Completed

Randomized Phase II Trial Of Neoadjuvant Combined Modality Therapy For Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

0 criteria met from your profileSee at a glance how your profile meets each eligibility criteria.
What is being tested

Radiation Therapy

+ Capecitabine 1200 mg/m^2/day
+ Irinotecan
Radiation
Drug
Procedure
Who is being recruted

Digestive System Diseases
+8

+ Digestive System Neoplasms
+ Gastrointestinal Diseases
Over 18 Years
See all eligibility criteria
How is the trial designed

Treatment Study

Phase 2
Interventional
Study Start: March 2004
See protocol details

Summary

Principal SponsorRadiation Therapy Oncology Group
Last updated: January 13, 2026
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner
Study start date: March 1, 2004Actual date on which the first participant was enrolled.

OBJECTIVES: * Evaluate the pathologic complete response rate in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing surgical resection treated with 2 different regimens of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy. * Evaluate the time to treatment failure and patterns of failure in patients treated with these regimens. * Evaluate the incidence of hematologic and non-hematologic grade 3-4 toxicity (preoperatively, postoperatively, and overall) in patients treated with these regimens. * Evaluate the quality of life of patients treated with these regimens. OUTLINE: This is a randomized, multicenter study. Patients are stratified according to clinical stage of tumor (T3 vs T4). Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms. Quality of life is assessed at baseline, within 1 week after completion of radiotherapy, within 1 week after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy (12 months), and then at 24 months. Patients are followed every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then annually thereafter.

Official TitleRandomized Phase II Trial Of Neoadjuvant Combined Modality Therapy For Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer 
NCT00081289
Principal SponsorRadiation Therapy Oncology Group
Last updated: January 13, 2026
Sourced from a government-validated database.Claim as a partner

Protocol

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
Design Details
146 patients to be enrolledTotal number of participants that the clinical trial aims to recruit.
Treatment Study
These studies test new ways to treat a disease, condition, or health issue. The goal is to see if a new drug, therapy, or approach works better or has fewer side effects than existing options.

How participants are assigned to different groups/arms
In this clinical study, participants are placed into groups randomly, like flipping a coin. This ensures that the study is fair and unbiased, making the results more reliable. By assigning participants by chance, researchers can better compare treatments without external influences.

Other Ways to Assign Participants
Non-randomized allocation
: Participants are assigned based on specific factors, such as their medical condition or a doctor's decision.

None (Single-arm trial)
: If the study has only one group, all participants receive the same treatment, and no allocation is needed.

How treatments are given to participants
Participants are divided into different groups, each receiving a specific treatment at the same time. This helps researchers compare how well different treatments work against each other.

Other Ways to Assign Treatments
Single-group assignment
: Everyone gets the same treatment.

Cross-over assignment
: Participants switch between treatments during the study.

Factorial assignment
: Participants receive different combinations of treatments.

Sequential assignment
: Participants receive treatments one after another in a specific order, possibly based on individual responses.

Other assignment
: Treatment assignment does not follow a standard or predefined design.

How the effectiveness of the treatment is controlled
In a non placebo-controlled study, no participants receive an inert substance (placebo) to compare outcomes. Instead, all participants receive either the experimental treatment or an alternative treatment (often the Standard of Care). This method allows researchers to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of a different active intervention, rather than a placebo.

Other Options
Placebo-Controlled
: A placebo is used to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of an inert substance, isolating the true treatment effect.

How the interventions assigned to participants is kept confidential
Everyone involved in the study knows which treatment is being given. This is typically used when it's not possible or necessary to hide the treatment details from participants or researchers.

Other Ways to Mask Information
Single-blind
: Participants do not know which treatment they are receiving, but researchers do.

Double-blind
: Neither participants nor researchers know which treatment is given.

Triple-blind
: Participants, researchers, and outcome assessors do not know which treatment is given.

Quadruple-blind
: Participants, researchers, outcome assessors, and care providers all do not know which treatment is given.

