Phase ii study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin given prior to and concurrently with preoperative pelvic radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

ABSTRACT This multicentre phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of preoperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

(T3/T4 rectal adenocarcinoma with or without nodal involvement). Treatment consisted of one cycle of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 bid on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 on day 1),

followed by RT (1.8 Gy fractions 5 days per week for 5 weeks) plus CAPOX (capecitabine 825 mg m−2 bid on days 22–35 and 43–56, and oxaliplatin 50 mg m−2 on days 22, 29, 43 and 50). Surgery

was recommended 5 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. The primary end point was pathological complete tumour response (pCR). Sixty patients were enrolled. In the intent-to-treat

population, the pCR rate was 23% (95% CI: 13–36%). 58 patients underwent surgery; R0 resection was achieved in 57 (98%) patients, including all 5 patients with T4 tumours. Sphincter

preservation was achieved in 49 (84%) patients. Tumour and/or nodal downstaging was observed in 39 (65%) patients. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20%) and

lymphocytopaenia (43%). Preoperative capecitabine, oxaliplatin and RT achieved encouraging rates of pCR, R0 resection, sphincter preservation and tumour downstaging in patients with locally

advanced rectal cancer. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIOTHERAPY WITH CAPECITABINE VERSUS CAPECITABINE PLUS OXALIPLATIN FOR LOCALLY

ADVANCED RECTAL CANCER Article Open access 27 July 2020 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PD-1 BLOCKADE PLUS LONG-COURSE CHEMORADIOTHERAPY IN LOCALLY ADVANCED RECTAL CANCER (NECTAR): A MULTI-CENTER

PHASE 2 STUDY Article Open access 11 March 2024 A PHASE II RANDOMISED TRIAL OF INDUCTION CHEMOTHERAPY FOLLOWED BY CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY IN LOCALLY ADVANCED PANCREATIC CANCER: THE

TAIWAN COOPERATIVE ONCOLOGY GROUP T2212 STUDY Article 17 December 2021 MAIN In recent years, considerable progress has been made in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, mainly

due to improvements in the type and quality of surgery, better staging methods and regular use of chemoradiation (CRT) or radiation therapies. Although the use of preoperative CRT for

resectable rectal cancer remains a controversial issue, preoperative CRT is clearly preferred when tumour shrinkage is required before surgery, that is, in locally advanced T4 disease and

low-lying tumours when sphincter preservation is attempted (Sauer et al, 2004; Bosset et al, 2006; Gérard et al, 2006). Furthermore, preoperative CRT improves local disease control with less

toxicity compared with postoperative CRT (Sauer et al, 2004). Many attempts have been made to increase the convenience and activity of preoperative 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based CRT. Evidence

from phase II trials suggests that the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (Xeloda®; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) has similar activity to that of protracted 5-FU infusional

CRT regimens (Glynne-Jones et al, 2006a). Combining different chemotherapy agents, such as oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with fluoropyrimidines has a clear rationale based on a plethora of data

in the metastatic colorectal setting and the potential to further improve efficacy in patients receiving preoperative CRT. Oxaliplatin (Eloxatin®; Sanofi-Aventis, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) is

an ideal candidate for inclusion into neoadjuvant CRT regimens because of its radiosensitising capabilities and synergy with fluoropyrimidines. Capecitabine has been tested in combination

with oxaliplatin and radiotherapy in several different regimens (for review see Glynne-Jones et al, 2006a). These include continuous capecitabine (7 days per week) with oxaliplatin given on

days 1 and 29 (Glynne-Jones et al, 2006c), continuous capecitabine (5 days per week) with weekly doses of oxaliplatin (Machiels et al, 2005; Rutten et al, 2006) and discontinuous

capecitabine (days 1–14 and 22–35) with oxaliplatin on days 1, 8, 22 and 29 (Roedel et al, 2003, 2007). The aim of the present multicentre phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy,

tolerability and feasibility of preoperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in combination with radiotherapy as described by Roedel et al (2003, 2007), and to investigate the contribution of

an additional single cycle of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX regimen) (Díaz-Rubio et al, 2002; Cassidy et al, 2004) before the start of radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS

PATIENT POPULATION Patients entering the study had histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma. Evidence of T3 or T4 disease with or without perirectal nodal involvement by endorectal

ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis was required. Further inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2 and adequate

haematological (neutrophils ⩾1.5 × 109 l−1 and platelets ⩾100 × 109 l−1), renal (calculated creatinine clearance >50 ml min−1) and liver function (serum bilirubin ⩽1.5 upper limit of

normal range, liver transaminase or alkaline phosphatase concentrations ⩽2.5 upper limit of normal range). No upper age limit was defined. Exclusion criteria were metastatic disease,

previous chemotherapy for colorectal cancer or prior radiotherapy to the pelvis, history of another malignancy within the last 5 years, any contraindication to radiotherapy, clinically

significant cardiac disease, malabsorption syndrome, peripheral neuropathy ⩾grade 1 according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTC version

3.0), serious uncontrolled infection, concomitant treatment with any nucleoside analogue, known dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency and psychiatric disorders or conditions interfering

with compliance for oral drug intake. Pregnant or lactating woman were excluded. All patients provided written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by a local independent

ethics committee and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. PRETREATMENT EVALUATION Before study entry, all patients were assessed by a multidisciplinary team comprising

medical, radiation and surgical oncologists, gastroenterologists and radiologists. Patients underwent a medical history, physical examination, biopsy, ECG and staging studies (chest X-ray,

abdominal–pelvis computed tomography scan, colonoscopy and endorectal ultrasound). Pelvic MRI was optional but recommended for all patients with low-lying or T4 tumours. Complete laboratory

tests included a full blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, liver transaminases, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin and carcinoembryonic antigen measurement. TREATMENT RADIOTHERAPY

Megavoltage equipment was used with 6–18 MV. Radiotherapy was delivered through three to four portal fields to the tumour and lymphonodal regions, and perirectal soft tissue structures at

risk of microscopic disease. All patients received 45 Gy, with a daily fraction of 1.8 Gy given 5 days per week for 5 consecutive weeks. If treatment was interrupted, the dose was increased

by 1–2 fractions. CHEMOTHERAPY Treatment consisted of a single cycle of XELOX (oral capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 twice daily on days 1–14 plus a 2-h intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin 130 mg 

m−2 on day 1), followed by CAPOX combined with RT (capecitabine 825 mg m−2 twice daily on days 22–35 and 43–56, and oxaliplatin 50 mg m−2 on days 22, 29, 43 and 50; Figure 1). Chemotherapy

and radiotherapy were interrupted if grade 3 or 4 toxicity was encountered (except for anaemia). Study treatment was restarted when toxicity had resolved to grade ⩽1. Dose reductions were

required after grade 3–4 toxicity. If treatment was delayed for longer than 3 weeks, the patient was withdrawn from the study. SURGERY Five to six weeks after completion of CRT, total

mesorectal excision (TME) with sphincter preservation was performed whenever feasible according to standardised technique as the preferred type of radical resection. Assessment of the

intended surgical procedure (TME or abdominoperineal resection) was performed by the treating surgeon before registration. Administration of adjuvant chemotherapy was left to the treating

oncologist's discretion. EVALUATION OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY The extent of residual tumour in the resected specimen was classified according to the TNM staging system of the American

Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer (AJCC/UICC). Semiquantitative evaluation of histological regression was performed according to the grading criteria established

by Mandard et al (1994) and Dworak et al (1997) in oesophageal carcinomas, which was subsequently adapted by Bouzourene et al (2002) (see Table 1 for summary). At each site, one preselected

pathologist evaluated the tumour tissue of all patients participating in the study. A second-opinion pathology review was performed in all tumours categorised as Dworak grade 2 or 3 by a

pathologist from another centre participating in the study. Safety was assessed through documenting adverse events and clinical laboratory tests performed at screening, during treatment and

the surgery period. Adverse events were graded using NCI CTC version 3.0. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The intent-to-treat population (ITT) consisted of all patients who received at least one dose

of study medication whether or not they were eligible. All efficacy analyses were performed on this population. Patients not undergoing surgery or who were not evaluable for response were

considered nonresponders. The safety population consisted of patients who received at least one dose of any study drug and who had a baseline assessment and at least one safety follow-up.

