruing patients.

The NSABP R-01 was a three-arm trial comparing outcome with postoperative MeCCNU/vincristine (Oncovin)/5-FU (MOF) vs radiation therapy vs surgery alone. The investigators reported a significant improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (42% vs 30%, P = .006) and overall survival (53% vs 43%, P = .05) among patients receiving postoperative MOF chemotherapy compared with those undergoing surgery alone.[7] The advantage in overall survival associated with chemotherapy was most evident in males (60% vs 37%), particularly males < 65 years of age (44% vs 26%). In contrast, chemotherapy was associated with a lower survival than surgery alone among treated women (37% vs 54%).

Randomized by Gender

The NSABP subsequently designed a four-arm trial (R-02) in which patients were randomized, depending on gender, to either MOF ± radiation or 5-FU/calcium folinate ± radiation. Preliminary analysis revealed a significant decrease in local failure in the two combined-modality therapy arms compared with chemotherapy alone (7% vs 11%, P = .045).[18] Median survival, however, did not improve. Other results are pending.

The most recent Intergroup trial was INT 0114.[19] In this four-arm trial, all patients received six cycles of postoperative chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy during cycles 3 and 4, with the goal of determining whether 5-FU–based combination chemotherapy (5-FU/low-dose calcium folinate vs 5-FU/levamisole vs 5-FU/calcium folinate/levamisole) is superior to single-agent 5-FU. At a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no significant differences in local control or survival between the four arms (Table 1). Although the total incidence of acute grade 3+ toxicity was similar for the four arms, there were differences between the regimens. The 5-FU arm had a higher incidence of hematologic toxicity, whereas the 5-FU/levamisole arm had a higher incidence of diarrhea.[19] A subset analysis revealed that women had a significantly greater incidence of acute grade 3+ toxicity than did men in all four arms. The reason for this difference in toxicity by gender is uncertain.

The adjuvant regimen of choice in the nonprotocol setting remains unclear. Given that results from the Mayo/NCCTG 86-47-51 trial suggested that continuous-infusion 5-FU is more effective than bolus 5-FU, regardless of modulation with calcium folinate, levamisole, or both (INT 0114), continuous-infusion 5-FU might seem the preferred regimen. A direct comparison of continuous-infusion 5-FU with bolus 5-FU/calcium folinate/levamisole in INT 0144 has not yet yielded results, however. Therefore, acceptable regimens for patients not enrolled in a clinical trial at this time include either continuous-infusion 5-FU or bolus 5-FU plus modulation with calcium folinate. These regimens probably have equal efficacy and the choice of a regimen should be based on factors such as their acute toxicity profiles and patient compliance.

Combined-Modality Therapy With New Chemotherapeutic Agents

Among the new chemotherapeutic agents with activity in colorectal cancer either in development or approved by the Food and Drug Administration are CPT-11 (Camptosar), raltitrexed (Tomudex), trimetrexate (Neutrexin), oxaliplatin, and UFT plus oral calcium folinate (Orzel).[20-23] Clinical phase I and II trials examining the combination of some of these agents with pelvic radiation are under way.[24,25] Marsh et al have combined chronobiologically shaped 5-FU infusion with preoperative radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with unresectable disease.[26]

Postoperative UFT/Calcium Folinate Plus Radiation Therapy

A phase I dose-escalation trial of postoperative treatment with UFT/oral calcium folinate plus concurrent radiation therapy for patients with primary or recurrent rectal or colon cancer has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (Figure 1). The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy of the oral regimen of UFT/oral calcium folinate (Orzel) with a continuous-infusion 5-FU–based regimen in combined-modality therapy. The doses and schedules of drugs are similar to those used in current Intergroup postoperative adjuvant rectal trials. Patients receive two cycles of 5-FU–based chemotherapy, followed by two cycles concurrent with pelvic radiation and a 4-week rest, after which two additional cycles are administered.

