Objective To investigate efficacy and toxicity of XELOX or FOLFOX4 regimen as neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage Ⅱ/Ⅲ middle and low rectal cancer. Methods From June 2011 to March 2014, 120 patients with stage Ⅱ/Ⅲ middle and low rectal cancer who underwent the surgical treatment were enrolled in The Fifth People’s Hospital of Qinghai Province, then were randomly divided into radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group and radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group. The radiotherapy and chemotherapy were performed simultaneously before the radical resection of rectal cancer. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy: 1.8–2.0 Gy/times, 5 times/week, a total of 25 times, the total dose was 45.0–50.0 Gy. At the same time, 2 cycles of chemotherapy were performed according to the FOLFOX4 program (oxaliplatin+leucovorin+5-fluorouracil) or XELOX regimen (capecitabine tablet+oxaliplatin). The radical surgery was performed on 4 to 8 weeks after the preoperative chemoradiotherapy, then 8 to 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and 4 to 6 cycles of XELOX chemotherapy were completed in the radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group and the radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group respectively on 1 month after the radical surgery. The curative effect and the occurrence of acute toxicity were observed. Results ① There were no significant differences in thegeneral data such as the gender, age, cT stage, cN stage, TNM stage, histological type, differentiation degree, etc. between the two groups(P>0.05). ② The reduced staging rates of cT and cN in the radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group was 63.3% (38/60) and 86.7% (52/60), respectively, which was significantly higher than that in the radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group〔38.3% (23/60) and 53.3% (32/60), respectively〕 , the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). ③ The complete response rate and the effective rate (complete response rate+partial response rate) in the radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group were significantly higher than those in the radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group (P<0.05). ④ The overall 3-year survival rate in the radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group was significantly higher than that in the radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the 3-year disease-free survival rate, distant metastasis rate, and local recurrence rate between the two groups (P>0.05). ⑤ All the patients suffered from 3 to 4 degrees toxicities, however, the incidence rates of the overall toxicity and the diarrhea toxicity in the radiotherapy+XELOX regimen group were significantly lower than those in the radiotherapy+FOLFOX4 regimen group (P<0.05). Conclusion Preliminary results of limited cases in this study show that XELOX regimen is more effective and less acute toxicity than FOLFOX4 regimen for preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage Ⅱ/Ⅲ middle and low rectal cancer.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 56 consecutive patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated by neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery in our hospital between January 2015 and December 2016. There were 51 males and 5 females. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by open surgery esophagectomy group was as an OE group with 25 patients aged 61 (50-73) years. And neoadjuvant therapy followed by MIE was as a MIE group with 31 patients aged 60 (55-79) years. Results The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 28 patients with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy was significantly higher than that of 28 patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (21.4% vs. 10.7%, P<0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, R2 rate and the number of lymph nodes dissection in the MIE group were obviously better than those of the OE group with statistical differences (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes along the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerves and lymph node metastasis rate (P>0.05) between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications in the MIE group was lower than that of the OE group (P=0.041). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of other complications, re-operation, re-entry to ICU, median length of stay or perioperative deaths (P>0.05). There was only one patient with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the OE group died due to gastric fluid asphyxia caused by trachea-esophageal fistula. Conclusion Neoadjuvant therapy followed by MIE for locally advanced esophageal cancer is safe and feasible. The oncological outcomes seem comparable regardless of OE.