Effect of Interval (7 or 11 weeks) Between Neoadjuvant Radiochemotherapy and Surgery on Complete Pathologic Response in Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial (GRECCAR-6)

Association of Time Between Radiation and Salvage APR and Margin Status in Patients With Anal Cancer Treated With Concurrent Chemoradiation

There is a controversy regarding the optimal time to assess anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) response to chemoradiation and when salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR) should be offered. A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients with stage I-III anal SCC treated with chemoradiation in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). The time between radiation and APR was recorded. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to determine predictors of resection margin status and overall survival. The cohort included 23 050 patients, of whom 545 (2.4%) underwent salvage APR. The median (IQR) time between radiation and resection was 3.8 (2.4-5.5) months. The rate of positive margins was 19.0%. Positive margins were more common in male, non-white patients with larger tumors, pathologic upstaging of T stage, and ≥3 months between chemoradiation and resection (all P < .05). Observing for ≥3 months between chemoradiation and APR remained associated with positive margins, even after adjusting for pretreatment tumor size (odds ratio = 2.56, 95% CI 1.46-4.47). Our data, based on the largest published cohort of anal SCC patients treated with chemoradiation and subsequent APR, suggest that patients at high risk of local treatment failure, particularly non-white men with large tumors, may benefit from early interim restaging and earlier consideration of salvage surgery.

Impact of Prolonged Neoadjuvant Treatment-surgery Interval on Histopathologic and Operative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study primarily aimed to assess the impact of prolonged neoadjuvant treatment-surgery interval (PNSI) on histopathologic and postoperative outcomes. Impacts of the mode of neoadjuvant treatment (NT) and surgery on the outcomes were also evaluated in the same patient population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between February 2011 and December 2017, patients who underwent NT and total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer were included. PNSI was defined as >4 and >8 weeks after short-course and long-course NT modalities, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 44 (27%) patients received short-course NT (standard interval: n=28; PNSI: n=16) and 122 (73%) patients received long-course NT (standard interval: n=39; PNSI: n=83). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the standard interval and PNSI in patients undergoing short-course [n=3 (11%) vs. n=3 (19%), P=0.455] and long-course [n=6 (15%) vs. n=16 (19%), P=0.602] NT. PNSI was associated with increased complete pathologic response in patients receiving short-course NT [0 vs. n=5 (31%), P=0.002]. Compared with short-course NT, long-course NT was superior in terms of tumor response based on the Mandard [Mandard 1 to 2: n=6 (21%) vs. 6 (38%), P=0.012] and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) [CAP 0 to 1: n=13 (46%) vs. n=8 (50%), P=0.009] scores. Postoperative morbidity was similar after open, laparoscopic, and robotic total mesorectal excision [n=1 (14.2%) vs. n=21 (21%) vs. n=6 (12.5%), P=0.455] irrespective of the interval time to surgery and the type of NT.

CONCLUSIONS

PNSI can be considered in patients undergoing short-course NT due to its potential oncological benefits. The mode of surgery performed at tertiary centers has no impact on postoperative morbidity after both NT modalities.

How should colorectal surgeons practice during the COVID-19 epidemic? A retrospective single-centre analysis based on real-world data from China

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 is currently of global concern. Cancer patients are advised to stay at home in case of potential infection, which may cause delays of routine diagnosis and necessary treatment. How colorectal surgeons should manage this during the epidemic remains a big challenge. The objective of the study is to evaluate the feasibility of routine colorectal surgery during coronavirus disease 2019 and to offer some Chinese recommendations to colorectal surgeons throughout the world.

Methods

A total of 166 patients receiving colorectal surgery from 20 December 2019 to 20 March 2020 at Department of General Surgery in Chinese General Hospital of People's Liberation Army were enrolled, and further divided into two groups based on before or after admission date of 20 January 2020. Clinicopathologic data such as hospital stay and economic data such as total costs were collected and analysed retrospectively.

Results

Longer hospital stay, higher proportion of non‐local patients and more hospitalization cost were found in the post‐20 January group (special‐time group) (P < 0.001; P < 0.05; P < 0.05, respectively). Apart from this, no difference existed with regard to baseline demographical data such as age, sex and height, as well as clinicopathological data such as previous history, surgery time, operation extent and TNM staging.

Conclusions

This real‐world study indicated that performing colorectal surgery during coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic might be safe and feasible based on comprehensive screening and investigation. We have summarized several recommendations here, hoping to help surgeons from related departments across the world.

Outcome measures in multimodal rectal cancer trials

There is a large variability regarding the definition and choice of primary endpoints in phase 2 and phase 3 multimodal rectal cancer trials, resulting in inconsistency and difficulty of data interpretation. Also, surrogate properties of early and intermediate endpoints have not been systematically assessed. We provide a comprehensive review of clinical and surrogate endpoints used in trials for non-metastatic rectal cancer. The applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of these endpoints are summarised, with recommendations on clinical endpoints for the different phase trials, including limited surgery or non-operative management for organ preservation. We discuss how early and intermediate endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes and involvement of patients in decision making, can be used to guide trial design and facilitate consistency in reporting trial results in rectal cancer.

The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.

Caring for Patients with Rectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The extraordinary spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has dramatically and rapidly changed the way in which we provide medical care for patients with all diagnoses. Conservation of resources, social distancing, and the risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19-positive cancer patients have forced practitioners and surgeons to completely rethink routine care. The treatment of patients with rectal cancer requires both a multidisciplinary approach and a significant amount of resources. It is therefore imperative to rethink how rectal cancer treatment can be aligned with the current COVID-19 pandemic paradigms. In this review, we discuss evidence-based recommendations to optimize oncological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Response Assessment with MRI after Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences

Baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the primary staging modality for surgical plans and stratification of patient populations for more efficient neoadjuvant treatment. Patients who exhibit a complete response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may achieve excellent local tumor control and better quality of life with organ-preserving treatments such as local excision or even watch-and-wait management. Therefore, the evaluation of tumor response is a key factor for determining the appropriate treatment following CRT. Although post-CRT MRI is generally accepted as the first-choice method for evaluating treatment response after CRT, its application in the clinical decision process is not fully validated. In this review, we will discuss various oncologic treatment options from radical surgical technique to organ-preservation strategies for achieving better cancer control and improved quality of life following CRT. In addition, the current status of post-CRT MRI in restaging rectal cancer as well as the main imaging features that should be evaluated for treatment planning will also be described for the tailored treatment.

Timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy affects oncologic outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy in esophageal cancer has not been defined.

