Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-10.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Elderly Stage II High-Risk Colorectal Cancer Patients
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 37(5); 2021 > Article
Original Article
 Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Elderly Stage II High-Risk Colorectal Cancer Patients
Yujin Lee, Inseok Park, Hyunjin Cho, Geumhee Gwak, Keunho Yang, Byung-Noe Baeorcid
Annals of Coloproctology 2021;37(5):298-305.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.00829.0118
Published online: July 6, 2021

Department of General Surgery, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Byung-Noe Bae, M.D., Ph.D. Department of General Surgery, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, 1342 Dongil-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01757, Korea Tel: +82-2-950-1017, Fax: +82-2-950-1429 E-mail: bnbae@paik.ac.kr
• Received: September 22, 2020   • Revised: April 26, 2021   • Accepted: May 7, 2021

Copyright © 2021 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 3,139 Views
  • 92 Download
  • 13 Web of Science
  • 16 Crossref
  • 12 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

See letter "Elderly High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer Patients: Candidates for Improving Outcome?" in Volume 37 on page 267.
  • Purpose
    Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is recommended for patients with stage II colorectal cancer with adverse features. However, the effect of adjuvant treatment in elderly patients with high-risk stage II colorectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the oncologic outcomes in elderly high-risk stage II colorectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection with or without AC.
  • Methods
    Patients aged over 70 years having stage II colorectal adenocarcinoma with at least 1 adverse feature who underwent radical surgery between 2008 and 2017 at a single center were included. We compared recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients who received more than 80% of the planned AC cycle (the AC+ group) and those who did not receive it (the AC− group).
  • Results
    The AC+ and AC– group contained 46 patients and 50 patients, respectively. The log-rank test revealed no significant intergroup differences in RFS (P=0.083) and OS (P=0.122). In the subgroup of 27 patients with more than 2 adverse features, the AC+ group (n=16) showed better RFS (P=0.006) and OS (P=0.025) than the AC− group. In this subgroup, AC was the only significant factor affecting RFS in the multivariate analysis (P=0.023). AC was significantly associated with OS (P=0.033) in the univariate analysis, but not in the multivariate analysis (P=0.332).
  • Conclusion
    Among elderly patients with stage II high-risk colorectal cancer, the AC+ group did not show better RFS or OS than the AC− group. However, selected patients with more than 2 adverse features might benefit from AC.
  • Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Aged; Colonic neoplasms; Risk factors; Survival analysis
Although the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in stage II colorectal cancer remains controversial, guidelines recommend AC for patients having T4N0/T3N0 cancer with adverse features such as T4 tumor, insufficient nodal harvest, obstruction, or perforation [1, 2]. Some studies have reported an association among high-risk features, adjuvant treatment, and cancer survival [3, 4]. However, these studies did not focus on elderly patients despite the steady increase in the number of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer who were aged over 70 years. Moreover, the proportion of elderly patients receiving chemotherapy tends to be lower than that of younger patients [5]. Therefore, the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer has not been well studied. The present study aimed to investigate the oncologic outcomes in elderly high-risk stage II colorectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection with or without postoperative AC.
Subjects
Patients over 70 years of age who were diagnosed with T3 or T4 node-negative colorectal adenocarcinoma with at least 1 adverse feature after radical surgery at Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital in Seoul, Korea between 2008 and 2017 were included in this retrospective study. Patients with distant metastasis, emergent surgery, recurrent cancer, history of neoadjuvant treatment, other synchronous cancer diagnosed within 5 years from the date of surgery, or follow-up duration of less than 6 months were excluded. We divided the patients into 2 groups; patients who received over 80% of the planned AC cycle (the AC+ group) and those who did not receive it (the AC− group). The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital (No. SGPAIK 2020-03-008) and informed consent was waived.
Data collection
We collected preoperative clinical data including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and presence of obstruction. Pathologic variables such as tumor location, histological grade, T stage, number of retrieved lymph nodes, margin status, lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and perforation were evaluated. Cancers from the caecum to the splenic flexure were defined as right-sided cancers, while those from the descending colon to the rectum were defined as left-sided cancers.
An adverse feature was defined as a poor histologic grade, T4 stage, close margin, less than 12 harvested lymph nodes, lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, perineural invasion, obstruction, or perforation according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines [1]. Close margin was defined as a resection margin of less than 5 mm.
Survival data were obtained from the National Cancer Center in Goyang, Korea. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of the first diagnosis of recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of death from any cause.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analysis of associations between categorical variables was performed using the Pearson chi-square test. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to analyze RFS and OS. Factors affecting survival were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables with the P-values of < 0.15 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.
