Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer Patients With Clinical Stage II to III Across European Countries: Variations and Outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2020
Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006e2009; II) 2010e2013; III)2014e2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/ radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p ¼ 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p ¼ 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p ¼ 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59e0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P ¼ 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN þ benefited the most.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2017
Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is currently standard of care in stage II-III rectal cancer, resulting in tumor downstaging for patients with treatment-responsive disease. However, the prognosis of the downstaged patient remains controversial. This work critically analyzes the relative contribution of pre- and post-therapy staging to the anticipated survival of downstaged patients. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with rectal cancer treated with transabdominal resection between 2004 and 2014. Stage II-III patients downstaged with neoadjuvant radiation were compared with stage I patients treated with definitive resection alone. Patients with positive surgical margins were excluded. Overall survival was evaluated using both Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 44 320 patients were eligible for analysis. Survival was equivalent for patients presenting with cT1N0 disease undergoing resection (m...
Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy Use in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer at NCCN Member Institutions
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2014
Based on randomized data, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been incorporated into the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for stage II-III rectal cancer. Factors associated with nonadherence to evidence-based guidelines for neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) were examined at dedicated cancer centers. The prospective NCCN Oncology Outcomes Database for Colorectal Cancers was queried for patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who underwent a transabdominal surgical resection between September 2005 and June 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with omission of RT. Among 1199 identified patients, 1119 (93%) received neoadjuvant RT, 51 (4%) did not receive RT, and 29 (2%) received adjuvant RT. Among 51 patients not receiving RT, only 19 (37%) were referred and evaluated by a radiation oncologist. On multivariable analysis, clinical factors associated with not receiving RT included a history of prior pelvic RT (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 23.9; P=.0003), ECOG performance status of 2 or greater (aOR, 11.1; P=.01), tumor distance from the anal verge greater than 10 cm (aOR, 5.4; P=.009), age at diagnosis of 75 years or older (aOR, 4.43; P=.002), body mass index of 25 to 30 kg/m 2 and less than 25 kg/m 2 (aOR, 5.22 and 4.23, respectively; P=.03), and clinical stage II (aOR, 2.27; P=.02). No significant change was seen in RT use according to diagnosis year, nor was any correlation seen with distance to the nearest RT facility. Concordance with NCCN Guidelines for neoadjuvant RT is high among NCCN Member Institutions. After adjusting for clinical characteristics that increase the risk for RT toxicity, including history of pelvic RT and high comorbidity burden/low functional status, the authors found that non-obese patients of advanced age or those with more favorable clinical features were more likely to not receive RT.
Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy and rectal cancer: can the UK watch and wait with Brazil?
Colorectal Disease, 2000
Objecive It has recently been reported that up to onethird of patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer managed with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) had a complete clinical response (cCR) to treatment. In the selected cases, this has been used as the sole treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of complete pathological response for patients receiving CRT in one centre in the UK.
Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2013
Purpose: To present an interim analysis of the trial comparing two neoadjuvant therapies for unresectable rectal cancer. Methods: Patients with fixed cT3 or cT4 or locally recurrent rectal cancer without distant metastases were randomized to either 5 Â 5 Gy and 3 courses of FOLFOX4 (schedule I) or 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions given simultaneously with 5-Fu, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (schedule II). Surgery in both groups was performed 12 weeks after the beginning of radiation and 6 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment. Results: 49 patients were treated according to schedule I and 48 according to schedule II. Grade III+ acute toxicity was observed in 26% of patients in group I and in 25% in group II. There were two toxic deaths, both in group II. The microscopically radical resection (primary endpoint) rate was 73% in group I and 71% in group II. Overall and severe postoperative complications were recorded in 27% and 9% of patients vs. 16% and 7%, respectively. Pathological complete response was observed in 21% of the patients in group I and in 9% in group II. Conclusions: The interim analysis revealed no major differences in acute toxicity and local efficacy between the two evaluated strategies. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Radiotherapy and Oncology 107 (2013) 171-177
Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background. Although neoadjuvant radiotherapy may improve local control of rectal cancer, its clinical value requires further evaluation as a result of potential side effects and advances in surgical technique. A meta-analysis was performed to assess effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in the management of rectal cancer. Methods. The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Library, Biosis, Web of Science, Embase, ASCO Abstracts and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Randomized controlled trials on the following comparisons were included: (1) neoadjuvant therapy versus surgery alone and (2) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Results. We identified 17 and 5 relevant trials that enrolled 8,568 and 2,393 patients, respectively. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy improved local control (hazard ratio 0.59; 95 % confidence interval 0.48-0.72) compared to surgery alone even after total mesorectal excision, whereas its benefit in overall survival just failed to reach statistical significance (0.93; 0.85-1.00). However, it was associated with increased perioperative mortality (1.48; 1.08-2.03), in Nuh N. Rahbari and Heike Elbers contributed equally to this work.
