Comparative clinical efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of early-stage colon cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cassidy, Jim; Schmoll, Hans Joachim; Chu, Edward; Hawkins, Neil; Tatt, Iain; Saini, Jasmine; Urspruch, A.

doi:10.1200/jco.2011.29.4_suppl.498

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Advancements in CT have permitted accurate identification of high-risk T4 tumors [ 7 , 15 , 50 , 51 ]. There has been recognition that FOLFOX and XELOX perform similarly in adjuvant data, though the same has not been replicated in neoadjuvant settings [ 52 ]. Heterogeneity in outcomes may thus be more apparent in the context of comparing chemotherapy with concurrent radiation and/or antibody use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions and Outcomes for Neoadjuvant Treatment of T4 Colon Cancer: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While adjuvant treatment of colon cancers that penetrate the serosa (T4) have been well-established, neoadjuvant strategies have yet to be formally evaluated. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of eligibility criteria, treatment regimens, and primary outcomes for neoadjuvant approaches to T4 colon cancer. A librarian-led, systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 11 February 2020 was performed. Primary research evaluating neoadjuvant treatment in T4 colon cancer were included. Screening and data abstraction were performed in duplicate; analyses were descriptive or thematic. A total of twenty studies were included, most of which were single-arm, single-center, and retrospective. The primary objectives of the literature to date has been to evaluate treatment feasibility, tumor response, disease-free survival, and overall survival in healthy patients. Conventional XELOX and FOLFOX chemotherapy were the most commonly administered interventions. Rationale for selecting a specific regimen and for treatment eligibility criteria were poorly documented across studies. The current literature on neoadjuvant strategies for T4 colon cancer is overrepresented by single-center, retrospective studies that evaluate treatment feasibility and efficacy in healthy patients. Future studies should prioritize evaluating clear selection criteria and rationale for specific neoadjuvant strategies. Validation of outcomes in multi-center, randomized trials for XELOX and FOLFOX have the most to contribute to the growing evidence for this poorly managed disease.

show abstract