Patient characteristics
The mean age of 96 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria was 77.2 years (range, 70–91 years). The mean follow-up duration was 3.5 years (range, 3 months to 10.9 years). Clinical characteristics of patients according to AC are listed in Table 1. Forty-six patients were included in the AC+ group and 50 patients were included in the AC− group. The age of patients from the AC+ group was significantly lower than the age of patients from the AC− group (mean age, 75.4 vs. 78.9 years; P=0.001). The AC+ group exhibited higher CCI score than the AC− group (P=0.024). No patients received preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy in both groups. There were no significant differences in other characteristics between the groups (Table 1).
Survival analysis
Recurrence was detected in 19 patients (19.8%). Among these, 11 patients were from the AC− group (22%) and 8 patients were from the AC+ group (17.4%). Mean RFS duration of the AC−group was 60.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.3−69.6) and mean RFS duration of the AC+ group was 104.8 months (95% CI, 88.4−121.2) according to the Kaplan-Meier method. However, the log-rank analysis did not show a significant difference in RFS between the groups (P=0.083) (Fig. 1A).
Thirty patients died until the date of data collection. Among these, 17 patients (34.0%) were from the AC− group and 13 patients (28.3%) were from the AC+ group. Mean OS duration of the AC− group was 75.6 months (95% CI, 62.2−89.0) and mean OS duration of the AC+ group was 100.0 months (95% CI, 85.7− 114.0). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (log-rank test, P=0.122) (Fig. 1B).
Factors associated with recurrence-free survival and overall survival (multivariate analysis)
In the univariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, venous invasion, perineural invasion, and the number of adverse features were associated with RFS and OS. In the multivariate analysis, only perineural invasion remained independently associated with RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 4.161; 95% CI, 1.188−14.576; P=0.026) and OS (HR, 4.760; 95% CI, 1.713−13.226; P=0.003). AC was not a significant factor affecting RFS in the univariate analysis (P=0.092). However the multivariate analysis showed the protective effect of AC (HR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.114−0.882; P=0.028) (Table 2).
Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analysis of the effect of AC was performed according to the number of adverse features. In the subgroup of 69 patients with fewer than 3 adverse features, no significant difference was observed in RFS (P=0.705) and OS (P=0.469) between the AC− group (n=39) and the AC+ group (n=30) (Fig. 2A, B). However, the AC+ group (n=16) showed better RFS (P=0.006) and OS (P=0.025) than the AC− group (n=11) in the other subgroup of 27 patients with 3 or more adverse features (Fig. 2C, D).
In the subgroup of patients with 3 or more adverse features, perforation and AC were associated with RFS in the univariate analysis. AC was the only independent factor affecting RFS in the multivariate analysis (HR, 0.228; 95% CI, 0.064−0.819; P=0.023). In the univariate analysis, age and AC were associated with OS. However, the multivariate analysis revealed no factors significantly associated with OS (Table 3).
With an increase in the aging population, the number of elderly colorectal cancer patients has increased. It has been suggested that these patients should not be excluded from adequate treatment including surgery and chemotherapy simply because of their age [6]. However, recent studies regarding the management of colon cancer in the elderly reported that patients at an advanced age were less likely to receive AC [7, 8]. Li et al. [9] evaluated the main reasons for declined chemotherapy through a chart review and telephone questionnaire of 386 stage III colorectal cancer patients aged over 70 years. These reasons included uncertainty in the benefit of chemotherapy, patients’ trust in traditional Chinese medicine, economic difficulty, disease information concealed by family members, lack of family support, and poor physical condition after surgery. The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of AC in elderly patients prevents doctors from strongly recommending treatment to patients.
Several studies have investigated the effects of AC on elderly patients with stage II colorectal cancer, and the results were inconsistent. In some studies, AC did not show any improvement in disease-free survival or OS in patients with stage II colon cancer who were aged over 70 years [10-12]. In contrast, Kim et al. [13] analyzed the Korean national data and concluded that AC was associated with better OS in elderly stage II colon cancer patients. Their study had a larger number of subjects than the studies that did not demonstrate the effectiveness of AC. The authors also performed a subgroup analysis according to the presence of high-risk features, and the benefits of AC were found to be consistent in both low-risk and high-risk groups. The propensity matching analysis by Lee et al. [12] showed that high-risk stage II colon cancer did not benefit from AC in the elderly population. However, differences in the dosage and the cycle of AC were not considered in their study. The present study could not demonstrate better survival in the AC+ group, which may be due to the relatively small number of study subjects.
Some studies have shown a relationship between the number of risk factors and survival in stage II high-risk colorectal cancer patients. These studies have suggested the need for AC in patients with multiple risk factors [3, 13, 14]. However, Peng et al. [4] reported that AC did not show a significant improvement in cancerspecific survival in the stage II high-risk group with 2 or more adverse features. In the present study, the response to AC depended on the number of adverse features. The AC+ group with 3 or more adverse features showed better RFS and OS than the AC− group with 3 or more adverse features. The difference between the present study and the study by Peng et al. [4] was that the present study was limited to patients over 70 years of age and was based on 3 or more risk factors. However, the number of subjects was small. The proportion of the AC+ group was higher in patients with lower CCI; however, the difference was not statistically significant. AC remained associated with significantly better RFS in the subgroup with 3 or more adverse features and lower CCI. The number of patients with 3 or more adverse features and high CCI was too small to be analyzed.
