FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4386295995> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4386295995 endingPage "100672" @default.
• W4386295995 startingPage "100672" @default.
• W4386295995 abstract "The PROSPECT was a randomized phase III trial that included patients with resectable rectal cancer (clinical stage cT2-3N+ or cT3N0). The trial aimed to test the hypothesis that pre-operative chemotherapy consisting of 6 cycles of FOLFOX given over a 12-week period, followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, was non-inferior to pre-operative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The primary endpoint of the study was disease-free survival (DFS), and patients were also monitored for other relevant oncological outcomes such and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools [1Schrag D. Shi Q. Weiser M.R. Gollub M.J. Saltz L.B. Musher B.L. et al.Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 322-334Google Scholar, 2Basch E. Dueck A.C. Mitchell S.A. Mamon H. Weiser M. Saltz L. et al.Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41: 3724-3734Google Scholar]. We congratulate the investigators for their success in enrolling 1194 patients into a non-inferiority designed trial and applaud their use of PRO-CTCAE tools. However, we have a number of concerns regarding the interpretation of the data and how they pertain to toxicity in this patient group, which are important to clarify in the academic literature. Firstly, we would like to stress that this trial does not represent a patient population with truly locally advanced disease by international standards. Notably, the trial excluded any patients with cT4 or cN2, or disease within 3mm of the mesorectal fascia. The cT3 and nodal subgroups were not reported in line with international consensus, and it is concerning that just over 15% of patients were not staged with MRI. According to the ESMO rectal cancer guidelines, widely used internationally, this population would constitute early and intermediate disease in most cases [[3]Glynne-Jones R. Wyrwicz L. Tiret E. Brown G. Rödel C. Cervantes A. et al.Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: iv22-iv40Google Scholar]. Whilst circa 90% of both arms had patients with cT3 disease only 14.2% of the FOLFOX arm and 16.6% of the CRT had tumors within 5cm of anal verge. This suggests that many of these patients could have been managed with total mesorectal excision (TME) and a preserved sphincter. Within this disease spectrum, PROSPECT supports FOLFOX as non-inferior to CRT in preventing local recurrence, but given the very low local recurrence risk, neither may be necessary and thus be considered as overtreatment with accompanying toxicity. The FOLFOX arm was also non-inferior to CRT for both DFS and OS at 5 years, underlining that neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve disease relapse (distant or local) [[1]Schrag D. Shi Q. Weiser M.R. Gollub M.J. Saltz L.B. Musher B.L. et al.Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 322-334Google Scholar], but the question whether neoadjuvant FOLFOX could replace adjuvant chemotherapy cannot be answered, given that there was a high level of postoperative chemotherapy in both arms. Postoperative FOLFOX was associated with higher toxicity when patients had neoadjuvant CRT (32.6%) than neoadjuvant FOLFOX (25.6%). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy after CRT is in itself questionable with established poor compliance, increased toxicity and importantly, no Level 1 data that it increases survival [[4]Carvalho C. Glynne-Jones R. Challenges behind proving efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer.Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: e354-e363Google Scholar]. The more pertinent question is whether neoadjuvant FOLFOX has a role in a risk stratified group. The ongoing ACO/ARO/AIO-18.2 phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04495088) is comparing primary TME followed by stage-based adjuvant chemotherapy (only in pT4 or pN+) vs neoadjuvant FOLFOX/CapOx chemotherapy over 3 months followed by TME with inclusion criteria that are largely overlapping with those of the PROSPECT. The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate superiority for DFS. It is questionable whether PROSPECT can really be viewed as a de-escalation strategy. Severe (≥ grade 3) acute toxicity with FOLFOX was double (41%) that of CRT (22.8%). Across 14 PRO domains, CRT was significantly superior to FOLFOX in 12 and worse in only one, diarrhoea [[2]Basch E. Dueck A.C. Mitchell S.A. Mamon H. Weiser M. Saltz L. et al.Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41: 3724-3734Google Scholar]. Therefore, both clinicians and patients reported that CRT is the better tolerated neoadjuvant treatment choice. Despite the median follow-up of 58 months, data on long-term toxicity and quality of life are still awaited. Furthermore, PRO on sexual function 1 year after TME in the CRT arm were based on 34/173 patients (20%) and 97/370 patients (26%), respectively, which should be considered when interpreting these data. We do not underestimate the late effects of pelvic CRT, and its potential for severe consequences in some patients. At 18 months, patients receiving CRT reported higher rates of fatigue, neuropathy and sexual dysfunction without a difference in HRQoL [[2]Basch E. Dueck A.C. Mitchell S.A. Mamon H. Weiser M. Saltz L. et al.Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41: 3724-3734Google Scholar]. These are important data for practising oncologists where patients are managed with multimodal treatment. Advances in radiation delivery using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can minimise doses to organs at risk and spare some long-term late effects [5Hanna C.R. Slevin F. Appelt A. Beavon M. Adams R. Arthur C. et al.Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer in the UK in 2020.Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2021; 33: 214-223Google Scholar, 6Appelt A.L. Sebag-Montefiore D. Technological advances in radiotherapy of rectal cancer: opportunities and challenges.Curr Opin Oncol. 2016; 28: 353-358Google Scholar]. More importantly, the management of rectal cancer has now shifted towards organ preservation for selected patients with clinical complete response that can limit some of the side effects from multimodal treatment [7Fokas E. Appelt A. Glynne-Jones R. Beets G. Perez R. Garcia-Aguilar J. et al.International consensus recommendations on key outcome measures for organ preservation after (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021; 18: 805-816Google Scholar, 8Fokas E. Glynne-Jones R. Appelt A. Beets-Tan R. Beets G. Haustermans K. et al.Outcome measures in multimodal rectal cancer trials.Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: e252-e264Google Scholar]. The true value of PROSPECT is that it adds to, rather than replaces, the therapeutic options for rectal cancer. These data will inform a multidisciplinary, patient centred discussion of evidence-based options, some of whom will undoubtedly benefit from this approach, but not everyone. We urge caution not to extrapolate these findings to patients with high-risk or low-lying rectal cancer. The colorectal research community needs to better understand the biology and derive predictive biomarkers [[9]Cercek A. Lumish M. Sinopoli J. Weiss J. Shia J. Lamendola-Essel M. et al.PD-1 Blockade in Mismatch Repair-Deficient, Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 2363-2376Google Scholar] that will optimise individualised treatment solutions. None The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper." @default.
• W4386295995 created "2023-08-31" @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5001486076 @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5017956085 @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5021131361 @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5028206592 @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5030248496 @default.
• W4386295995 creator A5050553727 @default.
• W4386295995 date "2023-11-01" @default.
• W4386295995 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W4386295995 title "Patient-reported outcomes in PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048) - FOLFOX is not a panacea" @default.
• W4386295995 cites W2155492044 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W2345925091 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W2621273932 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W3020964070 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W3119268984 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W3188648043 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W4244315786 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W4281732693 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W4379278530 @default.
• W4386295995 cites W4379284138 @default.
• W4386295995 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100672" @default.
• W4386295995 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37720254" @default.
• W4386295995 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4386295995 type Work @default.
• W4386295995 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4386295995 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5001486076 @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5017956085 @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5021131361 @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5028206592 @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5030248496 @default.
• W4386295995 hasAuthorship W4386295995A5050553727 @default.
• W4386295995 hasBestOaLocation W43862959951 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C26993612 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C2778431023 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C142724271 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C17744445 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C177713679 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C199539241 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C204787440 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C26993612 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C2778431023 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C2779473830 @default.
• W4386295995 hasConceptScore W4386295995C71924100 @default.
• W4386295995 hasLocation W43862959951 @default.
• W4386295995 hasLocation W43862959952 @default.
• W4386295995 hasOpenAccess W4386295995 @default.
• W4386295995 hasPrimaryLocation W43862959951 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W1798870981 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W1970371692 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2052303540 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2086802883 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2098071664 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2133434593 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2139854061 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2416366793 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W3016934028 @default.
• W4386295995 hasRelatedWork W2073907850 @default.
• W4386295995 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W4386295995 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4386295995 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4386295995 workType "article" @default.