AIM

To evaluate whether a prolonged time interval between the end of nCRT and surgery has an effect on survival outcome in esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for relevant articles published before November 16, 2019, to identify potential studies that evaluated the prognostic role of different time intervals between nCRT and surgery in esophageal cancer. The hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were merged to estimate the correlation between the time intervals and survival outcomes in esophageal cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma using fixed- and random-effect models.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12621 patients from 16 studies. The results demonstrated that esophageal cancer patients with a prolonged time interval between the end of nCRT and surgery had significantly worse overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR): 1.107, 95%CI: 1.014-1.208, P = 0.023] than those with a shorter time interval. Subgroup analysis showed that poor OS with a prolonged interval was observed based on both the sample size and HRs. There was also significant association between a prolonged time interval and decreased OS in Asian, but not Caucasian patients. In addition, a longer wait time indicated worse OS (HR: 1.385, 95%CI: 1.186-1.616, P < 0.001) in patients with adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

A prolonged time interval from the completion of nCRT to surgery is associated with a significant decrease in OS. Thus, esophagectomy should be performed within 7-8 wk after nCRT.

Prognostic significance of early complete response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy: Multicentric study of Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Group (TROD)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To assess the effect of various parameters on the oncologic outcomes, including the time interval between therapy and surgery (S) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 914 LARC patients who received preoperative CRT between 1994 and 2015 were collected retrospectively. Patients received 45-50.4 Gy RT with 5FU based chemotherapy (CT). They all underwent radical resection followed by maintenance CT. Clinical and pathologic variables were compared between the pCR and no-pCR groups. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model was used in multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

After median follow-up of 60.5 (range=12-297.6) months, median overall survival (OS) was 58.75 months and disease-free survival (DFS) 53.32 months. pCR was observed in 18.9% of all cases. pCR, lymphovascular invasion and metastatic lymph node ratio (mLNR) were significantly associated with OS and DFS on multivariate analysis. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were better in pCR group (95.3% vs 80.7% for OS, p<0.0001 and 87.4% vs 71% for DFS, p<0.0001). pCR patients with 4-8 weeks interval had lower rates of distant metastasis (9% vs 20%, p=0.01) and any recurrences (13.6% vs 29.6%, p=0.001) than the remaining. Both OS and DFS were better in favor of pCR achieved at 4-8 week interval time (p<0.0001 for each).

CONCLUSION

pCR after preoperative CRT in LARC correlated with better oncologic outcome. The best OS and DFS durations were achieved in patients who experienced pCR after 4-8-weeks interval before surgery.

Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncological surgery during the Covid-19 epidemic

The Covid-19 pandemic is changing the organization of healthcare and has a direct impact on digestive surgery. Healthcare priorities and circuits are being modified. Emergency surgery is still a priority. Functional surgery is to be deferred. Laparoscopic surgery must follow strict rules so as not to expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to added risk. The question looms large in cancer surgery-go ahead or defer? There is probably an added risk due to the pandemic that must be balanced against the risk incurred by deferring surgery. For each type of cancer-colon, pancreas, oesogastric, hepatocellular carcinoma-morbidity and mortality rates are stated and compared with the oncological risk incurred by deferring surgery and/or the tumour doubling time. Strategies can be proposed based on this comparison. For colonic cancers T1-2, N0, it is advisable to defer surgery. For advanced colonic lesions, it seems judicious to undertake neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then wait. For rectal cancers T3-4 and/or N+, chemoradiotherapy is indicated, short radiotherapy must be discussed (followed by a waiting period) to reduce time of exposure in the hospital and to prevent infections. Most complex surgery with high morbidity and mortality-oesogastric, hepatic or pancreatic-is most often best deferred.

COVID-19 epidemic: Proposed alternatives in the management of digestive cancers: A French intergroup clinical point of view (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

Patients treated for malignancy are considered at risk of severe COVID-19. This exceptional pandemic has affected countries on every level, particularly health systems which are experiencing saturation. Like many countries, France is currently greatly exposed, and a complete reorganization of hospitals is ongoing. We propose here adaptations of diagnostic procedures, therapies and care strategies for patients treated for digestive cancer during the COVID-19 epidemic.

METHODS

French societies of gastroenterology and gastrointestinal (GI) oncology carried out this study to answer two main questions that have arisen (i) how can we limit high-risk situations for GI-cancer patients and (ii) how can we limit contact between patients and care centers to decrease patients' risk of contamination while continuing to treat their cancer. All recommendations are graded as experts' agreement according to the level of evidence found in the literature until March 2020.

RESULTS

A proposal to adapt treatment strategies was made for the main GI oncology situations. Considering the level of evidence and the heterogeneous progression of the COVID-19 epidemic, all proposals need to be considered by a multidisciplinary team and implemented with patient consent.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 epidemic may significantly affect patients treated for digestive malignancies. Healthcare teams need to consider adapting treatment sequences when feasible and according to the epidemic situation.

Caring for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era

The current COVID-19 pandemic challenges oncologists to profoundly re-organize oncological care in order to dramatically reduce hospital visits and admissions and therapy-induced immune-related complications without compromising cancer outcomes. Since COVID-19 is a novel disease, guidance by scientific evidence is often unavailable, and impactful decisions are inevitably made on the basis of expert opinions. Here we report how the seven comprehensive cancer centers of Cancer Core Europe have organized their healthcare systems at an unprecedented scale and pace to make their operations 'pandemic proof'. We identify and discuss many commonalities, but also important local differences, and pinpoint critical research priorities to enable evidence-based remodeling of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we discuss how the current situation offers a unique window of opportunity for assessing the effects of de-escalating anticancer regimens, which may fast-forward the development of more-refined and less-toxic treatments. By sharing our joint experiences, we offer a roadmap for proceeding and aim to mobilize the global research community to generate the data that are critically needed to offer the best possible care to patients.

Delayed surgery after radio-chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma is protective for anastomotic dehiscence: a single-center observational retrospective cohort study

Ideal time interval between end of neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (NRCT) and surgery for rectal cancer is debated. Effect that different time intervals have on postoperative complications with particular regard to anastomotic dehiscence (AD) was evaluated on 167 patients who underwent surgery after long-course NRCT. Three different time intervals were considered: (0-42; 43-56; > 57 days). A time interval > 57 days was significantly protective for AD (p = 0.04, Odds ratio = 0.35; 95% CI 0.1254-0.9585) without influence on early oncological outcomes. Optimal time interval after end of NRCT and surgery may help achieving the best pathological response with lowest postoperative morbidity.Trial registration number: Clinical Trial. Gov NCT04013347. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04013347&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= ).

Importance of patient reported and clinical outcomes for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and their treating physicians. Do clinicians know what patients want?

INTRODUCTION

Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians.

METHODS

Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes.

RESULTS

In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88-26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9-6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1-32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5-19.4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.

