Impact of timing of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in stage III colon cancer: a population-based study

Capacity Prioritization Initiative Reduced the Wait Time for Port Placement and Facilitated Increased Volume of Port Placements at a Large County Health System

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Wait time from request to placement of ports in interventional radiology had increased from 14 to 27 days over a 4-month period. The goal of this project was to reduce the wait time by 15% within 4 months while accommodating additional volume.

INSTITUIONAL APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEM

Capacity analysis revealed 2 bottlenecks: (1) inadequate provider capacity for preprocedural visits in interventional radiology clinic and (2) inadequate number of spots for port placement in the angiography schedule. The intervention consisted of: (1) 2 reserved slots in the attending physician's morning clinic schedule and (2) 3 daily guaranteed spots for port placement in the angiography suite. Both changes were integrated into the electronic medical record scheduling system.

DESCRIPTION OF OUTCOMES

After the intervention, per biweekly period, the number of port requests increased by 17% (Preintervention: 16.6 ± 3.1, Postintervention: 20.1 ± 4.1, P = 0.03), the number of completed clinic visits increased by 19% (Preintervention: 16.7 ± 5.1, Postintervention: 20.5 ± 3.6, P = 0.05), and the number of port placements increased by 19% (Preintervention: 16.9 ± 3.9, Postintervention: 21.0 ± 3.5, P = 0.02). The average wait time from request to placement decreased by 22% (Preintervention: 22.2 ± 4.4 days, Postintervention: 18.3 ± 3.4 days, P = 0.03), driven by a 49% decrease in wait time between request and clinic visit (Preintervention: 11.0 ± 2.3 days, Postintervention: 7.4 ± 1.0 days, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritization of clinic and angiography suite capacity, integrated into the electronic scheduling system, significantly reduced the wait time for port placement, even with significant increases in the volume of port requests.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer

Simple Summary

In patients with stage III colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine combined with oxaliplatin reduces the risk of recurrence and mortality, with a treatment duration that may be shortened from 6 to 3 months in certain situations allowing to limit toxicities, especially cumulative sensitive neuropathy. However, it is difficult to effectively predict the risk of recurrence individually for each patient. It is indeed necessary not to over-treat patients with potential toxicities of chemotherapy and, conversely, not to under-treat patients at high risk of recurrence, and also to find new treatment approaches for specific subgroups. Though no single biomarker have sufficient predictive value to adapt the therapeutic strategy, we have considerably improved our knowledge of these biomarkers predictive of recurrence in localized colon cancer and many trials testing their ability to guide treatment are ongoing.

Abstract

In patients with stage III colon cancer (CC), adjuvant chemotherapy with the combination of oxapliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is a standard of care. The duration of treatment can be reduced from 6 months to 3 months, depending on the regimen, for patients at low risk of recurrence, without loss of effectiveness and allowing a significant reduction in the risk of cumulative sensitive neuropathy. However, our capacity to identify patients that do really need this doublet adjuvant treatment remains limited. In fact, only 30% at the most will actually benefit from this adjuvant treatment, 50% of them being already cured by the surgery and 20% of them experiencing disease recurrence despite the adjuvant treatment. Thus, it is necessary to be able to better predict individually for each patient the risk of recurrence and the need for adjuvant chemotherapy together with the need of new treatment approaches for specific subgroups. Many biomarkers have been described with their own prognostic weight, without leading to any change in clinical practices for now. In this review, we will first discuss the recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy, and then the different biomarkers described and the future perspectives for the management of stage III CC.

