from files of patients included 196 patients (male 101 patients and female 95 patients), the patients were arranged into two groups: group I included 96 patients received 5-FU concomitant with radiotherapy and group II included 103 patients received capecitabine concomitant with radiotherapy. The evaluated side effects were: anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hepatotoxicity, renal impairment, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, diarrhea, emesis, mucositis, alterations in taste, xerostomia, gingival bleeding, hypersensitivity reactions, pigmentary changes, alopecia, nail disorders, acral erythema. The collected data was revised, coded, tabulated and introduced to PC using statistical package for social science (SPSS 20.0 for windows; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, 2001). Suitable analysis was done according to the type of data obtained for each parameter. Results: The evaluated toxicities showed that there was a statistical significant difference with increase in number of patients who suffered from hypersensitivity reactions (p < 0.009) and alopecia (p < 0.005) in the group who received 5-Fu compared to Capecitabine group, while acral erythema was higher in the Capecitabine group (p < 0.001). The remaining toxicities were not statistical significantly higher in either groups. Conclusion: Capecitabine and 5-flurouracil have comparable toxicity profile but capecitabine offers the feasibility of being oral drug.P À 312 Role of consolidative radiation therapy after surgery in patients with stage IV rectal cancer l Hospital and Research Centre, Peshawar, Pakistan y (RT) and surgery are known to effectively palliate many ts with metastatic rectal cancer (mRC). However, whether RT survival benefit to mRC after surgery remains unclear.Program (SEER) database. Patient demographics between the RT were compared using Pearson Chi-Square tests. Propensity score and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to power of variables on cause-specific survival (CSS). of 5520 mRC patients who have received surgery were identified in SEER variable Cox regression analyses showed that RT was a protective factor of fter surgery in mRC patients (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 0.654, 95% confidence 0.607-0.704, p < 0.001). PS matching produced 3887 mRC patients and regression analyses indicated that RT was associated with a significant f CSS in mRC patients after surgery (HR ¼ 0.455, 95%CI¼0.422-0.491).SEER database, we have identified that RT was associated with a sigadvantage in the setting of mRC patients after surgery. This study the use of RT after surgery for patients with mRC. In order to accurole of RT in the comprehensive treatment for mRC patients, more are clearly needed to be conducted.rd hypofraction radiotherapy in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer v