Clinicopathologic determinants of pathologic treatment response in neoadjuvant treated rectal adenocarcinoma

Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by total mesorectal excision is currently considered the standard of treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma. The degree of pathologic treatment response (pTR) correlates significantly with the recurrence free survival and overall survival (OS). However, it remains unclear which clinical and pathologic factors are associated with a more robust response to NAT, including showing pathologic complete response (pCR). Chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) overexpression has been associated with unfavorable OS in some studies. In this study, we sought to evaluate the clinicopathologic determinants of pTR in neoadjuvant treated rectal adenocarcinoma (NAT-RA). We retrospectively identified 91 patients who underwent pre-treatment diagnostic biopsy, NAT, and surgical resection at our institution. The archival slides were reviewed for pathologic features in the pre-treatment biopsies and for assessment of pTR in the resection specimens according to the current College of American Pathologist (CAP)'s guidelines. pCR was obtained in 16.5% of the cases, whereas 20.9% had near pCR, 30.8% had partial response, and 31.9% had a poor/no response. CXCR4 immunohistochemical analysis was also performed on the pre-treatment biopsies. Lower pre-treatment cT-stage (p = 0.019) and pre-treatment AJCC cTNM stage groups (p = 0.004), longer time interval between completion of NAT and resection (p = 0.022), and presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the pre-treatment biopsies (p = 0.019) were significantly associated with a better pTR. CXCR4 nuclear expression was associated with a lower percentage of residual tumor (p = 0.036). Pre-treatment CEA levels, tumor differentiation, CAP treatment response groups and lower percentage of residual tumor were associated with a better OS.

[Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncologic surgery in COVID-19 epidemic situation]

La pandémie due au COVID-19 modifie l’organisation des soins et change la réalisation de la chirurgie digestive. Les priorités sanitaires et les circuits de soins sont modifiés. La chirurgie d’urgence reste prioritaire. Les interventions pour chirurgie fonctionnelles sont à reporter. La chirurgie par laparoscopie doit suivre des règles strictes pour ne pas exposer les professionnels à un surrisque. Le questionnement principal concerne la chirurgie oncologique, opérer ou reporter ? Il existe probablement un sur risque opératoire induit par la pandémie qui doit être mis en balance avec le retard de prise en charge chirurgical. Pour chaque type de cancer, colon, pancréas, œsogastrique, hépatocarcinome, la morbi-mortalité est rappelée et mise en parallèle avec le risque oncologique lié au retard à la chirurgie et/ou au temps de doublement de la tumeur. Cette comparaison permet de proposer des stratégies, ainsi pour les cancers coliques (T1-2, N0), il est souhaitable de retarder la chirurgie. Pour les lésions coliques avancées, il semble prudent de recommander une chimiothérapie néo adjuvante et d’attendre. Pour les cancers du rectum T3-4 et/ou N+, une radio-chimiothérapie est indiquée, une radiothérapie courte devra être discutée (suivie d’une période d’attente) afin de réduire le temps d’exposition à l’hôpital et d’éviter les infections. La majorité des chirurgies complexes à forte morbi-mortalité, œsogastrique, hépatique ou pancréatique doivent sans doute le plus souvent être reportée.

Delaying surgery by more than 10 weeks after long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer patients improves pathologic complete response

BACKGROUND

We currently do not know the optimal time interval between the end of chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Longer intervals have been associated with a higher pathological response rate, worse pathological outcomes and more morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and safety of the current trend of increasing time interval between the end of chemoradiotherapy and surgery (< 10 weeks vs. ≥ 10 weeks) on postoperative morbidity and pathological outcomes. This study analyzed 232 consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from January 2012 to August 2018. 125 patients underwent surgery before 10 weeks from the end of chemoradiotherapy (Group 1) and 107 patients underwent surgery after 10 or more weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy (Group 2). Results have shown that wait for ≥ 10 weeks did not compromise surgical safety. Pathological complete response and tumor stage was statistically significant among groups. The effect of wait for ≥ 10 weeks before surgery shown higher tumor regression than the first group (Group 1, 12.8% vs Group 2, 31.8%; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, wait for ≥ 10 weeks was associated with pathological compete response. Patients from the second group were four time more likely to achieve pathologic complete response than patients from the first group (OR, 4.27 95%CI 1.60-11.40; p = 0.004). Patients who undergo surgery after ≥ 10 weeks of the end of chemoradiotherapy are four time more likely to achieve complete tumor remission without compromise surgical safety or postoperative morbidity.

Short-Term Clinical and Oncological Outcome of Prolonging Operation Interval After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Middle and Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term clinical and oncological outcome of prolonging operation interval to 11 weeks after the end of radiotherapy for locally advanced middle and low rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 123 patients with stage II/III (cT3/T4 or N+) low and middle rectal cancer who had undergone operation after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected. According to the interval time between the last radiotherapy and operation, they were assigned to a short-interval group (SG, <11 weeks, n=66) and long-interval group (LG, ≥11 weeks, n=57). The relations among interval time and short-term clinical outcome and oncological outcome were analyzed.

Results

The analysis found that basic information, clinical characteristics, and preoperative treatment between the two groups had no significant difference. There were no differences in operation time, estimated intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications. The rate of sphincter preservation in the low and middle rectum was 66.7% in the short-interval group and 59.7% in the long-interval group (P=0.42). The incidence of anastomotic leak in the long-interval group was higher than that in the short-interval group (P=0.08). There was no significant difference in the recovery time of intestinal function and median duration of hospitalization between the two groups. The pathological complete remission rate was 17.07%. Multivariate analysis showed interval time had no influence on pathological complete remission. There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival and 3-year disease-free survival between the two groups. The risk of recurrence and metastasis in patients with positive lymph nodes was higher than those with negative lymph nodes (P<0.05), HR=4.812 (95% CI 2.4–9.648).

Conclusion

Prolonging the interval time of operation to 11 weeks after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for middle and low rectal cancer does not improve the pathologic complete remission, morbidity, and mortality. There was no significant effect on oncologic outcome after prolonging the operation interval. Therefore, it is safe to prolong the interval of operation to 11 weeks.

Does A Longer Waiting Period After Neoadjuvant Radio-chemotherapy Improve the Oncological Prognosis of Rectal Cancer?: Three Years' Follow-up Results of the Greccar-6 Randomized Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the 3-year survival results of the GRECCAR-6 trial.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Current data on the effect of an extended interval between radiochemotherapy (RCT) and resection for rectal cancer on the rate of complete pathological response (pCR = ypT0N0) is controversial. Furthermore, its effect on oncological outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

The GRECCAR-6 trial was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial. Patients with cT3/T4 or TxN+ tumors of the mid or lower rectum who had received RCT (45-50 Gy with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) were included and randomized into a 7- or 11-week waiting period. Primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence rates.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients from 24 participating centers were enrolled. A total of 253 patients underwent a mesorectal excision. Overall pCR rate was 17% (43/253). Mean follow-up from surgical resection was 32 ± 8 months. Twenty-four deaths occurred with an 89% OS at 3 years. DFS was 68.7% at 3 years (75 recurrences). Three-year local and distant recurrences were 7.9% and 23.8%, respectively. The randomization group had no impact on the 3-year OS (P = 0.8868) or DFS (P = 0.9409). Distant (P = 0.7432) and local (P = 0.3944) recurrences were also not influenced by the waiting period. DFS was independently influenced by 3 factors: circumferential radial margin (CRM) ≤1 mm [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-3.51], ypT3-T4 (HR = 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.08) and positive lymph nodes (HR = 3.62; 95% CI, 1.89-6.91).

