Postoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer. An interim analysis of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in The Netherlands

Raltitrexed and Radiotherapy as Adjuvant Treatment for Stage II-III Rectal Cancer: A Feasibility Study

Aims and Background

Adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy plus radiotherapy represents the standard treatment for radically resected rectal cancer at high risk of relapse according to the NIH Consensus Conference. The therapeutic gain was obtained with a high rate of severe treatment-related toxicity and a sub-optimal patient compliance with this regimen. Raltitrexed is a specific thymidylate synthase inhibitor with a convenient administration schedule, acceptable toxicity and radiosensitizing properties, as the published phase I trials in combination with radiotherapy have shown. The aim of this prospective multicenter phase II study was to evaluate the feasibility, gastrointestinal and hematological acute toxicity of raltitrexed in combination with radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

From September 2000 to June 2004, 50 patients with radically resected stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma were treated. All patients were evaluable for compliance and acute toxicity. Within 45-60 days of surgery, each patient underwent concomitant adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Radiotherapy was administered to the pelvis (plus perineum after abdominoperineal resection) with photon beam energy exceeding 5 MV, 3-4 fields, 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks plus a boost delivered to the site of resected disease with 3-4 fields, 9 Gy/5 fractions/1 week to a total dose of 54 Gy. The boost dose was administered after complete exclusion of the small bowel from the treatment volumes; if this was not possible a total dose of 50.4 Gy was given. Raltitrexed was administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/m2 as a bolus injection on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy one hour before treatment, for a total of two cycles. Each patient underwent weekly clinical evaluation and laboratory tests. Toxicity was assessed by the WHO scale.

Results

Forty-five (90%) patients completed the established treatment. Acute severe toxicity included grade III proctitis in 4/50 (8%), grade III-IV diarrhea in 4/50 (8%), grade III perineal dermatitis in 4/50 (8%) and grade III leukopenia in 2/50 (4%) patients; five patients (10%) experienced a transient grade III increase in their liver biochemistry values.

Conclusions

Our data related to acute toxicity and patient compliance proved the feasibility of this adjuvant radiochemotherapy treatment. A longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this new regimen in terms of disease-free and overall survival.

Radiotherapy Combined with Other Treatments in Rectal Cancer

Since the first reports in the late 1950's, a large amount of data have been collected. The analysis of the main evidence from the major randomized trials will be analyzed in this paper according to preoperative, postoperative and chemoradiation approaches. Fifteen randomized preoperative trials were reported; they have been grouped according to the fractionation schedule. In the hypofractionation group (5 Gy for fraction), all five studies that delivered 3-5 doses in one week had a significant improvement in local control and one of them also showed improvement in survival. Operative mortality was higher in the radiotherapy arm if inadequate techniques had been applied. In 3 out of 8 studies with conventional fractionation there was a significant improvement in local control, but no impact in survival was detected. No studies with total dose lower than 34 Gy had an improvement in local control. None of the six randomized postoperative studies showed an improvement in local control or survival. In all trials the local control rate was uniform; ranging from 76% to 84%. Toxicity was higher in the radiotherapy arm. One preoperative and five postoperative randomized studies that used chemoradiation were analyzed. One postoperative chemoradiation study showed a significant improvement in survival in comparison to the surgery arm, and another showed the same advantage compared to the postoperative arm. Protracted infusional administration of 5FU concomitant to radiotherapy showed better survival than bolus administration. No advantages were shown in using MeCCNU or Levamisole in two studies. Toxicity was high and related to the dose and the modality of administration of the drugs in order to adequately treat the different stages of rectal cancer, patients must be carefully selected in order to prescribe the most effective and the least toxic treatment for the individual stage; organ preservation should be an essential goal for its impact on quality of life, and the cost estimates should be taken into account.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Carcinoma of the Rectum

Aims and background

The aim of this paper is to confirm the efficacy to reduce incidence of relapses, to increase rates of conservative radical surgery and eventually survival of concomitant neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy.

Methods

From January 1992 to October 1999, 140 stage II (50.7%) and III (49.3%) patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum were treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery. Treatment consisted of 25 fractions of 180 cGy (5 days per week), for a total dose of 45 Gy on the whole pelvis. Chemotherapy consisted of 5-FU (350 mg/m2) and leucoverin (10 mg/m2) in bolus for 5 days on days 1-5 and 29-33 of radiation. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, all patients were submitted to surgery.

Results

The median follow-up was 48 months (median, 1-97). At 5 years the overall survival was 71.3% and relapse-free survival was 79.4%. The rate of local control was 90%. Twenty-two (15.7%) patients developed distant metastases. All patients underwent surgery: 26 (18.6%) local excision, 79 (56.4%) anterior resection, 33 (23.6%) abdomino-perineal resection, and 2 (1.4%) Hartmann resection. Consequently, 107 cases (75.4%) underwent conservative surgery. At the time of surgery, 34 patients had negative specimens (24.3%), 45 were in stage I (32.2%), 31 in stage II (22.1%), 32 in stage III (21.4%). The incidence of any grade 3 acute toxicity (WHO) was 5% diarrhea, 20% tenesmus and 11.4% myelosuppression.

Conclusions

The results of this study confirm good tolerance, minor surgery-related complications and efficacy of this regimen on local and distant disease control, with a high percentage of sphincter-saving surgery.

Adjuvant Radiochemotherapy in High-Risk Rectal Cancer Results of a Prospective Non-Randomized Study

Aims and Background

In 1990 the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference recommended adjuvant combined therapy for patients with radically resected rectal cancer at high risk for relapse (ie, stage II-III). The purpose of our prospective non-randomized study was to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of postoperative radiochemotherapy in terms of improvement in disease-free and overall survival in this patient subgroup.

Study design

From January 1990 to October 1998, 191 consecutive patients with radically resected stage II-III rectal cancer were treated. A total of 159 patients with a 24-month follow-up were assessable for toxicity and survival. Anterior resection was performed in 129 (81%) and abdomino-perineal resection in 30 (19%) patients. Fifty-four (34%) stage II and 105 (66%) stage III patients entered the study. Within 45-60 days of surgery, all patients received 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy at the dose of 500 mg/m2 as an iv bolus on days 1-5, every 4 weeks, for 6 cycles. Chemotherapy cycles III and IV were administered at the same daily dose on radiotherapy days 1-3 and 29-31. Radiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy/25 fractions plus a boost dose of 5.4 Gy.