The primary end point was pathological complete tumour response (pCR) prospectively defined as grade 3 or 4 according to the Dworak classification (DC) system (Dworak et al, 1997). The pCR

rate was presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Pearson–Clopper method. Secondary end points were rate of sphincter preservation, R0 resection in patients with T4 tumours,

downstaging (defined as a decrease of ⩾1 point(s) in T and/or N value) and safety. An exploratory analysis using the Fisher exact test was performed to test for an association between the

presence and absence of a complete tumour response (DC grade 3/4 _vs_ 0/1/2), and site, location and size of primary tumour at screening, u/cTNM classification at screening, time between

radiotherapy and surgery (⩽40 _vs_ >40 days), age (⩽60 _vs_ >60 years) and treatment-related lymphocytopaenia. This study was designed as a one-stage phase II trial using pCR rate as

the primary efficacy criterion. A pCR of 22% was considered acceptable and a rate of ⩽7% was ruled out as futile. With a total of 48 evaluable patients (and a response rate of at least 22%),

a power of 86% and a type-I error of 4.8% was achieved. The planned sample size was increased to 60 patients to allow for dropouts. RESULTS PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS A total of 60 patients

were enrolled between March 2005 and July 2006 from six cancer centres in Switzerland. Patient characteristics are summarised in Table 2. All 60 patients were included in the safety and ITT

populations, including 2 patients who were ineligible (one patient because of cT2 rectal cancer, and the other patient because of an urothelial cancer 4 years before the start of the study).

Fifty-eight patients (97% of all recruited patients) received CRT and underwent surgery; one patient withdrew consent and one patient died prior to surgery. DOSE INTENSITY AND SAFETY

Fifty-five patients (92%) received all three cycles of capecitabine (mean relative dose intensity 97%), and 52 patients (87%) received all five planned oxaliplatin doses (mean relative dose

intensity 97%). The mean relative dose intensity for capecitabine was 98% during XELOX and 96% during CAPOX-RT. For oxaliplatin, the mean relative dose intensity was 99% during XELOX and 93%

during CAPOX-RT. Fifty-six patients (93%) received at least 25 fractions (45 Gy) of radiotherapy as planned. Table 3 summarises grade 3/4 treatment-related nonhaematological toxicities

presented per treatment regimen (XELOX _vs_ CAPOX-RT). The most frequently occurring grade 3/4 adverse event was diarrhoea (20%); all other grade 3/4 events were uncommon (⩽5%). No grade 3/4

haematological toxicity was observed, except for lymphocytopaenia (43%). At least one serious adverse event was recorded in eight patients (13%) during the study. A total of 12 serious

adverse events (20%) were reported, the most common of which were diarrhoea (_n_=5) and colitis or proctitis (_n_=2). One patient developed severe neutropaenic infection and died on day 19

after the start of neoadjuvant XELOX. Four patients (7%) had one adverse event leading to discontinuation of capecitabine, and three patients (5%) had adverse events leading to

discontinuation of oxaliplatin. No patient required discontinuation of radiotherapy. EFFICACY AND SURGICAL PARAMETERS Surgery was performed in a total of 58 patients (TME in 47 patients