CONCLUSION

Extending the waiting period by 4 weeks following RCT has no influence on the oncological outcomes of T3/T4 rectal cancers.

The effect of neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and delayed surgery versus chemoradiation on postoperative outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer patients - A propensity score matched nationwide audit-based study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate differences in postoperative outcomes between short-course radiotherapy and delayed surgery (SCRT-delay) and chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

BACKGROUND

Previous trials suggest that SCRT-delay could serve as an adequate neoadjuvant treatment for LARC. Therefore, in frail LARC patients SCRT-delay is recommended as an alternative to CRT. However, data on postoperative outcomes after SCRT-delay in comparison to CRT is scarce.

METHODS

This was an observational study with data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA). LARC patients who underwent surgery (2014-2017) after an interval of ≥6 weeks were included. Missing values were replaced by multiple imputation. Propensity score matching (PSM), using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cT-stage and surgical procedure, was applied to create comparable groups. Differences in postoperative outcomes were analyzed using Chi-square test for categorical variables, independent sample t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric data.

RESULTS

2926 patients were included. In total, 288 patients received SCRT-delay and 2638 patients underwent CRT. Patients in the SCRT-delay group were older and had more comorbidities. Also, ICU-admissions and permanent colostomies were more common, as well as pulmonic, cardiologic, infectious and neurologic complications. After PSM, both groups comprised 246 patients with equivalent age, comorbidities and tumor stage. There were no differences in postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative complications were not increased in LARC patients undergoing SCRT-delay as neoadjuvant treatment. Regarding treatment-related complications, SCRT-delay is a safe alternative neoadjuvant treatment option for frail LARC patients.

Ultimate Functional Preservation With Intersphincteric Resection for Rectal Cancer

The proximity of the very low rectum rectal cancer to the anal sphincter raises a specific problem: how and until when can we preserve the anal continence without compromising the oncological result of the tumor resection? In this situation, intersphincteric resection (ISR) offers an excellent alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR), but the selection of patients for this option must be extremely precise. This complex choice justifies the simultaneous consideration of an oncological approach with a functional approach in order to provide a full benefit to the patient. When a circumferential resection margin of at least 1 mm can be performed with a distal resection margin of at least 1 cm with or without preoperative radiotherapy, ISR ensures a safety choice. The oncological results of ISR reported in the literature when performed properly found a 5-year disease-free survival of 80.2% with a local recurrence rate of only 5.8%. In parallel to this oncological evaluation, the expected post-operative functional outcome and the resulting quality of life must be properly assessed pre-operatively, since partial or total resection of the internal sphincter impacts significantly on the functional outcome. Based on data from the literature, this work reports the essential anatomical considerations and then the oncological and functional elements indispensables when an anal continence preservation is evoked for a tumor of the very low rectum. Finally, the precise selection criteria and the major surgical principles are outlined in order to guarantee the safety of this modern choice for the patient.

Randomized controlled trial of 8 weeks' vs 12 weeks' interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to compare the pathological complete response (pCR) rate at 8 compared to 12 weeks' interval between completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHOD

This was a randomized trial which included a total of 330 patients from two institutions. Patients with locally advanced (T3-4N0M0, TxN+M0) rectal cancer were randomized into 8- and 12-week interval groups. All the patients received long-course CRT (45 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions and concomitant oral capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil infusion). Surgery was performed at either 8 or 12 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were sphincter preservation, postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and fifty-two patients (n = 125 in the 8-week group, n = 127 in the 12-week group) were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. The overall pCR rate was 17.9% (n = 45): 12% (n = 15) in the 8-week group and 23.6% (n = 30) in the 12-week group (P = 0.021). Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 107 (85.6%) patients which was significantly higher than the 94 (74%) patients in the 12-week group (P = 0.016). Postoperative mortality was seen in three (1.2%) patients overall and was not different between groups (1.6% in 8 weeks vs 0.8% in 12 weeks, P = 0.494). Groups were similar in anastomotic leak (10.8% in 8 weeks vs 4.5% in 12 weeks, P = 0.088) and morbidity (30.4% in 8 weeks and 20.1% in 12 weeks, P = 0.083).

CONCLUSION

Extending the interval between CRT and surgery from 8 to 12 weeks resulted in a 2-fold increase in pCR rate without any difference in mortality and morbidity.

Prediction of Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients With Rectal Cancer Using a DNA Repair Deregulation Score: Picking the Losers Instead of the Winners

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal cancer may undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation even in early stages in an attempt to achieve complete clinical response and undergo organ preservation. However, prediction of tumor response is unavailable. In this setting, accurate identification of poor responders could spare patients with early stage disease from potentially unnecessary chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVE

This study focused on development/test of a score based on DNA repair gene expression to predict response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Pretreatment biopsy samples from patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation were collected and underwent gene expression analysis using RNA-Seq (test cohort). A score was constructed using 8 differentially expressed DNA repair genes between good (complete clinical) and poor responders (incomplete clinical) to treatment. The score was validated in 2 independent cohorts of patients undergoing similar treatment strategies and using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and microarray gene expression data.

SETTINGS

This was a retrospective analysis of gene expression data from 3 independent institutions.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4-54.0 Gy and 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy) were eligible. Patients with complete clinical response, complete pathological response, or ≤10% residual cancer cells were considered good responders. Patients with >10% residual cancer cells were considered poor responders. The test cohort included 25 patients (16 poor responders). Validation cohort 1 included 28 patients (18 poor responders), and validation cohort 2 included 46 patients (22 poor responders).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Response was correlated with the DNA repair score calculated using the expression levels of 8 DNA repair genes. DNA repair score sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined in test and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

Poor responders had significantly lower DNA repair scores when compared with good responders across all 3 cohorts, regardless of the gene expression platform used. A low score correctly predicted poor response in 93%, 90%, and 71% in test, validation 1, and validation 2 cohorts.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its small sample size, different gene expression platforms, and treatment regimens across different cohorts used.