Eligibility

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria: person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Conditions
Criteria
Any sexBiological sex of participants that are eligible to enroll.
Over 18 YearsRange of ages for which participants are eligible to join.
Healthy volunteers not allowedIf individuals who are healthy and do not have the condition being studied can participate.
Conditions
Pathology
Digestive System Diseases
Digestive System Neoplasms
Gastrointestinal Diseases
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
Intestinal Diseases
Intestinal Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Neoplasms by Site
Rectal Diseases
Rectal Neoplasms
Colorectal Neoplasms
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Adenocarcinoma of the rectum originating at or below 12 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases 2. Patient must be 18 years of age or greater. 3. Potentially resectable en bloc based upon surgeon evaluation 4. Clinical stages T3 or T4, based upon endorectal ultrasound, or physical examination (only acceptable for T4 lesions). 5. Absolute neutrophil count of \> 1500 per microliter and platelet count \> 100,000 per microliter; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alkaline phosphatase \< 2.5 X upper limit of normal (ULN), bilirubin \< = 1.5 ULN, calculated creatinine clearance \> 50 ml/min using Cockcroft-Gault formula: * CrCl male = (140 - age) x (wt. in kg) / (Serum Cr) x 72 * CrCl female = 0.85 x (CrCl male) 6. Zubrod performance status 0-2 7. No history of other malignancies within 5 years, except non-melanoma skin cancer, in situ carcinoma of the cervix, or ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Previous invasive cancer permitted if disease free at least 5 years. 8. Signed study-specific informed consent prior to randomization Exclusion Criteria: 1. Any evidence of distant metastasis 2. Synchronous primary colon carcinomas, except T1 lesions (full colonoscopy not required for enrollment) 3. Extension of malignant disease to the anal canal 4. Prior radiation therapy to the pelvis 5. Prior chemotherapy for malignancies 6. Pregnancy or lactation, (exclusion due to potential adverse effects of therapy). Women of childbearing potential with either a positive or no pregnancy test (serum or urine) at baseline. Women/men of childbearing potential not using a reliable and appropriate contraceptive method. (Postmenopausal women must have been amenorrheic for at least 12 months to be considered to be of non-childbearing potential.) Patients will agree to continue contraception for 30 days from the date of the last study drug administration. 7. Serious, uncontrolled, concurrent infection(s). 8. Participation in any investigational drug study within 4 weeks preceding the start of study treatment. 9. Clinically significant cardiac disease (e.g. congestive heart failure, symptomatic coronary artery disease and cardiac arrhythmias not well controlled with medication) or myocardial infarction within the last 12 months. 10. Evidence of uncontrolled seizures, central nervous system disorders or psychiatric disability judged by the investigator to be clinically significant, precluding informed consent, or interfering with compliance of oral drug intake. 11. Other serious uncontrolled medical conditions that the investigator feels might compromise study participation. 12. Major surgery within 4 weeks of the study treatment. 13. Lack of physical integrity of the upper gastrointestinal tract or malabsorption syndrome. 14. Known, existing uncontrolled coagulopathy. 15. No concurrent cimetidine allowed.


Study Plan

Find out more about all the medication administered in this study, their detailed description and what they involve.
Treatment Groups
Study Objectives
2 intervention groups 

are designated in this study

This study does not include a placebo group 

Treatment Groups
Group I
Experimental
Patients receive neoadjuvant therapy comprising 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/fx) + 5.4 Gy boost (1.8 Gy/fx) radiation therapy (RT), oral capecitabine 1200mg/m\^2/day 5 days/week during RT, and irinotecan 50 mg/m\^2 IV for 1 hour days 1, 8, 22, 29. Surgery 4-8 weeks after RT. Postoperative chemotherapy beginning Day 1 postoperatively for nine 14-day cycles(folinic acid 400 mg/m\^2 over 2 hours Day 1; 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m\^2 IV push Day 1 plus 2400 mg/m\^2 IV continuous infusion over 46 hours, beginning Day 1; and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours Day 1) .

Pelvic radiation therapy given once daily 5 days a week for 6 weeks, 45 Gy in 25 fractions + boost of 5.4 Gy in 3 fractions for a total dose of 50.4 Gy.

600 mg/m\^2 q12 hours(1200 mg/m\^2/day) orally 5 days per week during radiotherapy.

50mg/m\^2 IV over 1 hour on days 1, 8, 22, and 29

All patients will undergo surgery four to eight weeks following the completion of radiation therapy. The choice of procedure abdominoperineal resection (APR), low anterior resection (LAR), or LAR/coloanal anastomosis is at the discretion of the surgeon.

400 mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours Day 1 (postoperatively) ,every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles.

5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m\^2 IV push Day 1 (postoperatively), every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles. 5-fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m\^2 IV continuous infusion over 46 hours, beginning day 1, every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles.

50mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29
Group II
Experimental
Patients receive neoadjuvant therapy comprising 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/fx) + 5.4 Gy boost (1.8 Gy/fx) radiation therapy (RT), oral capecitabine 1650mg/m\^2/day 5 days/week during RT, and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m\^2 IV for 2 hours days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29. Surgery 4-8 weeks after RT. Postoperative chemotherapy beginning Day 1 postoperatively for nine 14-day cycles(folinic acid 400 mg/m\^2 over 2 hours Day 1; 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m\^2 IV push Day 1 plus 2400 mg/m\^2 IV continuous infusion over 46 hours, beginning Day 1; and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours Day 1) .

Pelvic radiation therapy given once daily 5 days a week for 6 weeks, 45 Gy in 25 fractions + boost of 5.4 Gy in 3 fractions for a total dose of 50.4 Gy.

825 mg/m\^2 q12 hours (1650 mg/m\^2/day) orally 5 days per week during radiotherapy.

50mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29

All patients will undergo surgery four to eight weeks following the completion of radiation therapy. The choice of procedure abdominoperineal resection (APR), low anterior resection (LAR), or LAR/coloanal anastomosis is at the discretion of the surgeon.

400 mg/m\^2 IV over 2 hours Day 1 (postoperatively) ,every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles.