Results

After a median follow-up of 57 months (range, 25-123), overall recurrent disease was reported in 58 (36%) patients: local, systemic, and both local and systemic relapses in 12 (8%), 37 (23%) and 9 (6%) cases, respectively. According to local extension, recurrence rates were 15% and 48% in stage II and III, respectively. Five-year overall and disease-free survival were 71% and 66%, respectively. Overall survival was 87% in stage II and 62% in stage III patients, and disease-free survival was 84% and 56% in stage II and III disease, respectively. According to univariate and multivariate analyses, significant prognostic factors for better tumor control were: stage (II vs III, P <0.001), the number of involved nodes (≤3 vs >3, P <0.0001), and no extracapsular node invasion (P <0.0001). The recommended dose of the combined radiochemotherapy regimen was generally well tolerated. The incidence of any ≥ grade 3 acute toxicity (according to the WHO scale) was 13% diarrhea, 11% proctitis, 5% perineal dermatitis and 4% myelosuppression. Four (3%) patients had radiotherapy-related severe late toxicity which required surgery.

Conclusions

The study provided recurrence rates and survival similar to other adjuvant radiochemotherapy regimens published in the literature. However, in view of the low 5-year survival rate recorded in stage III patients, a different approach should be investigated.

Irradiation of Very Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Adjuvant therapy with chemoradiation or short-course radiation in addition to improvements in surgical technique has led to improved outcomes for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Local recurrence rates of less than 10% and 5-year survival rate of 60% or higher is expected. However, for patients with very locally advanced primary or locally recurrent disease in whom surgical resection is likely to be associated with incomplete resection, survival and disease control rates are poor and standard doses of adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation are relatively ineffective. Dose-escalation approaches with intraoperative radiation (IORT) have been explored in both the primary and recurrent setting. Although high-level evidence is lacking, available data suggest improvements in local and distant control leading to improved survival with IORT approaches. This review summarizes the evidence for dose-escalation approaches with IORT for patients with very locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

Is adjuvant chemotherapy really needed after curative surgery for rectal cancer patients who are node-negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy?

PURPOSE

Adjuvant chemotherapy is currently offered, as standard, after curative resection for patients with rectal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT). We postulate that adjuvant chemotherapy adds minimal oncologic benefit for patients who undergo total mesorectal excision who are node-negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

METHODS

From a prospective, institutional cancer database, rectal cancer patients who completed neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative surgery (2000-2008) and were node-negative on final pathology were identified. Patient, tumor, treatment characteristics, and oncologic outcomes were compared for patients who completed intended adjuvant chemotherapy (group chemo) or did not receive any chemotherapy (group no-chemo).

RESULTS

Chemo (n=58) and no-chemo (n=70) patients had similar age (P=0.13), gender (P=0.67), body mass index (P=0.46), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P=0.67), preoperative tumor stage (P=0.16), type of surgery (P=0.76), and postoperative complications. The no-chemo group had greater complete pathologic response (n=34, 48.6% vs. n=14, 24.1%). After prolonged follow-up, local recurrence (P=1), disease-free survival (P=0.41), and overall survival (P=0.52) were similar. Oncologic benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy were especially questionable for patients with complete pathologic response (chemo vs. no-chemo, local recurrence at 5 years: 0 vs. 2.9%, P>0.99), disease-free (79.1% vs. 88%, P=0.51), and overall survival (90.9% vs. 95.2%, P=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

These results question the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer who undergo curative surgery who have been rendered node-negative by neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Role of radiation in intermediate-risk rectal cancer

The treatment of rectal cancer has greatly evolved during the last several decades as a result of the understanding of the pathways of cancer spread, natural history of the disease, stages prognosis and prognostic markers. The tendency is clearly to move toward a more personalized approach to these patients based on preoperative staging and response to therapy. Although in the past we have been adding more treatment modalities to surgery to the point that every stage II/III cancer was treated with neoadjuvant chemo and radiotherapy followed by radical surgery by total mesorectal excision with or without sphincter preservation and more chemotherapy to follow, more recently this algorithm has been under discussion and scrutiny. Two of the major topics of controversy are: the use of local excision or even a watch-and-wait approach after a clinical complete response and the need for radiotherapy in the intermediate risk group. In this manuscript we will present the historical perspective that has brought the treatment of rectal cancer to the current standard of care and present the evidence supporting further investigation in the intermediate risk group.

Differences between clinical trial participants and patients in a population-based registry: the German Rectal Cancer Study vs. the Rostock Cancer Registry

PURPOSE

There are few data on whether the samples of randomized phase III studies are representative for cancer patients in general populations.

METHODS

We compared patient and disease characteristics of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer from the German Rectal Cancer Study (657 patients, 1995-2002) or the Rostock Cancer Registry (371 patients, 1997-2003). Differences between the Study and the Registry were analyzed for subgroups who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before resection or primary resection with or without postoperative chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

Study and Registry patients differed in age (median, 61.7 vs. 65.0 years, P < 0.001) and proportion of women (31.3 percent vs. 38.4 percent, P < 0.004). Significant age and gender differences were seen in primary resection but not in neoadjuvant subgroups. In neoadjuvant and in primary resection subgroups, Study participants were more likely than Registry patients to have tumor location in the lower third of the rectum, a higher rate of R0 resection, a greater number of lymph nodes assessed, and fewer T4 tumors. In the primary resection subgroups, Study participants were more likely to have received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate analyses showed no effect of population type (Study vs. Registry) on disease-free or overall survival in neoadjuvant subgroups, but increased risk for Registry patients in primary resection subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in clinical trials such as the German Rectal Cancer Study are not representative of all cancer patients of a general population. To enable wider extrapolation of results, future studies should include elderly and high-risk patients.

Successful downstaging of high rectal and recto-sigmoid cancer by neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The benefit of neoadjuvant therapy for tumours above the peritoneal reflection is not clear. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and downstaging of treating locally advanced tumours from high rectum to distal sigmoid with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seventeen patients with high rectal, rectosigmoid or distal sigmoid tumours above the peritoneal reflection received neoadjuvant CRT, selected on MRI findings indicating T4 disease or threatened circumferential resection margin. All patients were administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with Oxaliplatin or Mitomycin C and a Fluoropyrimidine. The pelvis received long-course CT-planned conformal RT, 45 Gy in 25 fractions, with a boost of 5.4-9 Gy in 3-5 fractions. Thirteen patients were treated with concomitant oral or intravenous Fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 37 months. Overall survival was 82.35% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 54.7-93.9) and disease free survival 81.25% (95% CI 52.5-93.5). Only 1 patient suffered loco-regional relapse. Chemotherapy regimens were well tolerated, though some patients required dose reductions. Nine patients (52.9%) lowered pathologic disease AJCC stage, i.e. 'downstaged'. Six patients (35.3%) achieved complete pathological response. Clear margins were attained in all but 1 patient. Three patients were converted from cT4 to ypT3. No patient required a gap during CRT. One patient suffered a grade III acute toxicity, but no grade IV (RTOG). There were 3 grade III and 3 grade IV late toxicities (LENT-SOMA).