International Journal of Cancer, 2014
Recent literature suggests that the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) for rectal cancer patients might depend on the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT). Aim was to evaluate whether the effect of aCT in rectal cancer is modified by response to CRT and to identify which patients benefit from aCT after CRT, by means of a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 13 datasets. Patients were categorized into three groups: pCR (ypT0N0), ypT1-2 tumour and ypT3-4 tumour. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of aCT were derived from multivariable Cox regression analyses. Primary outcome measure was recurrence-free survival (RFS). One thousand seven hundred and twenty three (1723) (52%) of 3,313 included patients received aCT. Eight hundred and ninety eight (898) patients had a pCR, 966 had a ypT1-2 tumour and 1,302 had a ypT3-4 tumour. For 122 patients response, category was missing and 25 patients had ypT0N1. Median follow-up for all patients was 51 (0-219) months. HR for RFS with 95% CI for patients treated with aCT were 1.25(0.68-2.29), 0.58(0.37-0.89) and 0.83(0.66-1.10) for patients with pCR, ypT1-2 and ypT3-4 tumours, respectively. The effect of aCT in rectal cancer patients treated with CRT differs between subgroups. Patients with a pCR after CRT may not benefit from aCT, whereas patients with residual tumour had superior outcomes when aCT was administered. The test for interaction did not reach statistical significance, but the results support further investigation of a more individualized approach to administer aCT after CRT and surgery based on pathologic staging.
2020
Background Nonoperative management after neoadjuvant treatment in low rectal cancer enables organ preservation and avoids surgical morbidity. Our aim is to compare oncological outcomes in patients with clinical complete response in watch and wait strategy with those who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery with a pathological complete response. Methods Patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment with clinical complete response in watch and wait approach (group 1, n = 26) and complete pathological responders (ypT0N0) after chemoradiotherapy and surgery (group 2, n = 22), between January 2011 and October 2018, were included retrospectively, and all of them evaluated and followed in a multidisciplinary team. A comparative analysis of local and distant recurrence rates and disease-free and overall survival between both groups was carried out. Statistical analysis was performed using log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and Kapl...
Tumori
The aim of the current study was to compare a neoadjuvant regimen containing oxaliplatin with standard preoperative treatment for rectal cancer. From December 2006 to December 2007, 20 patients with rectal cancer were treated at our Institution with the weekly addition of oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2)) to radiotherapy (50.4-54.0 Gy in 28-30 daily fractions) and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (200 mg/m(2)). The results of the regimen were compared with a historical control group including 21 consecutive patients previously treated with standard 5-fluorouracil treatment from December 2004 to October 2006. Both the rate of sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer (91.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and the rate of downstaging (84.2% vs 47.6%, P = 0.023) were higher in the oxaliplatin group than in the control group. Pathological complete response was achieved in 8 patients (42.1%) in the oxaliplatin group and in 4 patients (19.0%) in the control group (P = 0.172). When ypT0-pT1 stages were...