COVID-19 and the Global Impact on Colorectal Practice and Surgery

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus that emerged in December 2019 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the sudden national reorganization of health care systems and changes in the delivery of health care globally. The purpose of our study was to use a survey to assess the global effects of COVID-19 on colorectal practice and surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A panel of International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 22 questions, which were included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in the ISUCRS database and was advertised on social media sites. The questionnaire remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 287 surgeons completed the survey. Of the 287 respondents, 90% were colorectal specialists or general surgeons with an interest in colorectal disease. COVID-19 had affected the practice of 96% of the surgeons, and 52% were now using telemedicine. Also, 66% reported that elective colorectal cancer surgery could proceed but with perioperative precautions. Of the 287 respondents, 19.5% reported that the use of personal protective equipment was the most important perioperative precaution. However, personal protective equipment was only provided by 9.1% of hospitals. In addition, 64% of surgeons were offering minimally invasive surgery. However, 44% reported that enough information was not available regarding the safety of the loss of intra-abdominal carbon dioxide gas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, 61% of the surgeons were prepared to defer elective colorectal cancer surgery, with 29% willing to defer for ≤ 8 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The results from our survey have demonstrated that, globally, COVID-19 has affected the ability of colorectal surgeons to offer care to their patients. We have also discussed suggestions for various practical adaptation strategies for use during the recovery period.

Early stage colon cancer: Current treatment standards, evolving paradigms, and future directions

Colon cancer continues to be one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity throughout the world despite the availability of reliable screening tools and effective therapies. The majority of patients with colon cancer are diagnosed at an early stage (stages I to III), which provides an opportunity for cure. The current treatment paradigm of early stage colon cancer consists of surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in a select group of patients, which is directed at the eradication of minimal residual disease to achieve a cure. Surgery alone is curative for the vast majority of colon cancer patients. Currently, surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy can achieve long term survival in about two-thirds of colon cancer patients with nodal involvement. Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for all patients with stage III colon cancer, while the benefit in stage II patients is not unequivocally established despite several large clinical trials. Contemporary research in early stage colon cancer is focused on minimally invasive surgical techniques, strategies to limit treatment-related toxicities, precise patient selection for adjuvant therapy, utilization of molecular and clinicopathologic information to personalize therapy and exploration of new therapies exploiting the evolving knowledge of tumor biology. In this review, we will discuss the current standard treatment, evolving treatment paradigms, and the emerging biomarkers, that will likely help improve patient selection and personalization of therapy leading to superior outcomes.

Enhanced recovery after surgery in emergency resection for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves outcomes after elective colorectal operations. Whether it is beneficial for emergency colorectal surgery is unclear. This study aimed to systematically review and summarize evidence from all studies comparing ERAS versus conventional care in patients having emergency colectomy and/or proctectomy for obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PUBMED from 1981 to December 2019 were systematically searched. Any studies comparing our primary outcome of interest (length of hospitalization) among patients having emergency resection for obstructive colorectal cancer who received ERAS versus conventional care were selected. Primary outcome was length of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative complication, 30-day readmission and mortality, and time to start adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Three cohort studies with 818 participants (418 received ERAS and 400 received conventional care) were included. Length of hospitalization (mean reduction 3.07 days; 95% CI, - 3.91 to - 2.23) and risk of overall complication (risk ratio 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97) were significantly lower in ERAS than in conventional care. ERAS was also associated with quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, a lower incidence of ileus, and a shorter interval between operation and commence of adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in the rates of anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and mortality within 30 days after surgery between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS had advantages over conventional care in patients undergoing emergency resection for obstructive colorectal cancer-including a shorter length of hospitalization, a lower incidence of overall complication, and a quicker gastrointestinal recovery.

Impact of timing of adjuvant chemotherapy following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer on patient survival

BACKGROUND

Trials of adjuvant chemotherapy following radical cystectomy generally require chemotherapy to start within 90 days postoperatively. However, it is unclear, whether the interval between surgery and start of adjuvant therapy (S-AC-interval) impacts the oncological outcome.