Since the schedule of chemotherapy with UFT/oral calcium folinate (28 days of daily treatment followed by a 1-week rest) is different from both bolus and continuous-infusion 5-FU–based regimens, modifications have been made to reflect these differences. Two separate determinations of the maximum tolerated dose will be made. First, the maximum tolerated dose of UFT (tegafur and uracil) with fixed doses of oral calcium folinate and concurrent radiation will be defined. Then the maximum tolerated dose of UFT with fixed doses of oral calcium folinate following completion of concurrent UFT/oral calcium folinate and radiation therapy will be determined.

During cycle 1 (before radiation therapy), chemotherapy is delivered at the full recommended dose with no dose escalation: calcium folinate 25 mg orally (po) every 8 hours, concurrent with each UFT dose of 300 mg/m²/day for 28 consecutive days. Each cycle is followed by a 1-week rest. During chemotherapy cycle 2 (with radiation therapy), the calcium folinate dose is fixed at 25 mg po every 8 hours and is given concurrently with each UFT dose, which begins lower than the recommended dose at 175 mg/m²/day po in divided doses every 8 hours for 28 consecutive days followed by a 2-week rest.

Since the maximum tolerated dose of UFT/oral calcium folinate may be different when given with concurrent radiation compared with postirradiation, the maximum tolerated dose of UFT/oral calcium folinate is determined during cycle 2 (MTD 1) independently of cycles 3 to 5 of chemotherapy (MTD 2). To determine each maximum tolerated dose, radiation and calcium folinate doses are kept constant and the UFT dose alone is increased 50 mg/m²/day with each subsequent level until the maximum tolerated dose is reached. The trial is open to accrual.

Adjuvant Therapy Following Total Mesorectal Resection

Some physicians contend that if patients undergo more extensive surgery, postoperative adjuvant therapy is not necessary. In one series, total mesorectal excision, involving sharp dissection around the integral mesentery of the hind gut, decreased the local recurrence rate to 5%.[27] These data must be interpreted with caution, however, because they derive from personal series, include highly selected patients, and the procedure allows the identification and exclusion of patients with more advanced disease.

In comparison, patients treated in the adjuvant trials usually did not receive mesorectal excision.[28,29] Furthermore, some patients received adjuvant radiation therapy ± chemotherapy (ie, 28% in the series from Enker et al[30] and 18% in the series by Haas-Kock et al[31]). Total mesorectal excision also may be associated with higher complication rates. In the Basingstoke Hospital experience, 16% of 219 patients who underwent a total mesorectal resection had anastomotic leaks.[32] In the series from Aitken, operative deaths were excluded from the analysis.[33]

Although total mesorectal excision is controversial, advocates of the procedure have increased awareness of the importance of surgical technique. Careful surgical techniques are central to the successful management of rectal cancer. However, they should be considered a valuable component of therapy, not competitive with adjuvant therapy. The relative benefits and risks of total mesorectal excision (focusing on local control, survival, sphincter preservation and function, surgical morbidity and mortality, and quality of life) need to be more carefully defined.


The standard management of patients with T3 and/or N1-3 rectal cancer is postoperative combined-modality therapy, including six cycles of 5-FU–based chemotherapy and concurrent pelvic irradiation during cycles 3 and 4. Ongoing trials will help determine the ideal chemotherapeutic agents and methods of administration.


1. Minsky BD: Adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: Results and controversies. Oncology 12:1129-1139, 1998.

2. Minsky BD: Management of locally advanced/unresectable rectal cancer. Radiat Oncol Investig 3:97-107, 1995.

3. Minsky BD, Conti JA, Huang Y, et al: The relationship of acute gastrointestinal toxicity and the volume of irradiated small bowel in patients receiving combined modality therapy for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1409-1416, 1995.

4. Willett CG, Tepper JE, Kaufman DS, et al: Adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 15:371-375, 1992.

5. Romsdahl MM, Withers HR: Radiotherapy combined with curative surgery: Its use as therapy for carcinomas of the sigmoid colon and rectum. Arch Surg 113:446-453, 1978.