CONCLUSIONS

A DNA repair gene score may predict patients likely to have poor response to chemoradiation. This score may be a relevant tool to be investigated in future studies focused on chemoradiation used in the context of organ preservation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. PREDICCIÓN DE RESPUESTA DEFICIENTE A LA RADIO-QUIMIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL UTILIZANDO UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE DESREGULACIÓN DE REPARACIÓN DE ADN: ESCOGER LOS PERDEDORES EN LUGAR DE LOS GANADORES: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal pueden someterse a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante incluso en estadios tempranos en el intento por lograr una respuesta clínica completa y permitir una preservación de órgano. Sin embargo, aun no existen herramientas disponible para la prediccion de la respuesta tumoral al tratamiento. En este contexto, la identificación precisa de los tumores con mala respuesta al tratamiento podría evitar que los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio temprano sean sometidos a radio-quimioterapia potencialmente innecesaria.Desarrollo / testeo de una puntuación basada en la expresión genes reparadores del ADN para predecir la respuesta a la nCRT en pacientes con cáncer rectal.Se recogieron muestras de biopsia de pre-tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante y se les realizó un análisis de expresión génica utilizando RNAseq (cohorte de prueba). Se construyó una puntuación utilizando 8 genes de reparación de ADN expresados diferencialmente entre buenos (respuesta clinica completa) y pobres respondedores (respuesta clinica incompleta) al tratamiento. La puntuación se validó en 2 cohortes independientes de pacientes sometidos a estrategias de tratamiento similares y utilizando qPCR y datos de expresión de genes en chips ADN (biotecnología -microarrays).Análisis retrospectivo de los datos de expresión génica de 3 instituciones independientes.Fueron incluidos aquellos pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante (50,4-54 Gy y quimioterapia basada en 5FU). Los pacientes con respuesta clínica completa, respuesta patológica completa o ≤10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron buenos respondedores. Los pacientes con> 10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron de respuesta deficiente. La cohorte de prueba incluyó a 25 pacientes (16 respondedores pobres). La cohorte de validación n. ° 1 incluyó a 28 pacientes (18 respondedores pobres) y la cohorte de validación n. ° 2 incluyó a 46 pacientes (22 respondedores pobres).La respuesta se correlacionó con la puntuación de reparación de ADN calculada utilizando los niveles de expresión de 8 genes de reparación de ADN. La sensibilidad del puntaje de reparación del ADN, la especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos se determinaron en las cohortes de prueba y validación.Los malos respondedores tuvieron puntuaciones de reparación de ADN significativamente más bajas en comparación con los buenos respondedores en las 3 cohortes, independientemente de la plataforma de expresión génica utilizada. Una puntuación baja predijo correctamente una respuesta pobre en el 93%, 90% y 71% en las cohortes de prueba, validación n. ° 1 y validación n. ° 2, respectivamente.Pequeño tamaño de la muestra, diferentes plataformas de expresión génica y regímenes de tratamiento en diferentes cohortes utilizadas.La puntuacion basada en genes de reparación del ADN puede predecir los pacientes con respuesta pobre a la radio-quimioterapia. Esta puntuación puede ser una herramienta relevante para investigar en futuros estudios centrados en la radio-quimioterapia utilizada en el contexto de la preservación de órganos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo and Dr. Laura Melina Fernandez).

Dose-time fractionation schedules of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is extensively used prior to surgery for rectal cancer to provide significantly better local control, but the radiotherapy (RT), as the other component of CRT, has been subject to less interest than the drug component in recent years. With considerable developments in RT, the use of advanced techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in rectal cancer, is garnering more attention nowadays. The radiation dose can be better conformed to the target volumes with possibilities for synchronous integrated boost without increased complications in normal tissue. Hopefully, both local recurrence and toxicities can be further reduced. Although those seem to be of interest, many issues remain unresolved. There is no international consensus regarding the radiation schedule for preoperative RT for rectal cancer. Moreover, an enormous disparity exists regarding the RT delivery. With the advent of IMRT, variations will likely increase. Moreover, time to surgery is also quite variable, as it depends upon the indication for RT/CRT in the clinical practices. In this review, we discuss the options and problems related to both the dose-time fractionation schedule and time to surgery; furthermore, it addresses the research questions that need answering in the future.

Management and Outcome of Local Regrowths in a Watch-and-wait Prospective Cohort for Complete Responses in Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the management and oncological outcomes of rectal cancer patients with local regrowth in a watch-and-wait (W&W) program.

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15%-30% of patients with a clinical complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy who undergo a W&W policy will experience a local regrowth. The risks of these local regrowths have not yet been fully established and main concerns include high postoperative morbidity, requirement of advanced surgery, and pelvic recurrence after regrowth treatment.

METHODS

All patients with a local regrowth after an initial W&W approach between January 2005 and March 2018 were retrospectively identified from 2 cohorts of rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy. Type and outcome of regrowth treatment were assessed. Oncological outcome was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine out of 385 patients developed a local regrowth after a median of 9 (interquartile range 7-14) months. Median follow-up time was 28 (interquartile range 19-41) months. Eighty-four (94%) patients underwent surgical treatment of the local regrowth: total mesorectal excision was performed in 58 out of 84 (69%) patients and local excision was performed in 26 (31%) patients. The 2-year local recurrence-free rate, distant metastasis-free rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival in the patients undergoing surgical treatment were 97.8%, 91.8%, 90.3%, and 98.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority (97%) of patients with regrowth after a W&W policy were able to undergo treatment with curative intent for local regrowth. Uncontrolled pelvic disease was very rare.

Impact of delaying surgery after chemoradiation in rectal cancer: outcomes from a tertiary cancer centre in India

Background

Delaying surgery after chemoradiation is one of the strategies for increasing tumor regression in rectal cancer. Tumour regression and PCR are known to have positive impact on survival.

Methods

It's a retrospective study of 161 patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients were divided into three categories based on the gap between NCRT and surgery, i.e., <8, 8-12 and >12 weeks. Tumor regression grades (TRG), sphincter preservation, post-operative morbidity-mortality and survival were evaluated.

Results

Sphincter preservation was significantly less in >12 weeks group compared to the other two groups (P=0.003). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in >12 weeks group compared to 8-12 weeks group (P=0.001).There was no difference in major postoperative morbidity and hospital stay among the groups. There was no significant correlation between delay and TRG (P=0.644). At Median follow up of 49.5 months the projected 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) were not significantly different among the 3 groups (OS: 79.5% vs. 83.3% vs. 76.5%; P=0.849 and DFS 50.4% vs. 70.6% vs. 62%; P=0.270 respectively).

Conclusions

Delaying surgery by more than 12 weeks causes more blood loss but no change in morbidity or hospital stay. Increased time interval between radiation and surgery does not improve tumor regression and has no effect on survival.