METHODS

Using the Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC) data base, we identified patients who underwent radical cystectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy. Univariate analysis of patient characteristics, surgical factors and tumor characteristics regarding their impact on S-AC-interval was performed using Kruskal-Wallis testing and Fisher's exact test. Analysis of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (follow-up time beginning with the start date of adjuvant chemotherapy) was analyzed in relation to S-AC-interval (continuous and dichotomous with a cut-off at 90 days) using Kaplan-Meier method and COX regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 238 eligible patients (83.5% male, mean age: 63.4 years, 76.1% T3/T4, 66.4% pN+, 14.7% R+, 70.6% urothelial carcinoma, 71% cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy). The majority of patients (n = 207, 87%) started chemotherapy within 90 days after surgery. Median S-AC-interval was 57 days (interquartile range 32.8). S-AC-interval did not have consistent association with any patient/tumor characteristics or surgery related factors (type of surgery, urinary diversion). Survival analysis using continuous S-AC-interval revealed a trend toward an impact of S-AC-interval on OS (hazard ratio 1.004, 95% confidence ratio 0.9997-1.0084, P = 0.071). With regards to PFS, that impact was shown to be statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.004, 95% confidence ratio 1.0003-1.0075, P = 0.032). In multivariate analysis, however, S-AC-interval was negated by tumor and patient related factors (pathological T-stage, N-stage, ECOG performance status). Accounting for eligibility criteria defined in some clinical trials, we extended our analysis dividing S-AC-interval in ≤90 and >90 days. Although we could confirm the trend toward better outcome in patients with a shorter S-AC interval in dichotomous analysis, neither differences in OS nor in PFS reached statistical significance (P = 0.438 and P = 0.056).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large multi-institutional experience, 87% of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy received it within the guideline recommended window of 90 days. While it was not possible to determine whether this is the optimal cut-off, early start of adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be reasonable. Regarding prognosis, tumor-related pathological factors abrogated the importance of the S-AC-interval in our analysis.

Trimodal Therapy Approaches for Localized Rectal Cancer

Excellent long-term outcomes and manageable toxicity are being achieved with contemporary treatment strategies for rectal cancer. Short-course radiotherapy is now an acceptable standard. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), which incorporates induction or consolidation chemotherapy, has improved the delivery of treatment regiments. TNT is now a standard of care, although the sequencing of radiation and chemotherapy in TNT, appropriate amount of chemotherapy in TNT, and addition of irinotecan to the regimen are still being debated. Nonoperative management of rectal cancer appears to be a safe option for select patients, but it is not yet an NCCN recommendation. In addition, the omission of radiation is being evaluated as a treatment option in some cases.

Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II or III colon cancer: experiences from a multicentre clinical trial in China

Since January 2020, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease designated covid-19 by the World Health Organization, a human-to-human contagious viral pneumonia that began in 2019, has been extensively influencing daily life in China[...]

Is Early Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Beneficial for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Radical Surgery?

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate whether earlier initiation (< 4 weeks) of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) confer any oncological benefits for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and radical surgery.

METHOD

Clinicopathological and survival outcomes were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to adjust for differences between groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of earlier ACT initiation on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Totally, 443 eligible patients were included. More laparoscopic surgeries, less postoperative complications, and more ACT completion were observed in patients whose ACT was initiated within 4 weeks after surgery (all P < 0.001). With a mean follow-up of 59 months, the 5-year OS and DFS rate was 89.8% and 82.0% in the early group, significantly higher than 81.6% and 73.1% in the late group (P = 0.007, and P = 0.022, respectively). After PSM, the 5-year OS and DFS rate was 90.9% and 84.4% in the early group, significantly higher than 83.4% and 68.8% in the late group (P = 0.047, and P = 0.017, respectively). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that time to ACT initiation (early vs. late, HR = 0.486, P = 0.008) was independently associated with OS.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of ACT (<4 weeks) confers a survival benefit, and is an independent prognostic factor of OS in LARC patients following nCRT. Further investigations are needed to define the role of earlier initiation of ACT in patients with LARC after nCRT.

Antiproliferative effects of combinational therapy of Lycopodium clavatum and quercetin in colon cancer cells