CONCLUSIONS

Locally advanced high rectal and recto-sigmoid tumours may be treated with pre-operative CRT with acceptable toxicity, impressive down-staging, and clear surgical margins.

Understanding variation in the management of rectal cancer: the potential of a surgeon-initiated database

BACKGROUND

Administrative databases oversimplify the relationship of factors such as volume or training on surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective statewide surgeon-initiated database was queried to obtain incident cases of rectal cancer in Vermont from April 1999 to June 2001. Demographics, procedure performed, method of detection, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, blood transfusions, length of stay, complications, stage, and use of adjuvant therapy were recorded by the operating surgeon. A post hoc analysis was performed on patients operated on for rectal cancer to define the specific impact of specialty training on care patterns.

RESULTS

There was a marked difference in the distribution of surgical procedures, with colorectal surgeons using local excision and coloanal anastomosis in addition to anterior and abdominoperineal resection. Although the overall use of adjuvant therapy was similar, patients in the colorectal group were more likely to receive preoperative then postoperative radiation therapy (91% vs 17%, P <.0001) and more likely to receive radiation therapy when stage appropriate (98% vs 67%, P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal specialty training in this population was a surrogate for a wider array of surgical options and preoperative radiation. Failure to use radiation when stage-appropriate was related to patient comorbidities and/or refusal and not related to failure of the surgeon to offer adjuvant therapy. Prospective, surgeon-initiated databases provide an excellent opportunity to identify and understand practice variability.

Neoplastic mesorectal microfoci (MMF) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: clinical and prognostic implications

BACKGROUND

Neoplastic microfoci have frequently been found in the mesorectum, with poor outcome. In this study, incidence and clinical significance of mesorectal microfoci (MMF) were analyzed in patients operated on for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

METHODS

A case series of 68 patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery (including total mesorectal excision) were investigated for presence of neoplastic MMF.

RESULTS

MMF were found in 26 cases (38.2%). Increasing incidence of microfoci was statistically related to pathologic involvement of the bowel wall (P = 0.0006), Mandard's tumor regression grading (P = 0.0006), and pathologic neoplastic mesorectal involvement (P < 0.00001). None of the nine patients with complete tumor disappearance displayed both microfoci and lymph node metastasis. Only one local recurrence developed in a patient with multiple MMF. One out of nine pT0 or TRG1 patients (11.1%) had distant metastases compared with 15 out of 59 pT1-4 or TRG2-5 (25.4%, P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

A remarkable incidence of MMF was found following chemoradiation. However, when this therapy induced complete regression of primary tumor (pT0-TRG1), we found that node metastases and neoplastic MMF also disappeared. These features should be confirmed to assess the impact of these microfoci in treatment decision making in rectal cancers.

Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate the prognostic value of circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

We studied 504 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with adjuvant CRT for rectal cancer between 1997 and 2001. The patients were divided into two groups: a negative CRM group (CRM > 1 mm) and a positive CRM group (CRM <or= 1 mm). The survival rates, local recurrence rates, and systemic recurrence rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The negative CRM group had 460 patients and the positive CRM group had 44 patients. The 5-year local and systemic recurrence rates were 11.3 and 25.3%, respectively, in the negative CRM group and 35.2 and 60.8% in the positive CRM group, respectively. The cancer-specific 5-year survival rates for the two groups were 72.5 and 26.9% (P < .001), respectively. CRM was found to be an independent prognostic factor by multivariate analyses which were adjusted for known outcome predictors (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Oncological outcome for patients in the positive CRM group is less favorable than for those in the negative CRM group. Adjuvant CRT is not a definite treatment modality that can be used to compensate for a positive CRM following TME and adjuvant CRT in patients with TNM stage II or III rectal cancer.

Indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study was designed to clarify indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The retrospective, multicenter study collected the data of rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery between 1991 and 1998 and were prospectively followed.

RESULTS

Of 1,977 patients with rectal cancers, 930 underwent pelvic sidewall dissection without adjuvant radiotherapy. Positive lateral lymph nodes were found in 129. Multivariate analysis disclosed a significantly increased incidence of positive lateral lymph nodes in female gender, lower rectal cancers, non-well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, tumor size of > or =4 cm and T3-T4. The five-year survival rate for 1,977 patients was 79.7 percent. The survival of patients with positive lateral lymph nodes was significantly worse than that of Stage III patients with negative lateral lymph nodes (45.8 vs. 71.2 percent, P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed significantly worse prognosis in male gender, pelvic sidewall dissection, lower rectal cancers, T3-T4, perirectal lymph node metastasis, and positive lateral lymph nodes. During the median follow-up time of 57 months, recurrence developed in 19.7 percent: 17 percent in negative and 58.1 percent in positive lateral lymph nodes (P<0.0001). Local recurrence was found in 8 percent: 6.8 percent in negative and 25.6 percent in positive lateral lymph nodes (P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis disclosed that lower rectal cancers, non-well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, T3-T4, perirectal lymph node metastasis, and positive lateral lymph nodes were significantly associated with an increased local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive lateral lymph node was the strongest predictor in both survival and local recurrence. Pelvic sidewall dissection may be indicated for patients with T3-T4 lower rectal cancers because of the greater probability of positive lateral lymph nodes.

Neoplastic mesorectal microfoci (MMF) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: clinical and prognostic implications

BACKGROUND

Neoplastic microfoci have frequently been found in the mesorectum, with poor outcome. In this study, incidence and clinical significance of mesorectal microfoci (MMF) were analyzed in patients operated upon for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

METHODS

A case series of 68 patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer, treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery (including total mesorectal excision), was investigated for the presence of neoplastic MMF.