Pathological complete response due to a prolonged time interval between preoperative chemoradiation and surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer: analysis from the German StuDoQ|Rectalcarcinoma registry

Background

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is the recommended standard of care for patients with local advanced rectal cancer. However, it remains unclear, whether a prolonged time interval to surgery results in an increased perioperative morbidity, reduced TME quality or better pathological response. Aim of this study was to determine the time interval for best pathological response and perioperative outcome compared to current recommended interval of 6 to 8 weeks.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of the German StuDoQ|Rectalcarcinoma registry. Patients were grouped for the time intervals of “less than 6 weeks”, “6 to 8 weeks”, “8 to 10 weeks” and “more than 10 weeks”. Primary endpoint was pathological response, secondary endpoint TME quality and complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

Due to our inclusion criteria (preoperative chemoradiation, surgery in curative intention, M0), 1.809 of 9.560 patients were suitable for analysis. We observed a trend for increased rates of pathological complete response (pCR: ypT0ypN0) and pathological good response (pGR: ypT0-1ypN0) for groups with a prolonged time interval which was not significant. Ultimately, it led to a steady state of pCR (16.5%) and pGR (22.6%) in “8 to 10” and “more than 10” weeks. We were not able to observe any differences between the subgroups in perioperative morbidity, proportion of rectal extirpation (for cancer of the lower third) or difference in TME quality.

Conclusion

A prolonged time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation can be performed, as the rate of pCR seems to be increased without influencing perioperative morbidity.

How to measure tumour response in rectal cancer? An explanation of discrepancies and suggestions for improvement

Various methods categorize tumour response after neoadjuvant therapy, including down-staging and tumour regression grading. Response categories allow comparison of different treatments within clinical trials and predict outcome. A reproducible response categorization could identify subgroups with high or low risk for the most appropriate subsequent treatments, like watch and wait. Lack of standardization and interpretation difficulties currently limit the usability of these approaches. In this review we describe these difficulties for the evaluation of chemoradiation in rectal cancer. An alternative approach of tumour response is based on patterns of residual disease, including fragmentation. We summarise the evidence behind this alternative method of response categorisation, which explains a number of very relevant clinical discrepancies. These issues include differences between downstaging and tumour regression, high local regrowth in advanced tumours during watchful waiting procedures, the importance of resection margins, the limited value of post-treatment biopsies and the relatively poor outcome of patients with a near complete pathological response. Recognition of these patterns of response can allow meaningful development of novel biomarkers in the future.

MR tumor regression grade for pathological complete response in rectal cancer post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis for accuracy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG) for pathological complete response (pCR) and its correlation with pathological findings.

METHODS

Original studies that investigated the correlation of mrTRG with pathological tumor regression grade and pathological T stage were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up until August 31, 2018, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search terms included colorectal cancer, chemoradiation therapy, magnetic resonance imaging, and response or regression. Meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity for pathologic complete response (pCR) and pathologic T1 or lower than T1 stage (≤ypT1) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated in both mrTRG 1 and mrTRG 1 or 2, respectively.

RESULTS

Six studies with 916 patients were included. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 for pCR were 32.3% (95% CI, 18.2-50.6%) and 93.5% (95% CI, 91.5-95.1%), while for ≤ypT1 they were 31.8% (95% CI, 16.2-53.0%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 91.9-96.5%). On the contrary, sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 or 2 for pCR were 69.9% (95% CI, 60.2-78.1%) and 62.2% (95% CI, 56.2-67.8%), while those for ≤ypT1 were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.6-79.6%) and 67.7% (95% CI, 59.8-74.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

mrTRG 1 showed high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. mrTRG 1 or 2 showed higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity. Because of the suboptimal sensitivity of mrTRG 1, it might be limited as a criterion for less aggressive treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

KEY POINTS

• Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 shows high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. • Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 or 2 shows higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity than magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 alone.

Can a Local Drainage Salvage a Failed Colorectal or Coloanal Anastomosis? A Prospective Cohort of 54 Patients

BACKGROUND

Local drainages can be used to manage leakage in select patients without peritonitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of drainage procedures in maintaining a primary low anastomosis after anastomotic leakage.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study was performed on a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was performed between 2014 and 2017 in a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing rectal resections with either a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma were identified. Anastomotic leakages requiring a radiological or transanal drainage without peritonitis were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the maintenance of the primary anastomosis after local drainage of an anastomotic leakage and stoma reversal.

RESULTS

A low anastomosis for rectal cancer with diverting stoma was performed in 326 patients. A total of 77 anastomotic leakages (24%) occurred, of which, 6 (8%) required abdominal surgery, 17 (22%) were treated conservatively (medical management), and 54 (70%) were managed by drainage. Surgical transanal drainage was performed in 21 patients (39%), with radiologic drainage procedures performed in 33 patients (61%). The median interval between surgery and drainage was 13 days (range, 9-21 d). Five patients (9%) required emergency abdominal surgery. Twenty-seven patients (50%) did not require any additional intervention after drainage procedure, whereas 21 patients (39%) underwent redo anastomotic surgery. Forty-three patients (80%) had no stoma at the end of follow-up. Failure to maintain the primary anastomosis after local drainage was associated with increased age (p = 0.04), a pelvic per-operative drainage (p = 0.05), a drainage duration >10 days (p = 0.002), the time between surgery and drainage >15 days (p = 0.03), a side-to-end or J-pouch anastomosis (p = 0.04), and surgical transanal drainage (p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

The small sample size of the study was the main limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Local drainage procedures maintained primary anastomosis in 50% of cases after an anastomotic leakage. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B57. ¿PUEDE UN DRENAJE LOCAL SALVAR UNA ANASTOMOSIS COLORRECTAL O COLOANAL FALLIDA? UNA COHORTE PROSPECTIVO DE 54 PACIENTES: Los drenajes locales se pueden utilizar para controlar las fugas en pacientes seleccionados sin peritonitis.El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la eficacia de los procedimientos de drenaje, para mantener una anastomosis primaria baja, después de una fuga anastomótica.Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo en una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.El estudio se realizó entre 2014-2017, en un centro de referencia terciaria.Se identificaron pacientes sometidos a resecciones rectales con anastomosis colorrectal o coloanal y estoma de derivación. Se incluyeron fugas anastomóticas sin peritonitis, que requirieron drenaje radiológico o transanal.El resultado primario fue el mantenimiento de la anastomosis primaria, después del drenaje local de una fuga anastomótica y la reversión del estoma.Se realizó una anastomosis baja para cáncer rectal con estoma derivativo en 326 pacientes. Se produjeron 77 (24%) fugas anastomóticas, de las cuales 6 (8%) requirieron cirugía abdominal, 17 (22%) fueron tratadas de forma conservadora (tratamiento médico) y 54 (70%) fueron manejadas por drenaje. Se realizó drenaje transanal en 21 pacientes (39%) y procedimientos de drenaje radiológico en 33 pacientes (61%). La mediana del intervalo entre la cirugía y el drenaje fue de 13 días [9-21]. 5 (9%) pacientes requirieron cirugía abdominal de emergencia. Veintisiete (50%) pacientes no requirieron ninguna intervención adicional después del procedimiento de drenaje, mientras que 21 pacientes (39%) se sometieron a una reparación quirúrgica anastomótica. 43 pacientes (80%) no tuvieron estoma al final del seguimiento. El fracaso para mantener la anastomosis primaria después del drenaje local, se asoció con un aumento de la edad (p = 0.04), un drenaje pélvico preoperatorio (p = 0.05), una duración del drenaje >10 días (p = 0.002), el tiempo entre la cirugía y el drenaje >15 días (p = 0.03), anastomosis termino lateral o bolsa en J (p = 0.04) y drenaje quirúrgico transanal (p = 0.03).El pequeño tamaño de la muestra del estudio fue la principal limitación.Después de la fuga anastomótica, los procedimientos del drenaje local conservaron la anastomosis primaria en el 50% de los casos. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B57.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-Based Triage to Surgery

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread cancelation of electively scheduled surgeries, including for colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer. The American College of Surgeons and the Society of Surgical Oncology have released guidelines for triage of these procedures. We seek to synthesize available evidence on delayed resection and oncologic outcomes, while also providing a critical assessment of the released guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify literature between 2005 and 2020 investigating the impact of time to surgery on oncologic outcomes in colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer.