A previous study concluded that each risk factor had a different degree of impact on survival [3]. In that study, only T4 cancers and their combination with other risk factors exhibited survival benefit after AC. Sixteen out of 22 patients with 3 or more adverse features had T4 tumors in our study. However, the number of subjects was not sufficient for comparison. In addition to the effects of the number of adverse features, more research regarding the effects of different types of adverse features is needed.
Recently, several large trials have been conducted to investigate the duration of AC for colorectal cancer based on concerns regarding oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity and the cost of full delivery of AC. According to Formica et al. [15], the overall results suggested the noninferiority and lower toxicity of the 3-month regimen compared to the 6-month regimen despite some limitations. In patients with stage II colorectal cancer, the 3-month therapy was associated with substantially worse survival than the 6-month regimen in one of the trials [16] but did not show worse survival compared to the 6-month regimen in another trial [17]. In the present study, AC did not show significant differences in RFS and OS between the AC− and the AC+ groups when the AC+ group was defined as patients who completed more than half of the planned cycles. However, when the AC+ group was defined as patients who completed more than 80% of the planned cycles, the survival of patients in the AC+ group was significantly better than that in patients from the AC− group. However, heterogeneity of the chemotherapy regimen was not taken into account and the number of subjects was relatively insufficient. Thus, further studies are needed to validate these results.
The present study has several limitations. It was a retrospective study conducted at a single center. We did not compare the survival rates associated with various chemotherapy regimens due to an insufficient number of the AC+ groups. In the AC+ group, 16 patients received FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) treatment, and 30 received oral chemotherapy such as doxifluridine [7], tegafur/uracil [17], and capecitabine [6]. In addition, cancer-specific survival could not be evaluated, as the National Cancer Center survival data did not include the cause of death. Nevertheless, the present study is one of a few studies focusing on the survival benefits of AC in elderly patients with stage II high-risk colorectal cancer, especially with respect to the number of adverse features.
In conclusion, among the elderly patients with stage II high-risk colorectal cancer, the AC+ group did not show significantly better RFS and OS than the AC− group. However, selected patients with 3 or more adverse features might benefit from AC.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Fig. 1.
Kaplan-Meier curves showed the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on elderly stage II high-risk colorectal cancer patients. (A) Recurrence-free survival. (B) Overall survival. AC+, a group of the patients who received over 80% of planned AC; AC−, a group of the patients who did not receive AC or received less than 80% of planned AC.
ac-2020-00829-0118f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier curves showed the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on elderly stage II high-risk colorectal cancer patients according to the number of adverse features. (A) Recurrence-free survival of the patients with 1 or 2 adverse features. (B) Overall survival of the patients with 1 or 2 adverse features. (C) Recurrence-free survival of the patients with 3 or more adverse features. (D) Overall survival of the patients with 3 or more adverse features.
ac-2020-00829-0118f2.jpg
Table 1.
Patient characteristics
Variable Total Adjuvant chemotherapya
 P-value
No Yes
Patient 96 (100) 50 (52.1) 46 (47.9)
Age (yr) 77.2 ± 4.9 78.9 ± 5.4 75.4 ± 3.4 0.001*
Sex 0.213
 Female 38 (39.6) 23 (46.0) 15 (32.6)
 Male 58 (60.4) 27 (54.0) 31 (67.4)
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.0 ± 3.1 22.9 ± 3.3 23.2 ± 2.8 0.556
Charlson comorbidity index 0.024*
 4 55 (57.3) 23 (46.0) 32 (69.6)
 5–6 41 (42.7) 27 (54.0) 14 (30.4)
ASA PS classification 0.835
 II 58 (60.4) 31 (62.0) 27 (58.7)
 III 38 (39.6) 19 (38.0) 19 (41.3)
Pathologic grading 0.369
 Well differentiated 4 (4.2) 3 (6.0) 1 (2.2)
 Moderately differentiated 79 (82.3) 38 (76.0) 41 (89.1)
 Poorly differentiated 8 (8.3) 6 (12.0) 2 (4.3)
 Mucinous 5 (5.2) 3 (6.0) 2 (4.3)
pT stage 0.331
 pT3 74 (77.1) 41 (82.0) 33 (71.7)
 pT4 22 (22.9) 9 (18.0) 13 (28.3)
Tumor location > 0.999
 Right 41 (42.7) 21 (42.0) 20 (43.5)
 Left 55 (57.3) 29 (58.0) 26 (56.5)
Margin < 5 mm 0.557
 No 83 (86.5) 42 (84.0) 41 (89.1)
 Yes 13 (13.5) 8 (16.0) 5 (10.9)
No. of lymph nodes retrieved 0.543
 < 12 84 (87.5) 45 (90.0) 39 (84.8)
 ≥ 12 12 (12.5) 5 (10.0) 7 (15.2)
Lymphatic invasion 0.822
 No 26 (27.1) 13 (26.0) 13 (28.3)
 Yes 70 (72.9) 37 (74.0) 33 (71.7)
Venous invasion 0.107
 No 72 (75.0) 41 (82.0) 31 (67.4)
 Yes 24 (25.0) 9 (18.0) 15 (32.6)
Perineural invasion 0.528
 No 85 (88.5) 43 (86.0) 42 (91.3)
 Yes 11 (11.5) 7 (14.0) 4 (8.7)
Obstruction 0.058
 No 72 (75.0) 42 (84.0) 30 (65.2)
 Yes 24 (25.0) 8 (16.0) 16 (34.8)
Perforation 0.606
 No 93 (96.9) 49 (98.0) 44 (95.7)
 Yes 3 (3.1) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.3)
Preoperative serum CEA level (ng/mL) 12.7 ± 58.1 7.8 ± 21.6 17.5 ± 79.5 0.858
No. of adverse features 0.181
 1–2 69 (71.9) 39 (78.0) 30 (65.2)
 3–5 27 (28.1) 11 (22.0) 16 (34.8)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; PS, physical status; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

a Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

* P<0.05.

Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of recurrent free survival and overall survival
Variable Recurrence-free survival
 Overall survival
Univariate
 Multivariate
 Univariate
 Multivariate
HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Age 0.996 (0.905−1.096) 0.936 1.001 (0.926−1.082) 0.979
Sex
  Female 1.000 1.000
Male 0.700 (0.283−1.730) 0.440 1.368 (0.640−2.926) 0.419
Body mass index 1.050 (0.900−1.225) 0.533 1.016 (0.897−1.151) 0.802
Charlson comorbidity index
3−4 1.000 1.000
5–7 0.833 (0.325−2.134) 0.703 0.912 (0.438-1.902) 0.807
Pathologic grading
Poorly differentiated, mucinous 1.686 (0.483−5.887) 0.413 1.689 (0.643-4.438) 0.288
Others 1.000 1.000
pT stage
pT3 1.000 1.000
pT4 2.579 (0.980−6.786) 0.055 1.522 (0.451−5.134) 0.498 0.639 (0.290−1.408) 0.267
Tumor location
Right 1.000 1.000
Left 1.117 (0.439−2.842) 0.816 1.030 (0.496−2.141) 0.937
Margin < 5 mm 0.808 (0.185−3.540) 0.778 1.162 (0.402−3.359) 0.782
No. of lymph nodes retrieved < 12 1.325 (0.407−4.313) 0.640 1.841 (0.767−4.419) 0.172
Lymphatic invasion 3.587 (0.805−15.983) 0.094 1.949 (0.360−10.549) 0.439 1.462 (0.588−3.634) 0.414
Venous invasion 2.550 (1.034−6.289) 0.042* 0.859 (0.223−3.304) 0.825 2.739 (1.335−5.620) 0.006* 2.313 (0.833−6.427) 0.108
Perineural invasion 6.467 (2.215−18.884) 0.001* 4.161 (1.188−14.576) 0.026* 6.807 (2.821−16.427) < 0.001* 4.760 (1.713−13.226) 0.003*
Obstruction 0.680 (0.225−2.052) 0.494 0.693 (0.283−1.699) 0.423
Perforation 1.594 (0.208−12.195) 0.653 0.046 (0.000−89.667) 0.425
Preoperative serum CEA level 0.997 (0.978−1.017) 0.759 0.996 (0.980−1.012) 0.593
No. of adverse features
1–2 1.000 1.000
3–5 4.627 (1.818−11.777) 0.001* 3.305 (0.799−13.671) 0.099 2.376 (1.159−4.872) 0.018* 1.079 (0.360−3.233) 0.892
Adjuvant chemotherapya 0.435 (0.165−1.145) 0.092 0.317 (0.114−0.882) 0.028* 0.555 (0.261−1.181) 0.127 0.487 (0.221−1.071) 0.074

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

a Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

* P<0.05.