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent form of cancer and fourth leading cause of morbidity worldwide. Surgical resection remains the only curative approach for CRC, but recurrence following surgery is the main problem and ultimate cause of death. Lycopodium clavatum and quercetin have been found to exert its anticancer properties. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether quercetin or L. clavatum extract and combination of both have any profound role in reducing major inflammatory cytokines in Colo-320 cells. Methods L. clavatum and Quercetin alone or in combination was administered to colon cancer cells and various toxicity markers, gene expression analyses of apototic genes and gelatin zymmography were performed. Results Quercetin (50 μm) in combination with L. clavatum extract (10 μL) distinctly reduced cell growth and highlighted their potential effects in extirpation of colon cancer cells. Treatment with increased dose of L. clavatum extract in combination with quercetin reduced the colony size and proliferation potential when compared to the sole treatment of plant extracts. In the antimicrobial assays, it was observed that Lycopodium alone exhibited antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Characterization of L. clavatum extract and quercetin was performed and confirmed the presence of flavonoids and alkaloids. Treatment with Lycopodium and quercetin combination induced significant down-regulation in activities of MMP2 and MMP9 tested by gelatin zymography. The combined treatment greatly affected the mRNA expression of p53, Bcl2, Bax, Caspase 3, Wnt 1, Cyclin D1, and Catalase genes in colon cancer cells. Conclusion The synergistic effect between Lycopodium and quercetin might bring forward the enhanced antitumorigenic properties of combinational therapy with natural products to successfully combat the cancer progression with minimal side effects and resistance to drugs.

Comorbidities, timing of treatments, and chemotherapy use influence outcomes in stage III colon cancer: A population-based European study

INTRODUCTION

For stage III colon cancer (CC), surgery followed by chemotherapy is the main curative approach, although optimum times between diagnosis and surgery, and surgery and chemotherapy, have not been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed a population-based sample of 1912 stage III CC cases diagnosed in eight European countries in 2009-2013 aiming to estimate: (i) odds of receiving postoperative chemotherapy, overall and within eight weeks of surgery; (ii) risks of death/relapse, according to treatment, Charlson Comorbidity Index, time from diagnosis to surgery for emergency and elective cases, and time from surgery to chemotherapy; and (iii) time-trends in chemotherapy use.

RESULTS

Overall, 97% of cases received surgery and 65% postoperative chemotherapy, with 71% of these receiving chemotherapy within eight weeks of surgery. Risks of death and relapse were higher for cases starting chemotherapy with delay, but better than for cases not given chemotherapy. Fewer patients with high comorbidities received chemotherapy than those with low (P < 0.001). Chemotherapy timing did not vary (P = 0.250) between high and low comorbidity cases. Electively-operated cases with low comorbidities received surgery more promptly than high comorbidity cases. Risks of death and relapse were lower for elective cases given surgery after four weeks than cases given surgery within a week. High comorbidities were always independently associated with poorer outcomes. Chemotherapy use increased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that promptly-administered postoperative chemotherapy maximizes its benefit, and that careful assessment of comorbidities is important before treatment. The survival benefit associated with slightly delayed elective surgery deserves further investigation.

Association of Timing of Adjuvant Therapy With Survival in Patients With Resected Stage I to II Pancreatic Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation is widely used to treat resectable pancreatic cancer. Although studies suggest initiation of adjuvant therapy within 12 weeks of surgery, there is no clear time interval associated with better survival.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ideal timing of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage I to II resected pancreatic cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included 7548 patients with stage I to II resected pancreatic cancer (5453 with adjuvant therapy; 2095 without adjuvant therapy) from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2015. Data were collected from January 2014 to December 2015 and analyzed from December 2018 to May 2019.

EXPOSURES

Adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation at various time intervals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 7548 patients (3770 male [49.9%]; median [interquartile range] age, 67 [59-74] years) were identified from the National Cancer Database. Among 5453 patients with adjuvant therapy, a Cox model with restricted cubic splines identified the lowest mortality risk when adjuvant therapy was started 28 to 59 days after surgery. Patients were divided into early (n = 269, adjuvant therapy initiated within <28 days), reference (n = 3048, adjuvant therapy initiated within 28-59 days), and late (n = 2136, adjuvant therapy initiated after >59 days) interval cohorts. Median (interquartile range) overall follow-up was 38.6 (24.6-62.0) months. Compared with the reference interval cohort on multivariable analysis, both the early cohort (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.35; P = .03) and the late cohort (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .008) were associated with worse mortality. Similarly, the reference interval cohort had improved OS compared with the early cohort in 268 propensity-matched pairs (2-year OS, 52.5% [95% CI, 46.7%-59.0%] vs 45.1% [95% CI, 39.5%-51.6%]; P = .02) and compared with the late cohort in 2042 propensity-matched pairs (2-year OS, 51.3% [95% CI, 49.1%-53.6%] vs 45.4% [95% CI, 43.3%-47.7%]; P = .01). Patients who received adjuvant therapy more than 12 weeks after surgery (n = 683) had improved OS compared with surgery alone in both multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.85; P < .001) and 655 propensity-matched pairs (2-year OS, 47.2% [95% CI, 43.5%-51.3%] vs 38.0% [95% CI, 34.4%-42.0%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with stage I to II pancreatic cancer who commenced adjuvant therapy within 28 to 59 days after primary surgical resection had improved survival outcomes compared with those with adjuvant therapy before 28 days or after 59 days. Patients who recovered slowly from surgery still benefited from delayed adjuvant therapy initiated more than 12 weeks after surgery compared with patients who underwent surgery only.