(81%), abdominoperineal extirpation in 9 patients (16%) and other type of surgery in 2 patients (3%)). The median time between the end of radiotherapy and surgery was 42 days (range: 24–59

days). In 57 patients (98%), including all 5 patients with c/uT4 tumours, R0 resection was achieved and sphincter preservation was achieved in 49 patients (84%). Comparing the baseline

tumour stage with the pathological stage in the ITT population, downstaging with respect to tumour stage was observed in 28 (47%) patients, and downstaging with respect to nodal stage was

observed in 29 (48%) patients. A detailed analysis is shown in Table 4. In the ITT population, complete tumour regression (ypT0 N0, DC regression grade 4) was achieved in seven patients. An

additional seven patients showed near-complete regression (DC regression grade 3) with only very few detectable tumour cells as assessed by two independent pathologists. According to

predefined criteria, the pCR rate was therefore 23% (95% CI: 13–36%). The corresponding pCR rate according to the Mandard regression grading system (grades 1 and 2) was 27% (grade 1, seven

patients; grade 2, nine patients). A second-opinion review of all specimens rated as DC grade 2 or 3 was necessary in 33 cases (57%). After the second opinion, the final DC grading remained

the same in 27 cases (82%), downgrading was deemed necessary in 5 cases (15%) and upgrading in 1 case (3%). Both tumour regression scales were compared using the final DC grades and Mandard

grades. The scales seemed to correspond well; all patients with DC grade 0 reported Mandard-tumour regression (M-TR) grade 5, 90% of patients with DC grade 1 reported M-TR grade 4, 74% of

patients with DC grade 2 reported M-TR grade 3, 86% of patients with DC grade 3 reported M-TR grade 2 and all patients with DC grade 4 reported M-TR grade 1. According to an exploratory

subgroup analysis, only upper location of the primary tumour (between 10 and 12 cm from anal verge) was found to be negatively correlated with pCR (_P_=0.0504). DISCUSSION Pathological

complete tumour response rates between 10 and 30% have been observed with combined preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy protocols. Pathological complete tumour response is a reliable

and reproducible surrogate for tumour response and is linked to improved outcome (Roh et al, 2004; Roedel et al, 2005). Although achievement of a pCR is not the primary goal of neoadjuvant

therapy, it has become a commonly used end point in many phase II trials aiming to improve the efficacy of rectal cancer treatment. In the present trial, we are able to demonstrate a pCR in

23% of patients, defined as grades 3 and 4 according to the Dworak classification (Dworak et al, 1997) following preoperative therapy with a single cycle of XELOX and two further cycles of

CAPOX given with radiotherapy. Recently, several different tumour regression scales (Mandard et al, 1994; Dworak et al, 1997; Bouzourene et al, 2002; Wheeler et al, 2004) have been proposed

for the measurement of regression after preoperative therapies independent of the ypTNM stage. Besides several differences in categorisation of tumour regression, all of the scales

acknowledge a distinctive group of tumours with only microscopic foci of remaining tumour cells. We have grouped patients with sterilised primary tumours and lymph nodes (DC grade 4)

together with DC grade 3 tumours. This is based on the observation that single residual tumour cells confer a significantly lower local relapse rate and a better prognosis (Wheeler et al,

2004) than tumours with remaining dominant disease. The second-opinion review was used for all specimens rated to be either DC grade 2 or 3 by the first pathologist. A high concordance rate

between independent pathologists of 82% suggests a reasonable capability to discriminate between very few and difficult-to-find tumour cells (DC grade 3) from easy-to-find few tumour cells

or groups of tumour cells (DC grade 2). In addition, applying the regression grading classification of Mandard et al (1994) adapted for rectal cancer (Bouzourene et al, 2002) and combining

Mandard's grade 1 (absence of residual tumour cells) and grade 2 (rare residual tumour cells), complete tumour response was achieved in 27% of patients. These almost identical results

from two different scoring systems indicate a high reproducibility in defining near-complete and complete sterilisation of tumour cells. Furthermore, and an important point with regard to

prognosis, we observed nodal downstaging in 48% of patients. The number of tumour-infiltrated lymph nodes (ypN status) following preoperative radiochemotherapy is a strong and independent

prognostic factor for survival. Sterilising lymph nodes reflects the impact of effective neoadjuvant treatment and consistently translates into improved long-term outcome (Bouzourene et al,

2002; Chan et al, 2005; Chapet et al, 2005; Roedel et al, 2005). In 98% of the 58 patients who underwent surgery and in all patients with T4 rectal cancer, R0 resection was possible.