5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m\^2 IV push Day 1 (postoperatively), every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles. 5-fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m\^2 IV continuous infusion over 46 hours, beginning day 1, every 14 days, for nine 14-day cycles.
Study Objectives
Primary Objectives

A pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as no evidence of residual cancer histologically; disease progression or death before surgery was considered less than pCR (even without surgical specimen). All cases were reviewed by the study's surgical oncology co-chair for the determination of pCR. Each arm was first analyzed alone. If the arm had 9 or more pCRs in 48 evaluable pts, then the null hypothesis (H0) of 10% pCR rate would be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of 25%, providing 90% power with a two-sided 10% type I error rate. If both arms reject H0, then statistical selection theory would be used to choose the arm for further study in a phase III trial. If only one arm has acceptable pCR rate, then that arm would be pursued in a phase III trial.
Secondary Objectives

Global Health Status is calculated from two questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-C30. The question responses range from 1 "very poor" to 7 "excellent" such that a higher response indicates better quality of life (QOL). The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates decline in quality of life. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

Survival time is defined as time from registration/randomization to the date of death from any cause or last known follow-up (censored). Survival rates are estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Local-regional failure is defined as any of the following: no clinical complete response (cCR) in the primary site and/or nodes at any time after treatment completion (persistence), recurrence and/or progression in the primary site and/or nodes after cCR, and nonprotocol surgery to the primary site after cCR. Time to local-regional failure is defined as time from randomization to date of failure, last known follow-up (censored), or death without local-regional failure (competing risk). Local-regional failure rates are estimated by the cumulative incidence method.

Time to distant failure is defined as time from randomization to date of the appearance of distant metastases, last known follow-up (censored), or death without distant failure (competing risk). Distant failure rates are estimated by the cumulative incidence method.

Time to second primary is defined as time from randomization to date of the appearance of a second primary cancer, last known follow-up (censored), or death without second primary (competing risk). Second primary rates are estimated by the cumulative incidence method.

Disease-free survival time is defined as time from randomization to date of local-regional failure, the appearance of distant metastases, the appearance of a second primary failure, or date of death from any cause/ Disease-free survival rates are estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients last known to be alive without failure are censored at the date of last contact.

Highest grade adverse event per subject were counted. Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0. Grade refers to the severity of the AE. The CTCAE v3.0 assigns Grades 1 through 5 with unique clinical descriptions of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 1 Mild AE, Grade 2 Moderate AE, Grade 3 Severe AE, Grade 4 Life-threatening or disabling AE, Grade 5 Death related to AE.

Highest grade adverse event per subject were counted. Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0. Grade refers to the severity of the AE. The CTCAE v3.0 assigns Grades 1 through 5 with unique clinical descriptions of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 1 Mild AE, Grade 2 Moderate AE, Grade 3 Severe AE, Grade 4 Life-threatening or disabling AE, Grade 5 Death related to AE.

Highest grade adverse event per subject were counted. Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0. Grade refers to the severity of the AE. The CTCAE v3.0 assigns Grades 1 through 5 with unique clinical descriptions of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 1 Mild AE, Grade 2 Moderate AE, Grade 3 Severe AE, Grade 4 Life-threatening or disabling AE, Grade 5 Death related to AE.

Global Health Status is calculated from two questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-C30. The question responses range from 1 "very poor" to 7 "excellent" such that a higher response indicates better quality of life (QOL). The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates decline in quality of life. A positive number indicates improvement in QOL.

Global Health Status is calculated from two questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-C30. The question responses range from 1 "very poor" to 7 "excellent" such that a higher response indicates better quality of life (QOL). The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates decline in quality of life. A positive number indicates improvement in QOL.

The gastro-intestinal (GI) symptom score is calculated from five symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

The gastro-intestinal (GI) symptom score is calculated from five symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

The gastro-intestinal (GI) symptom score is calculated from five symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

The defecation symptom score is calculated from seven symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 "not at all" to 4 "very much" such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

The defecation symptom score is calculated from seven symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 "not at all" to 4 "very much" such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

The defecation symptom score is calculated from seven symptom questions on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire \[EORTC QLQ\]-CR38. The question responses range from 1 "not at all" to 4 "very much" such that a higher response indicates worse symptoms. The mean of these responses is linearly transformed to a range of 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Change from baseline is calculated as the time point value - baseline value and a decrease from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. A negative number indicates improvement in symptoms.

Study Centers

These are the hospitals, clinics, or research facilities where the trial is being conducted. You can find the location closest to you and its status.
This study has 5 locations
Suspended
University of California Davis Cancer CenterSacramento, United StatesSee the location
Suspended
Baptist-South Miami Regional Cancer ProgramMiami, United States
Suspended
Ingalls Cancer Care Center at Ingalls Memorial HospitalHarvey, United States
Suspended
Fox Chase Virtua Health Cancer Program at Virtua Memorial Hospital MarltonMarlton, United States

Completed5 Study Centers
;