RESULTS

Mesorectal microfoci were found in 26 cases (38.2%). Increasing incidence of microfoci was statistically related to pathologic involvement of bowel wall (P = 0.0006), Mandard's tumor regression grading (P = 0.0006) and pathologic neoplastic mesorectal involvement (P < 0.00001). None of the nine patients with complete tumor disappearance displayed both microfoci and lymph node metastasis. Only one local recurrence developed in a patient with multiple MMF. Out of 9 pT0 or TRG1 patients, 1 (11.1%) had distant metastases, compared to 15 out of 59 pT1-4 or TRG2-5 (25.4%, P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

A remarkable incidence of MMF was found following chemoradiation. However, when this therapy induces complete regression of primary tumor (pT0-TRG1), node metastases and neoplastic MMF could also disappear, as shown in our cases. These features should be confirmed because they could significantly impact the treatment decision-making of rectal cancers.

Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised)

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to assuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Standards Committee is composed of Society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This Committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive, and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all of the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Comparison of Different External Beam Treatment Techniques to Deliver High-Dose Irradiation to Local Recurrent Rectal Carcinoma

Aims and background

Treatment of local-regional recurrent rectal carcinoma is a challenging problem, and local control may be dose dependent; doses should probably exceed 60 Gy. Our aim was to verify the possibility to deliver 66 Gy to the target, but less than 35 Gy to the small bowel, comparing different 3D irradiation techniques, in a selected group of patients.

Methods

Five patients with local recurrent rectal carcinoma were selected as representative of different presentations of the disease. Gross tumor volume and clinical target volume were defined [by RS]. Tumors ranged between 182 and 540 cc, and small bowel volumes between 748 and 1050 cc. A three-field technique, coplanar multiple fields, noncoplanar fields and a proton beam were compared using dose volume histograms. A positive result was scored when ≥90% of the target received the prescribed dose with no more than 5% of the small bowel receiving more than 35 Gy. Doses were escalated in steps of 2 Gy from 60 to 66 Gy.

Results

The number of plans fitting the constraints were 7/19, 11/19, 18/19 for doses of 66 Gy, 64 Gy and 62 Gy, respectively. The stage of the tumor did not seem to correlate with the possibility to homogeneously cover the target with the prescribed dose.

Conclusions

Simple coplanar and complex coplanar techniques (up to six fields), positioning the patient in a prone position with dislocation of the bowel, seem to be the best solutions to treat almost all of the patients with doses of 64 Gy. Where higher doses are concerned, it is not possible to suggest a “standard” solution. More personalized techniques have to be tested to define the best option.

How Safe is Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer?

Over the last three decades, a series of clinical trials have led to the use of adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy and chemotherapy in high-risk (T3-4 or N1) rectal cancer. There is a need to improve patient selection in order to identify the group most at risk for recurrent disease. The toxicity of adjuvant therapy should be factored into this consideration. The optimal sequencing of adjuvant therapy before or after surgery, the use of short- or long-course radiotherapy, and the utility of concurrent chemotherapy is currently being examined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this report was to review the morbidity and mortality in all RCTs of adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

Management of Colorectal Cancer in Elderly Patients

The treatment of colorectal cancer has evolved dramatically over the last 15 years. Advances in surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have enabled oncologists to cure more patients and offer improved quality of life to patients not amenable to cure. Specific knowledge of colorectal cancer care of the elderly, while lagging behind the treatment of younger patients, is beginning to emerge. Informed by recent trials, the approach towards elderly patients is shifting towards more aggressive treatment and multimodal therapy. Surgeons are operating on the elderly with greater frequency, less operative mortality and greater success; 5-year survival following potentially curative surgery has risen from 50% to 67%.Research of adjunctive therapy for colorectal cancer is enrolling more elderly patients, and with this has come an understanding of the role of chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of the elderly, used individually and within multi-drug regimens. This research offers insight into how the elderly respond to chemotherapy, informing clinicians on anticipated benefits and toxicities of treatment. Fluorouracil-based regimens, which have long been the standard adjuvant chemotherapy, have been shown to offer benefits to the elderly compared with those not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (71% versus 64% 5-year survival), and to cause similar toxicities as seen in younger patients. The role of novel chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of elderly patients with colorectal cancer is also emerging, with studies finding that irinotecan, in combination with a fluorouracil-based regimen, can offer a further survival benefit of over 2 months compared with fluorouracil alone. While newer agents such as capecitabine, oxaliplatin, raltitrexed and tegafur/uracil (UFT) have been focused upon by clinical researchers, data on their use in the elderly remain unconvincing. Not only are we approaching a clearer understanding of the effectiveness of cancer care among the elderly, but research is also beginning to identify the cost effectiveness of both standard and emerging chemotherapeutic agents. Cost effectiveness of fluorouracil-based regimens, depending on delivery strategy, use of modulating agents and stage of cancer vary from US dollars 2000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to US dollars 20200 per QALY (1992 values). Irinotecan therapy has not been fully investigated from the perspective of cost effectiveness; the figure of US dollars 10000 per QALY (1998 values) for irinotecan monotherapy over fluorouracil regimens is likely an underestimate, while cost analysis of irinotecan and fluorouracil combination therapy has not yet been reported. Our understanding of cost effectiveness of other novel agents has lagged behind; further research on these agents is needed. Nonetheless, as the effects of these novel agents upon both outcomes and costs continue to be defined, both curative and palliative treatment of colorectal cancer in the elderly patient will become more sophisticated and effective.

Randomised clinical trial of adjuvant postoperative RT vs. sequential postoperative RT plus 5-FU and levamisole in patients with stage II-III resectable rectal cancer: a final report

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A randomised clinical trial was performed in patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer to compare the efficacy and toxicity of adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy (RT) to sequential RT and chemotherapy (CT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus levamisole (LEV). The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS), the rate of loco-regional recurrence, and treatment-related toxicity; the final results of this trial are reported.

METHODS

Patients in arm I underwent RT (50 Gy) in daily fractions of 2 Gy, 5 days/week for 5 weeks. Patients in arm II began with 5-FU (450 mg/sqm/day intravenous (i.v.) bolus, days 1-5) plus LEV (150 mg/day orally, days 1-3); postoperative RT was delivered during week 2 at the same dosage and schedule as in arm I. The other five cycles of CT (5-FU every 28 days and LEV every 15 days for the length of 5-FU administration) continued after the end of RT if clinical and hemato-biochemical parameters were in the normal range.