6. Vigliotti A, Rich TA, Romsdahl MM, et al: Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:999-1006, 1987.

7. 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 80:21-29, 1988.

8. Balslev I, Pedersen M, Teglbjaerg PS, et al: Postoperative radiotherapy in Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid: A randomized multicenter study. Cancer 58:22-28, 1986.

9. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group: Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 312:1465-1472, 1985.

10. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group: Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer: Results of a prospectively randomized trial. N Engl J Med 310:737-743, 1984.

11. Arnaud JP, Nordlinger B, Bosset JF, et al: Radical surgery and postoperative radiotherapy as combined treatment in rectal cancer. Final results of a phase III study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Br J Surg 84:352-357, 1997.

12. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party: Randomized trial of surgery alone vs surgery followed by post-operative radiotherapy for mobile cancer of the rectum. Lancet 348:1610-1615, 1996.

13. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party: Randomized trial of surgery alone versus radiotherapy followed by surgery for potentially operable, locally advanced rectal cancer. Lancet 348:1605-1609, 1996.

14. Douglass HO, Moertel CG, Mayer RJ, et al: Survival after postoperative combination treatment of rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 315:1294-1295, 1986.

15. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al: Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324:709-715, 1991.

16. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference: Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA 264:1444-1450, 1990.

17. O’Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Weiand HS, et al: Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med 331:502-507, 1994.

18. Rockette H, Deutsch M, Petrelli N, et al: Effect of postoperative radiation therapy (RTX) when used with adjuvant chemotherapy in Dukes’ B and C rectal cancer: Results from NSABP-R02. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:193, 1994.

19. 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 15:2030-2039, 1997.

20. Pitot HC, Wender DB, O’Connell MJ, et al: Phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 15:2910-2919, 1997.

21. Cunningham D, Zalcberg JR, Rath U, et al: Final results of a randomised trial comparing “Tomudex” (raltitrexed) with 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 7:961-965, 1996.

22. Saltz LB, Leichman CG, Young CW, et al: A fixed-ratio combination of uracil and ftorafur (UFT) with low-dose leucovorin. Cancer 75:782-785, 1995.

23. DeMario MD, Ratain MJ: Oral chemotherapy: Rationale and future directions. J Clin Oncol 16:2557-2567, 1998.

24. Botwood N, James R, Vernon C, et al: A phase I study of “Tomudex” (raltitrexed) with radiotherapy (RT) as adjuvant treatment in patients (pt) with operable rectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:277a, 1998.

25. Rich TA, Kirichenko AV: Camptothecin radiation sensitization: Mechanisms, schedules, and timing. Oncology (Basel) 12:114-119, 1998.

26. Marsh RW, Chu NM, Vauthey JN, et al: Preoperative treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable rectal adenocarcinoma utilizing continuous chronobiologically shaped 5-fluorouracil infusion and radiation therapy. Cancer 78:217-225, 1996.

27. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ: Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 341:457-460, 1993.

28. Hida JH, Yasutomi M, Maruyama T: Lymph node metastasis detected in the mesorectum distal to carcinoma of the rectum by the clearing method: Justification of total mesorectal excision. J Am Coll Surg 184:584-580, 1997.

29. Arenas RB, Fichera A, Mhoon D, et al: Total mesenteric excision in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. A prospective study. Arch Surg 133:608-612, 1998.

30. Enker WE, Thaler HT, Cranor ML, et al: Total mesorectal excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg 181:335-345, 1995.

31. Haas-Kock DFM, Baeten CGMI, Jager JJ, et al: Prognostic significance of radial margins of clearance in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 83:781-785, 1996.

32. Carlsen E, Schlichting E, Guldvog I, et al: Effect of the introduction of total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:526-529, 1998.

33. Aitken RJ: Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 83:214-216, 1996.