Sphincter preservation was achieved in 84% of patients. This appears remarkable as 35% of our patients had low-lying tumours (0–5 cm from anal verge). The most common nonhaematological

toxicity in our trial was grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea, which occurred overall in 20% of patients (10% during XELOX and 10% during CAPOX-RT). This rate is slightly higher than that reported by

Roedel et al (2003, 2007) and suggests that the additional cycle of XELOX increased the toxicity of preoperative CRT. All other toxicities were in the range of other trials with the

exception of grade 3 or 4 lymphocytopaenia. Lymphocytopaenia is a negative prognostic factor in cancer patients and can be induced by either chemotherapy or pelvic radiotherapy. Decline in

total lymphocyte counts is obviously an underreported toxicity and seems to be negatively correlated with tumour regression following pelvic radiotherapy (Lissoni et al, 2005). The addition

of a single chemotherapy cycle before CRT does not appear to have substantially enhanced the overall antitumour activity and should, therefore, not be considered as an important treatment

element. In our trial, we added this chemotherapy cycle primarily to assure early start of therapy. Even though many patients reported improvement in symptoms before starting CRT (data not

shown), we did not consider achieving a relevant downsizing effect with a single chemotherapy cycle. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to preoperative CRT in rectal cancer patients

is a matter of debate (Glynne-Jones and Sebag-Montefiore, 2006; Glynne-Jones et al, 2006b) primarily because satisfactory local control rates can be achieved with preoperative CRT alone.

Chau et al (2006) questioned this position by adding four cycles of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin before CRT with capecitabine in their trial. Most patients (86%) had symptomatic

responses, and the radiological response rate measured by MRI was 88%. Pathological complete tumour response was achieved in 24% of patients, which is clearly superior to the 11% DC

regression grade 4 in our trial. However, 4 out of 77 patients died during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the absence of a randomised phase III trial proving superior outcome, the addition of

primary chemotherapy to CRT should be only used in the context of clinical trials. A different treatment strategy, in an attempt to increase the quantity of systemic treatment, was studied

by Roedel et al (2007). After preoperative capecitabine/oxaliplatin radiotherapy, 60% of patients received all four cycles of adjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin underlining the feasibility of

delivering adequate doses of postoperative combination chemotherapy in rectal cancer patients. In conclusion, we demonstrated that preoperative XELOX followed by CAPOX-RT is feasible with

manageable toxicity and results in encouragingly high rates of pCR, R0 resection, sphincter preservation and tumour downstaging in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. More

importantly, we were able to replicate, and thus confirm the findings from Roedel et al (2003, 2007) in a multicentre setting in Switzerland. CHANGE HISTORY * _ 16 NOVEMBER 2011 This paper

was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication _ REFERENCES * Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, Mineur L, Maingon P,

Radosevic-Jelic L, Daban A, Bardet E, Beny A, Ollier JC (2006) Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. _N Engl J Med_ 355: 1114–1123 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Bouzourene H, Bosman FT, Seelentag W, Matter M, Coucke P (2002) Importance of tumor regression assessment in predicting the outcome of patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma who are

treated with preoperative radiotherapy. _Cancer_ 94: 1121–1130 Article  Google Scholar  * Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Twelves C, Brunet R, Butts C, Conroy T, Debraud F, Figer A, Grossmann J,

Sawada N, Schöffski P, Sobrero A, Van Cutsem E, Díaz-Rubio E (2004) XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. _J Clin

Oncol_ 22: 2084–2091 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Chan AK, Wong A, Jenken D, Heine J, Buie D, Johnson D (2005) Posttreatment TNM staging is a prognostic indicator of survival and

recurrence in tethered or fixed rectal carcinoma after preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy. _Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys_ 61: 665–677 Article  Google Scholar  * Chapet O, Romestaing