Table 3.
Subgroup analysis of recurrent free survival and overall survival in the patients with 3 or more adverse features (n=27)
Variable Recurrence-free survival
 Overall survival
Univariate
 Multivariate
 Univariate
 Multivariate
HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Age 1.003 (0.868−1.160) 0.964 1.125 (1.010−1.254) 0.032* 1.088 (0.980−1.208) 0.113
Sex
  Female 1 1
Male 0.412 (0.118−1.438) 0.165 1.075 (0.357−3.238) 0.898
Body mass index 1.072 (0.865−1.328) 0.526 1.228 (0.988−1.525) 0.064 1.194 (0.944−1.512) 0.139
Charlson comorbidity index
3–4 1 1
5–7 0.534 (0.115−2.476) 0.423 1.881 (0.625−5.667) 0.261
Pathologic grading
Poorly differentiated, mucinous 2.751 (0.576−13.147) 0.205 1.876 (0.411−8.559) 0.417
Others 1 1
pT stage
pT3 1 1
pT4 1.905 (0.490−7.409) 0.352 0.936 (0.320−2.736) 0.903
Tumor location
Right 1 1
Left 1.568 (0.455−5.406) 0.476 1.251 (0.431−3.626) 0.680
Margin < 5 mm 0.668 (0.141−3.166) 0.611 1.137 (0.354–3.654) 0.830
No. of lymph nodes retrieved < 12 0.708 (0.181−2.768) 0.620 1.615 (0.539–4.839) 0.392
Lymphatic invasion 21.784 (0.000−13,101,349.717) 0.650 21.874 (0.000−3,231,279.450) 0.611
Venous invasion 0.666 (0.187−2.370) 0.531 0.833 (0.279−2.493) 0.744
Perineural invasion 2.019 (0.498−8.189) 0.325 2.231 (0.634−7.854) 0.211
Obstruction 0.619 (0.162−2.364) 0.483 0.501 (0.139−1.804) 0.291
Perforation 24.980 (1.562−399.590) 0.023* 12.611 (0.768−207.113) 0.076 0.043 (0.000−424.262) 0.503
Preoperative serum CEA level (ng/mL) 0.995 (0.973−1.018) 0.662 0.992 (0.967−1.018) 0.563
Adjuvant chemotherapya 0.207 (0.060−0.717) 0.013* 0.228 (0.064−0.819) 0.023* 0.313 (0.107−0.910) 0.033* 0.535 (0.151−1.891) 0.332

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

a Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

* P<0.05.