RESULTS

From May 1992 to December 1998, 218 patients were enrolled into the randomised clinical trial (144 men, 74 women; age range: 28-75, median 64 years). The median follow-up time was 58.1 months (range: 1-3,271 days). No significant difference was observed between the two arms of treatment as regards OS and DFS (P = 0.18 and P = 0.66, respectively). Cox regression analysis for OS confirmed what was observed by univariate analysis for all variables except age. Older age (>60 years) and pathologic lymph-node involvement defined the subgroups with the worst prognosis. Cox regression analysis for DFS confirmed what was observed by univariate analysis for all variables: the only independent variable in predicting DFS was pathologic lymph-node involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest no difference in OS, loco-regional and distant site progressions of postoperative RT alone compared to sequential postoperative RT and CT; notably, this latter regimen was associated with higher toxicity which seriously impaired the patient's compliance to CT. The low loco-regional recurrence rate (9.2%) observed in our patients undergoing postoperative RT alone compared to similarly treated patients in previously performed clinical trials (20-25%) underline the role of radical surgery (mesorectal excision) coupled with a complete postoperative RT regimen. On the other hand, the similar efficacy of these two adjuvant modalities of treatment might be conditioned by both the low compliance (59%) to the CT regimen as well as the sequential, instead of concurrent, schedule of administration of RT and CT, which may have decreased further the expected efficacy of the combined regimen.

Radiotherapy does not compensate for positive resection margins in rectal cancer patients: report of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement is a prognostic factor for local recurrence in rectal cancer. In a randomized trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy (5 x 5 Gy), followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) with TME alone, we demonstrated the beneficial effect of short-term preoperative radiotherapy on local recurrences. Here we evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on local recurrence rates in patients with different CRM involvements.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Circumferential margins were defined as positive (< or =1 mm), narrow (1.1-2 mm), or wide (>2 mm). Postoperative radiotherapy was mandatory for surgery-only patients with a positive CRM, but was not always administered and enabled us to compare local recurrence rates for patients with or without postoperative radiotherapy. Furthermore, the effect of preoperative radiotherapy was assessed in the different margin groups.

RESULTS

Of 120 patients in the surgery-only group with a positive CRM, 47% received postoperative radiotherapy. There was no difference in the local recurrence rate between the irradiated and nonirradiated patients (17.3% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.98). Preoperative radiotherapy was effective in patients with a narrow CRM (0% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.02) or wide CRM (0.9 vs. 5.8%, p < 0.0001), but not in patients with positive margins (9.3% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy has a beneficial effect in patients with wide or narrow resection margins, but cannot compensate for microscopically irradical resections resulting in positive margins.

Chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of rectal cancer

The integration of radiotherapy to the adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer was prompted by the predominance of locoregional failures after curative surgery. This characteristic in the pattern of failure is one of the main reasons adjuvant radiotherapy plays a greater role in rectal cancer than in colon cancer. It has been demonstrated that local failure rates after surgery alone for rectal cancer are strongly dependent on the degree of bowel wall invasion, lymph node involvement, and margins of resection. These same locoregional factors are also predictive of distant metastasis and survival. In addition, local failure is associated with devastating symptoms that severely affect the quality of life of patients. For these reasons, locoregional control remains a major issue in the treatment of rectal cancer. This article summarizes the evidence that has established chemoradiotherapy as part of the standard of care for rectal cancer and the techniques used for its delivery.

The role of preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer

Radiotherapy has an important role to play when used in addition to surgery in primary and recurrent rectal cancer. In primary resectable rectal cancer, a large number of randomized trials have shown that preoperative radiotherapy can slightly improve survival and can decrease local recurrence rates by more than half. Postoperative radiotherapy may also decrease the risk of local failure although with less efficacy. A preoperative schedule of 5 Gy/day for 5 out of 7 days is a convenient and low-toxic treatment, provided it is not given with 2 beams to large volumes, and it appears to be at least as effective as postoperative radiochemotherapy, generally meaning 6 months of therapy with 5 weeks of radiation. The schedule of 5 Gy/day for 5 days also reduces local recurrences with total mesorectal excision. It is unlikely that preoperative radiochemotherapy will substantially increase the chances of a sphincter-preserving procedure in a low-lying rectal cancer and that the long-term function will be adequate even if this is believed by many. In primary nonresectable or locally recurrent rectal cancer, preoperative radiotherapy may downsize or downstage the tumor so that it can be resected. Scientific support that radiochemotherapy is more efficient than radiotherapy alone in this situation is weak.

The role of radiotherapy in rectal cancer

In Europe, short-term radiotherapy is increasingly used in the primary management of rectal cancer. In the United States, postoperative chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment of choice. The rationale and indications for radiotherapy and possible combinations with chemotherapy are discussed and an overview of all of the randomised trials containing radiotherapy as one randomisation arm is given. Three major indications for radiotherapy can be identified: the reduction of local recurrences in mobile rectal cancer, downstaging of the tumour in primary irresectable tumours and downsizing of low-lying tumours in attempts to more frequently perform a sphincter-saving procedure. For reduction of local recurrences, radiotherapy can be given either pre- or postoperatively, although preoperative therapy is more dose-efficient. Short-term preoperative radiotherapy reduces the number of recurrences and improves survival. Improved survival is also reported after postoperative radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, however, the relevance of the radiotherapy component is discussed. Although the debate about radiotherapy is still ongoing, we strongly believe that the results demonstrate that short-term preoperative radiotherapy is the treatment of choice for resectable rectal cancer.

Developments and quality assurance in rectal cancer surgery

One of the main problems in the treatment of rectal cancer is the development of local recurrences. In the last decades, major improvements have been realized in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. The introduction of TME-surgery has led to a large reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival. TME-based operations are now established as the standard of care for rectal cancer, and should form the basis for trials concerning the role of (neo)adjuvant therapy. However, training and quality control are prerequisites to obtain good results in all surgeons' hands. Furthermore, standardization in the description of operations and reporting of pathology specimens should be implemented as important features of quality control. In general, it is thought that high volume and specialist care produces superior results to low volume and non-specialist care, especially for those less frequent forms of cancer and in technically difficult operations, like those for rectal cancer. However, limiting the performance of rectal cancer surgery to highly specialized surgeons or to only those general surgeons who perform more than a certain volume is impractical in view of the prevalence of rectal cancer. This article reviews developments in the treatment of especially mobile rectal cancer and pays attention to variability in outcomes and quality assurance of surgery.