RESULTS

For colorectal cancer, 1066 abstracts were screened and 43 papers were included. In primarily resected colon cancer, delay over 30 to 40 days is associated with lower survival. In rectal cancer, time to surgery over 7 to 8 weeks following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased survival. Three hundred ninety-four abstracts were screened for pancreatic cancer and nine studies were included. Two studies demonstrate increased unexpected progression with delayed surgery over 30 days. Out of 633 abstracts screened for gastric cancer, six studies were included. No identified study demonstrated worse survival with increased time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence suggests that delayed resection of colorectal cancer worsens survival; the impact of time to surgery on gastric and pancreatic cancer outcomes is uncertain. Early resection of gastrointestinal malignancies provides the best chance for curative therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritization of procedures should account for available evidence on time to surgery and oncologic outcomes.

Impact of the interval between neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy in the modern era: a population-based propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study in Asia

Background

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (nCCRT) is one of the standard-of-care options for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-ESqCC). The optimal interval between nCCRT and esophagectomy is unknown.

Methods

We constructed a propensity-score-matched [1:1 for long (8–12 weeks) vs short (4–7 weeks) intervals] cohort of LA-ESqCC patients who were diagnosed from 2011 to 2015 and treated with nCCRT via the Taiwan Cancer Registry and related databases. We compared the hazard ratios (HRs) of death using a robust variance estimator. We also evaluated alternative covariables, outcomes, and interval definitions.

Results

Our study population included 80 patients for each group; groups were balanced with respect to the observed covariables. There was no significant difference for the HR of death [1.22; 95% confidence interval 0.78–1.91, P = 0.39] when the long interval group was compared to the short interval group. There were also no significant differences when alternative covariables, outcomes, or interval definitions were evaluated.

Conclusions

In this population-based study in modern Asia, we found that for LA-ESqCC patients treated with nCCRT and esophagectomy, overall survival was similar for either long or short intervals between nCCRT and esophagectomy. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this finding.

SPAR - a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial of simvastatin in addition to standard chemotherapy and radiation in preoperative treatment for rectal cancer: an AGITG clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies show improved outcomes in colorectal cancer patients if taking statins, including overall survival, pathological response of rectal cancer to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT), and reduced acute and late toxicities of pelvic radiation. Major tumour regression following pCRT has strong prognostic significance and can be assessed in vivo using MRI-based tumour regression grading (mrTRG) or after surgery using pathological TRG (pathTRG).

METHODS

A double-blind phase 2 trial will randomise 222 patients planned to receive long-course fluoropyrimidine-based pCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma at 18+ sites in New Zealand and Australia. Patients will receive simvastatin 40 mg or placebo daily for 90 days starting 1 week prior to standard pCRT. Pelvic MRI 6 weeks after pCRT will assess mrTRG grading prior to surgery. The primary objective is rates of favourable (grades 1-2) mrTRG following pCRT with simvastatin compared to placebo, considering mrTRG in 4 ordered categories (1, 2, 3, 4-5). Secondary objectives include comparison of: rates of favourable pathTRG in resected tumours; incidence of toxicity; compliance with intended pCRT and trial medication; proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection; cancer outcomes and pathological scores for radiation colitis. Tertiary objectives include: association between mrTRG and pathTRG grouping; inter-observer agreement on mrTRG scoring and pathTRG scoring; studies of T-cell infiltrates in diagnostic biopsies and irradiated resected normal and malignant tissue; and the effect of simvastatin on markers of systemic inflammation (modified Glasgow prognostic score and the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio). Trial recruitment commenced April 2018.

DISCUSSION

When completed this study will be able to observe meaningful differences in measurable tumour outcome parameters and/or toxicity from simvastatin. A positive result will require a larger RCT to confirm and validate the merit of statins in the preoperative management of rectal cancer. Such a finding could also lead to studies of statins in conjunction with chemoradiation in a range of other malignancies, as well as further exploration of possible mechanisms of action and interaction of statins with both radiation and chemotherapy. The translational substudies undertaken with this trial will provisionally explore some of these possible mechanisms, and the tissue and data can be made available for further investigations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZ Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12617001087347. (www.anzctr.org.au, registered 26/7/2017) Protocol Version: 1.1 (June 2017).

Standard (8 weeks) vs long (12 weeks) timing to minimally-invasive surgery after NeoAdjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled parallel group trial (TiMiSNAR)

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of surgery in relation to chemoradiation is still controversial. Retrospective analysis has demonstrated in the recent decades that the regression of adenocarcinoma can be slow and not complete until after several months. More recently, increasing pathologic Complete Response rates have been demonstrated to be correlated with longer time interval. The purpose of the trial is to demonstrate if delayed timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy actually affects pathologic Complete Response and reflects on disease-free survival and overall survival rather than standard timing.

METHODS

The trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial comparing standard and delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Three-hundred and forty patients will be randomized on an equal basis to either robotic-assisted/standard laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after 8 weeks or robotic-assisted/standard laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after 12 weeks.

DISCUSSION

To date, it is well-know that pathologic Complete Response is associated with excellent prognosis and an overall survival of 90%. In the Lyon trial the rate of pCR or near pathologic Complete Response increased from 10.3 to 26% and in retrospective studies the increase rate was about 23-30%. These results may be explained on the relationship between radiation therapy and tumor regression: DNA damage occurs during irradiation, but cellular lysis occurs within the next weeks. Study results, whether confirmed that performing surgery after 12 weeks from neoadjuvant treatment is advantageous from a technical and oncological point of view, may change the current pathway of the treatment in those patient suffering from rectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT3465982.

Effect of interval between preoperative radiotherapy and surgery on clinical outcome and radiation proctitis in rectal cancer from FOWARC trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the interval between CRT and surgery on radiation proctitis, the pathologic response, and postoperative morbidity.