  • 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN guidelines for patients colon cancer 2021 [Internet]. Goyang, NCCN; c2021 [cited 2020 Sep 22]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/colon-patient.pdf
  • 2. Costas-Chavarri A, Nandakumar G, Temin S, Lopes G, Cervantes A, Cruz Correa M, et al. Treatment of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. J Glob Oncol 2019;5:1–19.Article
  • 3. Babcock BD, Aljehani MA, Jabo B, Choi AH, Morgan JW, Selleck MJ, et al. High-risk stage II colon cancer: not all risks are created equal. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:1980–5.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Peng SL, Thomas M, Ruszkiewicz A, Hunter A, Lawrence M, Moore J. Conventional adverse features do not predict response to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer. ANZ J Surg 2014;84:837–41.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Bojer AS, Roikjær O. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer are oncologically undertreated. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:421–5.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Kim JH. Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in the elderly. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:5158–66.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Kim GM, Ahn JB, Rha SY, Kim HS, Kang B, Kim MW, et al. Changing treatment patterns in elderly patients with resectable colon cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2013;9:265–72.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Merchant SJ, Nanji S, Brennan K, Karim S, Patel SV, Biagi JJ, et al. Management of stage III colon cancer in the elderly: practice patterns and outcomes in the general population. Cancer 2017;123:2840–9.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Li P, Li F, Fang Y, Wan D, Pan Z, Chen G, et al. Efficacy, compliance and reasons for refusal of postoperative chemotherapy for elderly patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective chart review and telephone patient questionnaire. PLoS One 2013;8:e55494.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. McCleary NJ, Meyerhardt JA, Green E, Yothers G, de Gramont A, Van Cutsem E, et al. Impact of age on the efficacy of newer adjuvant therapies in patients with stage II/III colon cancer: findings from the ACCENT database. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2600–6.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Tsai TC, Sun JL, Lin WL, Lee SW, Chang SC, Wu PH, et al. Survival of adjuvant chemotherapy among elderly patients with stage II colon cancer. Int J Gerontol 2018;12:94–9.Article
  • 12. Lee KY, Park JW, Lee KY, Cho S, Kwon YH, Kim MJ, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy does not provide survival benefits to elderly patients with stage II colon cancer. Sci Rep 2019;9:11846. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Kim MK, Won DD, Park SM, Kim T, Kim SR, Oh ST, et al. Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on stage ii colon cancer: analysis of Korean national data. Cancer Res Treat 2018;50:1149–63.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Gertler R, Rosenberg R, Schuster T, Friess H. Defining a high-risk subgroup with colon cancer stages I and II for possible adjuvant therapy. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2992–9.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Formica V, Zaniboni A, Loupakis F, Roselli M. Noninferiority of three months versus six months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer. How should IDEA findings affect clinical practice? Int J Cancer 2018;143:2342–50.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Sobrero A, Lonardi S, Rosati G, Di Bartolomeo M, Ronzoni M, Pella N, et al. FOLFOX or CAPOX in stage II to III colon cancer: efficacy results of the Italian Three or Six Colon Adjuvant Trial. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1478–85.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Iveson TJ, Kerr RS, Saunders MP, Cassidy J, Hollander NH, Tabernero J, et al. 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:562–78.ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • A Prognostic Model Based on the Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes Predicts Prognosis of Patients with Rectal Cancer
      Jian Li, Yu zhou Yang, Peng Xu, Cheng Zhang
      Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer.2024; 55(3): 1111.     CrossRef
    • Complete Obstruction, a Real Risk Factor: A Comprehensive Study on Obstruction in Stage IIA Colon Cancer With Propensity Score Matching Analysis
      Soo Young Oh, Chan Wook Kim, Seonok Kim, Min Hyun Kim, Young Il Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu
      Clinical Colorectal Cancer.2024; 23(2): 135.     CrossRef
    • Clinical implication of tissue carcinoembryonic antigen expression in association with serum carcinoembryonic antigen in colorectal cancer
      Abdulmohsin Fawzi Aldilaijan, Young Il Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Jihun Kim, Jun-Soo Ro, Jin Cheon Kim
      Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Advances in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: A Focus on Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
      Youngbae Jeon, Eun Jung Park
      The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Oncologic outcomes in elderly patients who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a multi-institutional survey in Kinki District, Japan
      Tomohito Tanaka, Suguru Yamashita, Haruo Kuroboshi, Junya Kamibayashi, Atsushi Sugiura, Kaori Yoriki, Taisuke Mori, Kazuharu Tanaka, Aiko Nagashima, Michihide Maeda, Shoji Kamiura, Yukako Mizuno, Noriko Ohtake, Tomoyuki Ichimura, Taiki Kikuchi, Yuri Nobut
      International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2022; 27(6): 1084.     CrossRef
    • Does adjuvant chemotherapy improve outcomes in elderly patients with colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies
      Jianbing Chen, Chengda Zhang, Yajuan Wu
      Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2022; 16(4): 383.     CrossRef
    • Risk factors for recurrence in elderly patients with stage II colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study
      Takuki Yagyu, Manabu Yamamoto, Akimitsu Tanio, Kazushi Hara, Ken Sugezawa, Chihiro Uejima, Kyoichi Kihara, Shigeru Tatebe, Yasuro Kurisu, Shunsuke Shibata, Toshio Yamamoto, Hiroshi Nishie, Setsujo Shiota, Hiroaki Saito, Takuji Naka, Kenji Sugamura, Kuniyu
      BMC Cancer.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Effects of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery
      Jeongwon Yeom, Hee-Sook Lim
      Clinical Nutrition Research.2022; 11(2): 75.     CrossRef
    • The Prognostic Reliability of Lymphovascular Invasion for Patients with T3N0 Colorectal Cancer in Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decision Making
      Hayoung Lee, Seung-Yeon Yoo, In Ja Park, Seung-Mo Hong, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim
      Cancers.2022; 14(12): 2833.     CrossRef
    • Is the oncological impact of vascular invasion more important in right colon cancer?
      Gyung Mo Son
      Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2022; 25(2): 49.     CrossRef
    • Molecular analyses of peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer
      Chang Hyun Kim
      Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(9): 586.     CrossRef
    • Epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of colorectal cancer
      Kyung Uk Jung, Hyung Ook Kim, Hungdai Kim
      Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(9): 549.     CrossRef
    • Molecular Analyses in Peritoneal Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: A Review-An English Version
      Chang Hyun Kim
      Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2022; 6(4): 197.     CrossRef
    • Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer-An English Version
      Kyung Uk Jung, Hyung Ook Kim, Hungdai Kim
      Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2022; 6(4): 231.     CrossRef
    • Adjuvant chemotherapy benefits on patients with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen in stage IIA colon cancer: a SEER-based analysis
      Huabin Zhou, Songsheng Wang, Zhai Cai, Enming Qiu, Qianyun Chen, Xi Rao, Shuai Han, Zhou Li
      International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2022; 37(12): 2481.     CrossRef
    • Elderly High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer Patients: Candidates for Improving Outcome?
      Min Ki Kim
      Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(5): 267.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite this Article
      Cite this Article
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Elderly Stage II High-Risk Colorectal Cancer Patients
      Ann Coloproctol. 2021;37(5):298-305.   Published online July 6, 2021
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2020.00829.0118
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    Related articles
    Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Elderly Stage II High-Risk Colorectal Cancer Patients
    Image Image
    Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier curves showed the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on elderly stage II high-risk colorectal cancer patients. (A) Recurrence-free survival. (B) Overall survival. AC+, a group of the patients who received over 80% of planned AC; AC−, a group of the patients who did not receive AC or received less than 80% of planned AC.
    Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curves showed the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on elderly stage II high-risk colorectal cancer patients according to the number of adverse features. (A) Recurrence-free survival of the patients with 1 or 2 adverse features. (B) Overall survival of the patients with 1 or 2 adverse features. (C) Recurrence-free survival of the patients with 3 or more adverse features. (D) Overall survival of the patients with 3 or more adverse features.