Emerging standards of radiotherapy combined with radical rectal cancer surgery

For patients with resectable rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision, the routine use of radiotherapy should be omitted for stage I of the disease and for lesions located higher than 10 cm from the anal verge. Preoperative radiotherapy may be considered for all patients with a lesion with deep perirectal fat infiltration located in the lower two thirds of the rectum. The other option is to offer postoperative radiotherapy for patients with a positive surgical margin, N+ stage disease, mesorectal tumour implants, high tumour grade, perineural invasion, extramuscular blood and lymphatic vessel invasion and with inadvertent tumour perforation. The lower risk of small bowel damage and probable higher efficacy are arguments for the use of preoperative radiotherapy instead of postoperative radiotherapy. The impairment of anorectal function appears to be most frequent late postirradiation sequel. The analysis of acute complications (including toxic deaths) compliance, cost and convenience favours 5 x 5 Gy preoperative irradiation with immediate surgery for patients with resectable tumours in comparison to other commonly used schemes of radiotherapy. These advantages should be weighed against approximately 1.5% risk of late neurotoxicity. There is no clear answer to the question whether preoperative conventional radio(chemo)therapy offers an advantage in sphincter preservation. To answer this question, the results of two ongoing randomised trials are awaited. For patients with unresectable cancers, long-term preoperative radio(chemo)therapy with delayed surgery is a preferable scheme. The total mesorectal irradiation should be employed for mid- and low-lying lesions. Therefore, during radiotherapy planning, a contrast enema should be used to identify the anorectal ring, anatomically corresponding with the lowest edge of the mesorectum.

Acute side effects and complications after short-term preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision in primary rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer has been shown to result in a reduction in the number of local recurrences in retrospective studies. Reports on improved local control after preoperative, hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) have led to the introduction of a prospective randomized multicenter trial, in which the effect of TME surgery with or without preoperative RT were evaluated. Any benefit in regard to a reduced local recurrence rate and possible improved survival must be weighed against potential adverse effects in both the short-term and the long-term. The present study was undertaken to assess the acute side effects of short-term, preoperative RT in rectal cancer patients and to study the influence of five doses of 5 Gy on surgical parameters, postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients randomized in the Dutch TME trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed 1,530 Dutch patients entered onto a prospective randomized trial, comparing preoperative RT with five doses of 5 Gy followed by TME surgery with TME surgery alone, of which 1,414 patients were assessable. Toxicity from RT, surgery characteristics, and postoperative complications and mortality were compared.

RESULTS

Toxicity during RT hardly occurred. Irradiated patients had 100 mL more blood loss during the operation (P <.001) and showed more perineal complications (P =.008) in cases of abdominoperineal resection. The total number of complications was slightly increased in the irradiated group (P =.008). No difference was observed in postoperative mortality (4.0% v 3.3%) or in the number of reinterventions.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative hypofractionated RT is a safe procedure in patients treated with TME surgery, despite a slight increase in complications when compared with TME surgery only.

Randomized clinical trials in rectal and anal cancer

Treatment of rectal cancer has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Radical surgery alone for resectable rectal cancer has been replaced by combined modality therapy. Interest in optimizing sphincter preservation and quality of life motivated surgeons to seek less radical surgery without compromising oncologic principles.

Methodology and reporting in studies of local recurrence after curative excision of the rectum for cancer

BACKGROUND

Widely varying rates have been reported in the extensive literature published in the English language on local recurrence after curative excision of rectal carcinoma. These variations may be attributable to differences in the case mix of pathological factors influencing recurrence, differences in surgical technique or expertise, differences in the administration of adjuvant therapy and various combinations of these. They may also arise from methodological differences among studies.

METHODS

This paper reviews the adequacy of methodology and reporting in 21 recent studies of local recurrence after curative resection of rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Many flaws in reporting and apparent inadequacies in methodology were identified. On an index of 26 criteria examined, eight studies scored no more than 8 and only three studies scored more than 11.

CONCLUSION

To date, the value of reports of local recurrence rates following curative excision of rectal cancer has been limited by inadequacies in documentation and methodology. Suggestions are made for preferred procedures to be followed in the reporting of future studies.

Adjuvant 5FU plus levamisole in colonic or rectal cancer: improved survival in stage II and III

Based on the first favourable results of adjuvant therapy of 5FU plus levamisole in Dukes C colonic cancer in 1990, we conducted a prospective trial. 1029 patients were randomised to receive one year 5FU plus levamisole or no further treatment following curative surgery for stage II or III colon (n = 730) or rectal cancer (n = 299). 45% were in stage II and 55% in stage III. With a median follow-up of 4 years and 9 months a significant reduction in odds of death (25%, SD 9%, P = 0.007) was observed for those with adjuvant treatment (65% at 5 year) compared to the observation group (55%). Improved relative survival was present in stage III (56% vs 44%), and in stage II patients (78% vs 70%). In rectal cancer a non-significant difference in disease-free or overall survival was observed. Distant metastases developed in 76%, while local recurrence alone occurred in 14%. An early start of adjuvant treatment (< 4 weeks) did not affect results. Compliance to 5FU plus levamisole was 69%. Severe toxicity did not occur. In conclusion, one year 5FU plus levamisole was of benefit in stage II and III colonic cancer; in rectal cancer a significant positive effect could not be demonstrated.

Adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic overview of 8,507 patients from 22 randomised trials

BACKGROUND

At least 28 randomised, controlled trials have compared outcomes of surgery for rectal cancer combined with preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy with those of surgery alone. We have done a collaborative meta-analysis of these results to give a more balanced view of the total evidence and to increase statistical precision.

METHODS

We centrally checked and analysed individual patient data from 22 randomised comparisons between preoperative (6,350 patients in 14 trials) or postoperative (2157 in eight trials) radiotherapy and no radiotherapy for rectal cancer.

FINDINGS

Overall survival was only marginally better in patients who were allocated to radiotherapy than in those allocated to surgery alone (62% vs 63% died; p=0.06). Rates of apparently curative resection were not improved by preoperative radiotherapy (85% radiotherapy vs 86% control). Yearly risk of local recurrence was 46% (SE 6) lower in those who had preoperative radiotherapy than in those who had surgery alone (p=0.00001), and 37% (10) lower in those who had postoperative treatment than those who had surgery alone (p=0.002). Fewer patients who had preoperative radiotherapy died from rectal cancer than did those who had surgery alone (45% vs 50%, respectively, p=0.0003), but early (</=1 year after treatment) deaths from other causes increased (8% vs 4% died, p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Preoperative radiotherapy (at biologically effective doses >/=30 Gy) reduces risk of local recurrence and death from rectal cancer. If safety can be improved without compromising effectiveness, then overall survival would be moderately improved by use of preoperative radiotherapy, especially for young, high risk patients. Postoperative radiotherapy also reduces local recurrence, but short preoperative radiation schedules seem to be at least as effective as longer schedules.