P, Mornex F, Souquet JC, Favrel V, Ardiet JM, d'Hombres A, Gerard JP (2005) Preoperative radiotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma: which are strong prognostic factors? _Int J Radiat Oncol

Biol Phys_ 61: 1371–1377 Article  Google Scholar  * Chau I, Brown G, Cunningham D, Tait D, Wotherspoon A, Norman AR, Tebbutt N, Hill M, Ross PJ, Massey A, Oates J (2006) Neoadjuvant

capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by synchronous chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-risk rectal cancer. _J Clin Oncol_ 24: 668–674

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Díaz-Rubio E, Evans TR, Tabernero J, Cassidy J, Sastre J, Eatock M, Bisset D, Regueiro P, Baselga J (2002) Capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with

oxaliplatin: a phase I, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. _Ann Oncol_ 13: 558–565 Article  Google Scholar  * Dworak O, Keilholz L, Hoffmann A (1997)

Pathological feature of rectal cancer after preoperative radiochemotherapy. _Int J Colorectal Dis_ 12: 19–23 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Gérard TC, Conroy T, Bonnetain F, Bouché O,

Chapet O, Closon-Dejardin MT, Untereiner M, Leduc B, Francois E, Maurel J, Seitz JF, Buecher B, Mackiewicz R, Ducreux M, Bedenne L (2006) Preoperative radiotherapy with or without concurrent

fluorouracil and leucovorin in T3-4 rectal cancers: results of FFCD 9203. _J Clin Oncol_ 24: 4620–4625 Article  Google Scholar  * Glynne-Jones R, Dunst J, Sebag-Montefiore D (2006a) The

integration of oral capecitabine into chemoradiation regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer: how successful have we been? _Ann Oncol_ 17: 361–371 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Glynne-Jones R, Grainger J, Harrison M, Ostler P, Makris A (2006b) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to preoperative chemoradiation or radiation in rectal cancer: should we be more cautious?

_Br J Cancer_ 94: 363–371 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D (2006) Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer: interpretation of the EXPERT study. _J

Clin Oncol_ 24: 4664–4665 Article  Google Scholar  * Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D, McDonald A, Maughan TS, Falk SJ, McDonald AC (2006c) A phase I dose escalation study of continuous

oral capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin and pelvic radiation (XELOX-RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. _Ann Oncol_ 17: 50–56 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Lissoni P, Meregalli S, Bonetto E, Mancuso M, Brivio F, Colciago M, Gardani G (2005) Radiotherapy-induced lymphocytopenia: changes in total lymphocyte count and in lymphocyte subpopulations

under pelvic irradiation in gynecologic neoplasms. _J Biol Regul Homeost Agents_ 19: 153–158 CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Machiels JP, Duck L, Honhon B, Coster B, Coche JC, Scalliet P,

Humblet Y, Aydin S, Kerger J, Remouchamps V, Canon JL, Van Maele P, Gilbeau L, Laurent S, Kirkove C, Octave-Prignot M, Baurain JF, Kartheuser A, Sempoux C (2005) Phase II study of

preoperative oxaliplatin, capecitabine and external beam radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: the RadiOxCape study. _Ann Oncol_ 16: 1898–1905 Article  Google Scholar  * Mandard AN,

Dalibard F, Mandard JC, Marnay J, Henry-Amar M, Petiot JF, Roussel A, Jacob JH, Segol P, Samama G (1994) Pathological assessment of tumour regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of

esophageal carcinoma: clinico-pathologic correlations. _Cancer_ 73: 2680–2686 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Roedel C, Grabenbauer GG, Papadopoulos T, Hohenberger W, Schmoll HJ, Sauer R

(2003) Phase I/II trial of capecitabine, oxaliplatin and radiation for rectal cancer. _J Clin Oncol_ 21: 3098–3104 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Roedel C, Liersch T, Hermann RM, Arnold D,