Timing of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Colorectal, Gastric, and Pancreatic Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in gastrointestinal malignancies is still a matter of debate. For colorectal cancer, it is recommended to start post-operative treatment within eight weeks. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effects of starting adjuvant CT within or after 6–8 weeks post-surgery in colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2018. Publications comparing the outcomes of patients treated with adjuvant CT administered before (early) or after (delayed) 6–8 weeks post-surgery for colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). (3) Results: Out of 8752 publications identified, 34 comparative studies assessing a total of 141,853 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increased risk of death with delayed CT (>6–8 weeks post-surgery) in colorectal cancer (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–1.33; p <0.001). Similarly, for gastric cancer, delaying adjuvant CT was associated with inferior overall survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.04–1.38; p = 0.01). Conversely, the benefit of earlier CT was not evident in pancreatic cancer (HR = 1, 95% CI 1–1.01; p = 0.37). Conclusions: Starting adjuvant CT within 6–8 weeks post-surgery is associated with a significant survival benefit for colorectal and gastric cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer.

Multi-modal prehabilitation: addressing the why, when, what, how, who and where next?

Just as there is growing interest in enhancing recovery after surgery, prehabilitation is becoming a recognised means of preparing the patient physically for their operation and/or subsequent treatment. Exercise training is an important stimulus for improving low cardiovascular fitness and preserving lean muscle mass, which are critical factors in how well the patient recovers from surgery. Despite the usual focus on exercise, it is important to recognise the contribution of nutritional optimisation and psychological wellbeing for both the adherence and the response to the physical training stimulus. This article reviews the importance of a multi-modal approach to prehabilitation in order to maximise its impact in the pre-surgical period, as well as critical future steps in its development and integration in the healthcare system.

A nomogram to predict prognosis in patients undergoing sublobar resection for stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer

Introduction

This study aimed to develop a practical nomogram to predict prognosis in patients who are undergoing sublobar resection for stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases were used to construct the nomogram.

Methods

Data from patients undergoing sublobar resection for stage IA NSCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were extracted from the SEER database. Factors that may predict the outcome were identified using the Kaplan–Meier method and the Cox proportional-hazards model. A nomogram was constructed to predict the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) rates of these patients. The predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve.

Results

A total of 4,866 patients were selected for this study. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, eight independent prognostic factors associated with OS were identified, including sex (P<0.001), age (P<0.001), race (P=0.043), marital status (P=0.009), pathology (P=0.004), differentiation (P<0.001), tumor size (P<0.001), and surgery (P=0.001), and five independent prognostic factors associated with LCSS were also identified, including sex (P<0.001), age (P<0.001), differentiation (P<0.001), tumor size (P<0.001), and surgery (P=0.011). A nomogram was established based on these results and validated using the internal bootstrap resampling method. The C-index of the established nomogram for OS and LCSS was 0.649 (95% CI: 0.635–0.663) and 0.640 (95% CI: 0.622–0.658), respectively. The calibration curves for probability of 3-, and 5-year OS and LCSS rates demonstrated good agreement between the nomogram prediction and actual observation.

Conclusion

This innovative nomogram delivered a relatively accurate individual prognostic prediction for patients undergoing sublobar resection for stage IA NSCLC.