Methods

This was a cohort study from a phase III, randomized controlled trial (FOWARC study, NCT01211210). Data were retrieved from the leading center of the trial. Patients were divided into the short‐interval (≤7 weeks) group and the long‐interval (>7 weeks) group. The rate of radiation proctitis, pathologic complete regression (pCR) and morbidities were calculated for each group. Multivariate analysis was used to verify the impact of interval on radiation proctitis.

Results

Surgery was performed in 60 patients after an interval of ≤7 weeks and in 97 patients after an interval of >7 weeks. The two groups according to interval were comparable in terms of baseline demographic and clinicotherapeutic characteristics. Radiation proctitis was identified by imaging in 9 (15.0%) patients in short‐interval group and in 31 (32.0%) patients in long‐interval group (P = .018). Multivariate analysis confirmed the correlation between long interval and radiation proctitis (P = .018). The long interval was significantly associated with longer median operation time compared to the short interval (P = .022). The rates of pCR and postoperative complications were not different between two groups.

Conclusions

A longer interval after CRT may be associated with higher rate of radiation proctitis and longer operation time. Moreover it did not increase the rate of pCR.

Intraluminal flexible sheath for the protection of low anastomosis after anterior resection: results from a First-In-Human trial on 15 patients

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ostomy is commonly used to protect patients from anastomotic leakage complications after low anterior resection, but is fraught with its own deleterious effects. This first-in-human study examines the safety and preliminary efficacy of Colovac, an anastomosis protection device. The Colovac consists of a flexible bypass sheath, placed in the lumen of colon and anchored above the anastomosis using a vacuum stent.

METHODS

15 patients underwent anterior resection (AR) with anastomosis protection by Colovac at 3 European centers. After 14 days, the anastomosis integrity was examined by CT scan and endoscopy. The device was then endoscopically removed. Data regarding demographics, surgical details, 30 day post-operative complications, and patient satisfaction were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

15 patients (10 male) underwent laparoscopic AR with Colovac placement. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 54% of patients. Device placement was uneventful in all patients with a median duration of 7 min and placement was judged as easy or very easy in 93% of the cases. Patients did not report major discomfort during the 14 days. Endoscopic removal (10 min) was judged as easy or very easy in 87% of the cases. Absence of feces below the Colovac anchoring site was observed in 100% of the cases. 4 anastomotic leakages were observed (including 3 device migrations). Overall 5 patients (33%) required a planned stoma creation. At 3 months, 1 had already been closed.

CONCLUSION

Colovac provides a minimally invasive protection of the anastomosis during the healing process by avoiding the need for a diverting ostomy for two-thirds of patients who will not experience anastomotic complications and allowing safe conversion to the standard of care for patients requiring extended anastomotic protection. A larger study is ongoing to confirm these results.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

Radiation therapy for rectal cancer

Radiotherapy (RT) has remained an important pillar in the multi-modality management of rectal cancer. Adjuvant RT with concurrent chemotherapy (chemo-RT) was once the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer, but with time, that has now changed and neoadjuvant chemo-RT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery is the new standard. Alternatively, neoadjuvant RT alone remains an option and clinicians are tasked to choose between the two. In an era of personalised oncological management, it is unsurprising that the treatment for rectal cancer is following suit and upcoming trials are studying ways to improve outcomes and minimise toxicity for patients while tailoring treatments specific to each patient's tumour. We review the evolution of the role of RT in rectal cancer and look forward to what the future holds.

Grey areas and evidence gaps in the management of rectal cancer as revealed by comparing recommendations from clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines.

METHODS

Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ² statistic test.

RESULTS

Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ² = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence.

Colorectal cancer

Several decades ago, colorectal cancer was infrequently diagnosed. Nowadays, it is the world's fourth most deadly cancer with almost 900 000 deaths annually. Besides an ageing population and dietary habits of high-income countries, unfavourable risk factors such as obesity, lack of physical exercise, and smoking increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Advancements in pathophysiological understanding have increased the array of treatment options for local and advanced disease leading to individual treatment plans. Treatments include endoscopic and surgical local excision, downstaging preoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy, extensive surgery for locoregional and metastatic disease, local ablative therapies for metastases, and palliative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Although these new treatment options have doubled overall survival for advanced disease to 3 years, survival is still best for those with non-metastasised disease. As the disease only becomes symptomatic at an advanced stage, worldwide organised screening programmes are being implemented, which aim to increase early detection and reduce morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Population-based study of morbidity risk associated with pathological complete response after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer may induce a pathological complete response (pCR) but increase surgical morbidity due to radiation-induced fibrosis. In this study the association between pCR and postoperative surgical morbidity was investigated.

Methods

Patients in the Netherlands with rectal cancer who underwent nCRT followed by total mesorectal excision between 2009 and 2017 were included. Data were stratified into patients who underwent resection with creation of a primary anastomosis and those who had a permanent stoma procedure. The association between pCR and postoperative morbidity was investigated in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

pCR was observed in 976 (12·2 per cent) of 8003 patients. In 3472 patients who had a primary anastomosis, the presence of pCR was significantly associated with surgical complications (122 of 443 (27·5 per cent) versus 598 of 3029 (19·7 per cent) in those without pCR) and anastomotic leak (35 of 443 (7·9 per cent) versus 173 of 3029 (5·7 per cent) respectively). Multivariable analysis also showed associations between pCR and surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·92) and pCR and anastomotic leak (adjusted OR 1·41, 1·03 to 2·05). Of 4531 patients with a permanent stoma, surgical complications were observed in 120 (22·5 per cent) of 533 patients with a pCR, compared with 798 (20·0 per cent) of 3998 patients with no pCR (adjusted OR 1·17, 0·94 to 1·46).

Conclusion

Patients with a pCR in whom an anastomosis was created were at increased risk of developing an anastomotic leak.

"Watch and Wait" for complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

The management of rectal cancer has evolved substantially over recent decades, becoming increasingly complex. This was once a disease associated with high mortality and limited treatment options that typically necessitated a permanent colostomy, has now become a model for multidisciplinary evaluation, treatment and surgical advancement. Despite advances in the rates of total mesorectal excision, decreased local recurrence and increased 5-year survival rates, the multimodal treatment of rectal cancer is associated with a significant impact on long-term functional and quality of life outcomes including risks of bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction, and potential need for a permanent stoma. There is great interest in strategies to decrease the toxicity of treatment, including selective use of radiation, chemotherapy or even surgery. The modern concept of selective use of surgery for patients with rectal cancer are based on the observed pathological complete response in approximately 10-20% of patients following long-course chemoradiation therapy. While definitive surgical resection remains the standard of care for all patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer, a growing number of studies are providing supportive evidence for a watch-and-wait, organ preserving approach in highly selected patients with rectal cancer. However, questions regarding the heterogeneity of patient selection, optimal method for inducing pathological complete response, methods and intervals for assessing treatment response and adequacy of follow-up remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary of the current evidence for the watch-and-wait management of rectal cancer following a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.