Reese T, Hipp M, Fürst A, Schwella N, Bieker M, Hellmich G, Ewald H, Haier J, Lordick F, Flentje M, Sülberg H, Hohenberger W, Sauer R (2007) Multicenter phase II trial of chemoradiation with

oxaliplatin for rectal cancer. _J Clin Oncol_ 25: 110–117 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Roedel C, Martus P, Papadoupolos T, Füzesi L, Klimpfinger M, Fietkau R, Liersch T, Hohenberger W,

Raab R, Sauer R, Wittekind C (2005) Prognostic significance of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. _J Clin Oncol_ 23: 8688–8696 Article  Google Scholar 

* Roh MS, Colangelo L, Wieand S, O'Connell M, Petrelli N, Smith R, Mamounas E, Hyams D, Wolmark N (2004) Response to preoperative multimodality therapy predicts survival in patients

with carcinoma of the rectum. _J Clin Oncol_ 22 (14S): (abstract 3505) * Rutten H, Sebag-Montefiore D, Glynne-Jones R, Rullier E, Peeters M, Brown G, Van Cutsem E, Ricci S, Van de Velde CJ,

Quirke P (2006) Capecitabine, oxaliplatin, radiotherapy, and excision (CORE) in patients with MRI-defined locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: results of an international multicenter

phase II study. _J Clin Oncol_ 24 (18S): (abstract 3528) * Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rödel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, Martus P, Tschmelitsch J, Hager E, Hess CF, Karstens JH, Liersch

T, Schmidberger H, Raab R, German Rectal Cancer Study Group (2004) Preoperative _vs_ postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. _N Engl J Med_ 351: 1731–1740 Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Wheeler JM, Dodds E, Warren BF, Cunningham C, George BD, Jones AC, Mortensen NJ (2004) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision surgery for locally advanced

rectal cancer: correlation with rectal cancer regression grade. _Dis Colon Rectum_ 47: 2025–2031 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We greatly appreciate the

help of Mr Lee Miller in preparing this manuscript. The study was sponsored by Roche Pharma (Schweiz) AG and Sanofi-Aventis (Schweiz) AG. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS *

Division Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, CH-9007, Switzerland D Koeberle & T Ruhstaller * Department of Internal Medicine,

Stadtspital Triemli, Zürich, CH-8063, Switzerland R Burkhard * Department of Medical Oncology, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, CH-7000, Switzerland R von Moos * Department of Internal

Medicine, Kantonsspital Luzern, Luzern, CH-6000, Switzerland R Winterhalder * Department of Medical Oncology, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, CH-4031, Switzerland V Hess * Department of

Internal Medicine, Stadtspital Waid, Zurich, CH-8037, Switzerland F Heitzmann * Department of Clinical Pathology, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, CH-4031, Switzerland L Terraciano *

Department of Pathology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, CH-9007, Switzerland J Neuweiler * Roche Pharma (Schweiz) AG, Reinach, CH-4153, Switzerland G Bieri & C Rust * Department of

Radio-Oncology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, CH-9007, Switzerland M Toepfer Authors * D Koeberle View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

R Burkhard View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * R von Moos View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * R Winterhalder View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * V Hess View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * F Heitzmann View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * T Ruhstaller View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * L Terraciano View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * J Neuweiler View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * G Bieri View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * C Rust View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * M Toepfer View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to D Koeberle. RIGHTS

AND PERMISSIONS From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a

copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Koeberle, D., Burkhard, R., von Moos, R. _et al._

Phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin given prior to and concurrently with preoperative pelvic radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. _Br J Cancer_ 98,

1204–1209 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604297 Download citation * Received: 15 November 2007 * Revised: 14 February 2008 * Accepted: 21 February 2008 * Published: 18 March 2008 *

Issue Date: 08 April 2008 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604297 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * rectal cancer *

radiochemotherapy * capecitabine * oxaliplatin