No downstaging after short-term preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

In retrospective studies, total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery has been demonstrated to result in a reduction in the number of local recurrences of rectal cancer. Reports on improved local control after preoperative, hypofractionated radiotherapy have led to the introduction of a randomized multicenter trial to evaluate the effect of TME surgery with and without preoperative radiotherapy. Treatment with preoperative radiotherapy might have an effect on the pathologic characteristics that determine staging of rectal cancer. We investigated the occurrence of downstaging in rectal cancer patients treated with and without preoperative radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the differences in tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, tumor-node-metastasis stage, and histopathologic features in 1,321 patients entered onto a randomized trial. The trial compared preoperative radiotherapy (5 x 5 Gy) followed by TME surgery with TME surgery alone. Patients who had an interval of more than 10 days between the start of radiotherapy and surgery were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Differences were observed in tumor size (P <.001) and total number of examined lymph nodes (P <.001). No difference in tumor or node classification was detected. The irradiated group demonstrated more poorly differentiated tumors as well as more mucinous tumors.

CONCLUSION

In rectal cancer patients, short-term, preoperative radiotherapy with 5 x 5 Gy does not lead to downstaging if the interval between the start of radiotherapy and surgery does not exceed 10 days.

Adjuvant therapy for resectable rectal adenocarcinoma

The mainstay of treatment for rectal cancer over the past 100 years has been surgical resection. However, for the majority of rectal cancers treated conventionally by resection alone, locoregional recurrence is the major mode of failure. Over the past several decades, significant progress has been made in developing effective adjuvant regimens. In the United States, postoperative chemoradiation is standard treatment for T3 or node-positive patients. However, preoperative radiation with or without chemotherapy decreases local recurrence, increases sphincter preservation, and may improve survival. The purpose of this article is to review the role of adjuvant therapy in resectable rectal cancers and to update the status of ongoing randomized trials.

Raltitrexed ('Tomudex') and radiotherapy can be combined as postoperative treatment for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal adjuvant therapy for operable rectal cancer is likely to be a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Raltitrexed ('Tomudex') is a specific thymidylate synthase inhibitor with a convenient administration schedule, acceptable and manageable toxicity, radiosensitising properties, and proven efficacy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. It may, therefore, offer advantages compared with standard 5-FU chemotherapy regimens used in colorectal cancer. The aim of this phase I, dose-escalation study was to determine the recommended dose of raltitrexed for use with postoperative pelvic radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resected Dukes' stage B or C rectal cancer were treated with a combination of raltitrexed and radiotherapy (50.4 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction over five to six weeks). At least three patients were treated at each of three escalating raltitrexed dose levels (2.0, 2.6 and 3.0 mg/m2) once every three weeks. Toxicity was assessed by the recording of WHO adverse events and biochemistry and haematology determinations.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients entered the study, 17 of whom had Dukes' stage C disease. All three patients entered at a dose level of 3.0 mg/m2 experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (2 patients had grade 3 leucopenia and 1 patient had grade 2 leucopenia and grade 3 diarrhoea); however, only 2 of 1 patients entered at a dose level of 2.6 mg/m2 experienced DLT (1 patient had grade 4 neutropenia and 1 patient died probably due to aspiration pneumonia unrelated to treatment). The most common haematological toxic events were leucopenia (8 patients) and anaemia (6 patients). Only four haematological or biochemical toxic events were of grade 3 or 4. Other common toxicities were diarrhoea and nausea, which occurred in 15 and 9 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that raltitrexed can be combined with postoperative radiotherapy for treatment of patients with Dukes' stage B or C rectal cancer. The recommended dose of raltitrexed in this setting is 2.6 mg/m2, which is close to the full monotherapy dose.

Comparison of radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia in locally advanced pelvic tumours: a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Dutch Deep Hyperthermia Group

BACKGROUND

Local-control rates after radiotherapy for locally advanced tumours of the bladder, cervix, and rectum are disappointing. We investigated the effect of adding hyperthermia to standard radiotherapy.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. 358 patients were enrolled from 1990 to 1996, in cancer centres in the Netherlands, who had bladder cancer stages T2, T3, or T4, NO, MO, cervical cancer stages IIB, IIIB, or IV, or rectal cancer stage M0-1 were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned radiotherapy (median total dose 65 Gy) alone (n=176) or radiotherapy plus hyperthermia (n=182). Our primary endpoints were complete response and duration of local control. We did the analysis by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Complete-response rates were 39% after radiotherapy and 55% after radiotherapy plus hyperthermia (p<0.001). The duration of local control was significantly longer with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia than with radiotherapy alone (p=0.04). Treatment effect did not differ significantly by tumour site, but the addition of hyperthermia seemed to be most important for cervical cancer, for which the complete-response rate with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia was 83% compared with 57% after radiotherapy alone (p=0.003). 3-year overall survival was 27% in the radiotherapy group and 51% in the radiotherapy plus hyperthermia group. For bladder cancer, an initial difference in local control disappeared during follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

Hyperthermia in addition to standard radiotherapy may be especially useful in locally advanced cervical tumours. Studies of larger numbers of patients are needed for other pelvic tumour sites before practical recommendations can be made.

Does the caseload of the pathologist influence the minimum and extended data set of pathology variables reported for rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

The role of adjuvant therapy for rectal carcinoma, both radiotherapy and chemotherapy, remains controversial. Nevertheless, some stages of rectal cancer may benefit from adjuvant therapies. Post-operative decision making is determined by accurate pathology staging of the tumour which may depend on the experience, expertise and activity of the pathologist and by surgeon variables.