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Elderly Stage II High-Risk Colorectal Cancer Patients
    Variable Total Adjuvant chemotherapya
    		 P-value
    No Yes
    Patient 96 (100) 50 (52.1) 46 (47.9)
    Age (yr) 77.2 ± 4.9 78.9 ± 5.4 75.4 ± 3.4 0.001*
    Sex 0.213
     Female 38 (39.6) 23 (46.0) 15 (32.6)
     Male 58 (60.4) 27 (54.0) 31 (67.4)
    Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.0 ± 3.1 22.9 ± 3.3 23.2 ± 2.8 0.556
    Charlson comorbidity index 0.024*
     4 55 (57.3) 23 (46.0) 32 (69.6)
     5–6 41 (42.7) 27 (54.0) 14 (30.4)
    ASA PS classification 0.835
     II 58 (60.4) 31 (62.0) 27 (58.7)
     III 38 (39.6) 19 (38.0) 19 (41.3)
    Pathologic grading 0.369
     Well differentiated 4 (4.2) 3 (6.0) 1 (2.2)
     Moderately differentiated 79 (82.3) 38 (76.0) 41 (89.1)
     Poorly differentiated 8 (8.3) 6 (12.0) 2 (4.3)
     Mucinous 5 (5.2) 3 (6.0) 2 (4.3)
    pT stage 0.331
     pT3 74 (77.1) 41 (82.0) 33 (71.7)
     pT4 22 (22.9) 9 (18.0) 13 (28.3)
    Tumor location > 0.999
     Right 41 (42.7) 21 (42.0) 20 (43.5)
     Left 55 (57.3) 29 (58.0) 26 (56.5)
    Margin < 5 mm 0.557
     No 83 (86.5) 42 (84.0) 41 (89.1)
     Yes 13 (13.5) 8 (16.0) 5 (10.9)
    No. of lymph nodes retrieved 0.543
     < 12 84 (87.5) 45 (90.0) 39 (84.8)
     ≥ 12 12 (12.5) 5 (10.0) 7 (15.2)
    Lymphatic invasion 0.822
     No 26 (27.1) 13 (26.0) 13 (28.3)
     Yes 70 (72.9) 37 (74.0) 33 (71.7)
    Venous invasion 0.107
     No 72 (75.0) 41 (82.0) 31 (67.4)
     Yes 24 (25.0) 9 (18.0) 15 (32.6)
    Perineural invasion 0.528
     No 85 (88.5) 43 (86.0) 42 (91.3)
     Yes 11 (11.5) 7 (14.0) 4 (8.7)
    Obstruction 0.058
     No 72 (75.0) 42 (84.0) 30 (65.2)
     Yes 24 (25.0) 8 (16.0) 16 (34.8)
    Perforation 0.606
     No 93 (96.9) 49 (98.0) 44 (95.7)
     Yes 3 (3.1) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.3)
    Preoperative serum CEA level (ng/mL) 12.7 ± 58.1 7.8 ± 21.6 17.5 ± 79.5 0.858
    No. of adverse features 0.181
     1–2 69 (71.9) 39 (78.0) 30 (65.2)
     3–5 27 (28.1) 11 (22.0) 16 (34.8)
    Variable Recurrence-free survival
    		 Overall survival
    Univariate
    		 Multivariate
    		 Univariate
    		 Multivariate
    HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
    Age 0.996 (0.905−1.096) 0.936 1.001 (0.926−1.082) 0.979
    Sex
      Female 1.000 1.000
    Male 0.700 (0.283−1.730) 0.440 1.368 (0.640−2.926) 0.419
    Body mass index 1.050 (0.900−1.225) 0.533 1.016 (0.897−1.151) 0.802
    Charlson comorbidity index
    3−4 1.000 1.000
    5–7 0.833 (0.325−2.134) 0.703 0.912 (0.438-1.902) 0.807
    Pathologic grading
    Poorly differentiated, mucinous 1.686 (0.483−5.887) 0.413 1.689 (0.643-4.438) 0.288
    Others 1.000 1.000
    pT stage
    pT3 1.000 1.000
    pT4 2.579 (0.980−6.786) 0.055 1.522 (0.451−5.134) 0.498 0.639 (0.290−1.408) 0.267
    Tumor location
    Right 1.000 1.000
    Left 1.117 (0.439−2.842) 0.816 1.030 (0.496−2.141) 0.937
    Margin < 5 mm 0.808 (0.185−3.540) 0.778 1.162 (0.402−3.359) 0.782
    No. of lymph nodes retrieved < 12 1.325 (0.407−4.313) 0.640 1.841 (0.767−4.419) 0.172
    Lymphatic invasion 3.587 (0.805−15.983) 0.094 1.949 (0.360−10.549) 0.439 1.462 (0.588−3.634) 0.414
    Venous invasion 2.550 (1.034−6.289) 0.042* 0.859 (0.223−3.304) 0.825 2.739 (1.335−5.620) 0.006* 2.313 (0.833−6.427) 0.108
