title: Impact of the new AJCC staging system and adjuvant treatment in rectal cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The combination of chemoradiation and fluorouracil based chemotherapy has been the standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment outcome of patients classified by the new AJCC staging system and to compare treatment outcome of oral doxifluridine and the standard Mayo Clinic regimen after chemoradiation in advanced rectal cancer patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred nine patients underwent curative surgical resection and chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy. 45 Gy pelvic irradiation was given to the entire pelvis and the boost radiation with 50.4 to 54 Gy, and simultaneously 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 375 mg/m(2)/day was given on day 1 approximately 3 and 26 approximately 28. After the completion of chemoradiation, patients were given either 6 cycles of the Mayo Clinic regimen (5-FU 425 mg/m(2) plus leucovorin 20 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus infusion on day 1~5, every 4 weeks) or oral doxifluridine (600 mg/m(2)/day) for 1 year.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The median follow-up duration was 30 months. Among 102 evaluable patients, 38 patients (37.3%) relapsed: the locoregional recurrence in 10 patients (9.8%) and systemic relapse in 28 patients (27.5%). The systemic relapse rate was 15.6% in the stage IIA, 25.0% in the stage IIIB , and 59.1% in the stage IIIC (p=0.048). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was significantly higher in the IIA and IIIA patients than the IIIB and IIIC patients (72% and 100% vs 48.1% and 11.2%, respectively. p<0.001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was also significantly different between in the IIA/IIIA patients and the IIIB/IIIC (67.3%/100% vs 48.4%/22.3%. p<0.001). However, the difference in DFS or OS between the oral doxifluridine group and the Mayo Clinic regimen group was not significant. Cox regression multivariate analyses showed that the new AJCC stage and tumor differentiation were significant independent prognostic factors in DFS and OS.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These results support that the new AJCC staging system is superior to Dukes' staging system in the prognostic stratification. Regarding DFS and OS, oral doxifluridine is comparable to the standard Mayo Clinic regimen in rectal cancer patients when combined with postoperative chemoradiation. Stage IIIC patients should be selected for aggressive therapy as they have a dismal prognosis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea.
authors.forename: Shin Ae
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Hyuk-Chan
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Kwon
authors.forename: Min Ah
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Chang Kil
authors.initials: CK
authors.lastname: Jung
authors.forename: Sung-Hyun
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Ki-Jae
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Hong-Jo
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Choi
authors.forename: Hyung-Sik
authors.initials: HS
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Mee Sook
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Roh
authors.forename: Jae-Seok
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Hyo-Jin
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Kim
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 15;22(10):1778-84
references.pmid: 14769855
references.citation: Cancer Res. 1983 Jun;43(6):2525-8
references.pmid: 6221792
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2002 Oct;236(4):416-21; discussion 421
references.pmid: 12368669
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jan;15(1):110-5
references.pmid: 8996131
references.citation: Lancet. 1995 Apr 15;345(8955):939-44
references.pmid: 7715291
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1991 Mar 14;324(11):709-15
references.pmid: 1997835
references.citation: Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jan;31(1):25-9
references.pmid: 11256837
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2002 Apr 1;20(7):1744-50
references.pmid: 11919230
references.citation: Eur J Cancer (1965). 1980 Apr;16(4):427-32
references.pmid: 6447071
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Jun;180(6):705-12
references.pmid: 7773484
references.citation: Anticancer Drugs. 1998 Aug;9(7):599-602
references.pmid: 9773803
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988 Mar 2;80(1):21-9
references.pmid: 3276900
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1291-304
references.pmid: 11684209
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2001 Jan-Feb;51(1):15-36
references.pmid: 11577478
references.citation: Cancer. 2001 Dec 1;92(11):2754-9
references.pmid: 11753948
references.citation: JAMA. 1990 Sep 19;264(11):1444-50
references.pmid: 2202842
references.citation: Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1983 Jan;31(1):175-8
references.pmid: 6221809
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jan;16(1):301-8
references.pmid: 9440757
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):502-7
references.pmid: 8041415
references.citation: Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Apr;34(2):77-83
references.pmid: 26680846