    Perineural invasion 6.467 (2.215−18.884) 0.001* 4.161 (1.188−14.576) 0.026* 6.807 (2.821−16.427) < 0.001* 4.760 (1.713−13.226) 0.003*
    Obstruction 0.680 (0.225−2.052) 0.494 0.693 (0.283−1.699) 0.423
    Perforation 1.594 (0.208−12.195) 0.653 0.046 (0.000−89.667) 0.425
    Preoperative serum CEA level 0.997 (0.978−1.017) 0.759 0.996 (0.980−1.012) 0.593
    No. of adverse features
    1–2 1.000 1.000
    3–5 4.627 (1.818−11.777) 0.001* 3.305 (0.799−13.671) 0.099 2.376 (1.159−4.872) 0.018* 1.079 (0.360−3.233) 0.892
    Adjuvant chemotherapya 0.435 (0.165−1.145) 0.092 0.317 (0.114−0.882) 0.028* 0.555 (0.261−1.181) 0.127 0.487 (0.221−1.071) 0.074
    Variable Recurrence-free survival
    		 Overall survival
    Univariate
    		 Multivariate
    		 Univariate
    		 Multivariate
    HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
    Age 1.003 (0.868−1.160) 0.964 1.125 (1.010−1.254) 0.032* 1.088 (0.980−1.208) 0.113
    Sex
      Female 1 1
    Male 0.412 (0.118−1.438) 0.165 1.075 (0.357−3.238) 0.898
    Body mass index 1.072 (0.865−1.328) 0.526 1.228 (0.988−1.525) 0.064 1.194 (0.944−1.512) 0.139
    Charlson comorbidity index
    3–4 1 1
    5–7 0.534 (0.115−2.476) 0.423 1.881 (0.625−5.667) 0.261
    Pathologic grading
    Poorly differentiated, mucinous 2.751 (0.576−13.147) 0.205 1.876 (0.411−8.559) 0.417
    Others 1 1
    pT stage
    pT3 1 1
    pT4 1.905 (0.490−7.409) 0.352 0.936 (0.320−2.736) 0.903
    Tumor location
    Right 1 1
    Left 1.568 (0.455−5.406) 0.476 1.251 (0.431−3.626) 0.680
    Margin < 5 mm 0.668 (0.141−3.166) 0.611 1.137 (0.354–3.654) 0.830
    No. of lymph nodes retrieved < 12 0.708 (0.181−2.768) 0.620 1.615 (0.539–4.839) 0.392
    Lymphatic invasion 21.784 (0.000−13,101,349.717) 0.650 21.874 (0.000−3,231,279.450) 0.611
    Venous invasion 0.666 (0.187−2.370) 0.531 0.833 (0.279−2.493) 0.744
    Perineural invasion 2.019 (0.498−8.189) 0.325 2.231 (0.634−7.854) 0.211
    Obstruction 0.619 (0.162−2.364) 0.483 0.501 (0.139−1.804) 0.291
    Perforation 24.980 (1.562−399.590) 0.023* 12.611 (0.768−207.113) 0.076 0.043 (0.000−424.262) 0.503
    Preoperative serum CEA level (ng/mL) 0.995 (0.973−1.018) 0.662 0.992 (0.967−1.018) 0.563
    Adjuvant chemotherapya 0.207 (0.060−0.717) 0.013* 0.228 (0.064−0.819) 0.023* 0.313 (0.107−0.910) 0.033* 0.535 (0.151−1.891) 0.332
    Table 1. Patient characteristics

    Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

    ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; PS, physical status; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

    Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

    P<0.05.

    Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of recurrent free survival and overall survival

    HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

    Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

    P<0.05.

    Table 3. Subgroup analysis of recurrent free survival and overall survival in the patients with 3 or more adverse features (n=27)

    HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; pT stage, pathologic T stage; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

    Defined as completion of more than 80% of the planned adjuvant chemotherapy cycle.

    P<0.05.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
    © Korean Society of Coloproctology.
    TOP