METHODS

Pathology reports for consecutive rectal cancer resection specimens at five University of Sydney teaching hospitals were assessed for the presence of important pathology variables. The desired minimum data set included the assessment of six major variables: extent of tumour penetration, distal and circumferential margins, degree of differentiation, number of nodes and identification of an apical node. A multivariate analysis was performed to see if the activity of the pathologist (number of specimens reported in time period) correlated with the number of minimum data set pathology variables reported. Multivariate analysis was also used to determine if the activity (number of resections) or training (colorectal society vs non-society) of the surgeon were correlated with variables potentially related to adequate surgical clearance of the tumour and to abdominoperineal (APE) resection rates.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-five consecutive rectal cancer pathology reports were reviewed. Of the minimum data set (six variables) only 17% of the reports documented all of these major variables (range 2-6). Apical node identification was reported in only 47% of reports and circumferential margin in only 39%. Circumferential margin was reported significantly more frequently in the higher activity group of pathologists (51% vs 29%, P=0.00001). APE rates were significantly different between some of the hospitals (range 19-31%). Surgeons performing more than 20 resections had lower APE rates (16% vs 37%, P=0.000 001) than those with less than 20 resections. There was no difference in APE rates between society and non-society surgeons. Distal margins of <2 cm for anterior resections were significantly higher in non-society surgeons (52% vs 36%, P=0.004).

DISCUSSION

Standardized reporting, template proformas and perhaps dedicated gastrointestinal pathologists may improve reporting of surgical rectal cancer specimens.

The influence of pre-operative radiation therapy on the patterns of recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma

From January 1976 to December 1994, we evaluated the institutional experience of local recurrence and survival in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with pre-operative radiation therapy (PRT) as compared to those treated with radical surgery alone. There were 412 patients, divided into two groups: 259 patients (142 males and 117 females) in Group I and 153 patients (88 males and 65 females) in Group II. The median age was 56 years. Group I patients with locally advanced tumors, either tethered or fixed, received PRT at doses of 45 Gy delivered to the pelvis in two fields; 4 to 8 weeks later, radical surgery was performed. Patients with mobile tumors underwent radical surgery only (Group II). The operative mortality was 4.6% in Group I as compared to 1.9% in Group II (P = 0.18). At median follow-up of 89 months, there were local recurrences in 12.9% of Group I as compared to 36.2% in Group II (P = 0.0000001). The administration of PRT was associated with a low rate of local recurrence, but this improvement corresponded with a high morbidity rate, especially in patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration.

Neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of high risk rectal carcinoma

The management of rectal cancer remains a challenging and controversial area of surgical oncology. The spectre of local recurrence, with its' poor prognostic and palliative outcomes, is known to be highly dependent on operative technique and to vary widely between surgeons. The roles of radiotherapy and chemotherapy have been the subject of trials for 30 years and yet no consensus on treatment exists. In this review article we will summarise the evolution of radiotherapy and chemoradiation in the treatment of rectal cancer and evaluate the evidence available for the use of "neoadjuvant" chemoradiation. In particular, the role of adjuvant therapies in the setting of total mesorectal excision will be discussed.

Improved survival and reduction in local failure rates after preoperative radiotherapy: evidence for the generalizability of the results of Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial

OBJECTIVE

The Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial (SRCT) demonstrated that a short-term regimen of high-dose preoperative radiotherapy (5 x 5 Gy) not only reduced the local recurrence rates but also improved the overall survival rate. This compelling evidence will have a significant impact on the primary treatment of rectal cancer. The authors' aim was to explore the representativeness of the study.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Until the SRCT was presented in 1997, no major trial had established that radiotherapy has a positive effect on the overall survival rate.

METHODS

A review of all rectal cancer cases reported to the Swedish Cancer Registry during the same period that the SRCT accrued patients (1987 to 1990) was performed at 57 of 68 participating hospitals. At these 57 hospitals, there were 2366 patients with invasive rectal cancer, with 1664 of these patients fulfilling the criteria for inclusion in the SRCT.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent (866/1664) of eligible patients were included in the SRCT. The patients not included, of whom 8% (67/798) received adjuvant radiotherapy, had an overall 5-year survival rate of 48%, which was identical to the overall survival rate in the SRCT surgery-alone group (48%) but was inferior to the SRCT radiotherapy group (58%). The cancer-specific 5-year survival rates were 65% and 66% among the patients not included and the surgery-alone group, respectively. The local recurrence rates reached 27% in both groups. The results were still comparable when stratifying for curative surgery, tumor stage, and surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The achieved inclusion level of 52% in a randomized multicenter trial is comparatively high. Because the population in the SRCT was representative, it was concluded that the study results are reliable.

Morbidities of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer: an overview

PURPOSE

Although adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may improve outcomes after surgery for high-risk rectal cancer, its toxicities are not well documented. This is a review of complications associated with adjuvant therapy in randomized, controlled trials.

METHODS

A MEDLINE and literature search was performed for randomized, controlled trials of adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Modalities of adjuvant therapy evaluated included preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy, and postoperative chemoradiotherapy. All documented complications were analyzed, including any effect on pelvic floor function and quality of life.

RESULTS

Short-term (acute) complications of preoperative radiotherapy include lethargy, nausea, diarrhea, and skin erythema or desquamation. These acute effects develop to some degree in most patients during treatment but are usually self-limiting. With preoperative radiotherapy the incidence of perineal wound infection increases from 10 to 20 percent. The acute toxicities after postoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer occur in 4 to 48 percent of cases, and serious toxicities, requiring hospitalization or surgical intervention, occur in 3 to 10 percent of cases. Postoperative radiotherapy is associated with more complications than preoperative radiotherapy. The main problems with postoperative radiotherapy are small-bowel obstruction (5-10 percent), delay in starting radiotherapy caused by delayed wound healing (6 percent) and postoperative fatigue (14 percent), and toxicities precluding completion of adjuvant therapy (49-97 percent). The morbidity and mortality of both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy are higher in elderly patients and when two-portal rather than three-portal or four-portal radiation technique is used. Meticulous radiation technique is important, and multiple fields of irradiation are mandatory. After combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy acute hematologic and gastrointestinal toxic effects are frequent (5-50 percent). Delayed radiation toxicities include radiation enteritis (4 percent), small-bowel obstruction (5 percent), and rectal stricture (5 percent). Pelvic floor function and quality of life have not been well evaluated in randomized, controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer has considerable adverse effects. Adverse effects on bowel and sphincter function and quality of life have not been defined.

Use of preoperative ultrasound staging for treatment of rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Transrectal ultrasound is the standard method for preoperative staging of rectal cancer. This study reviews the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound staging for T3 disease and its use in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

METHODS

One hundred seventeen patients underwent preoperative transrectal ultrasound evaluation for rectal cancer. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound was evaluated among 70 patients not receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Forty-seven patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation based on transrectal ultrasound results. Tumor downstaging and early recurrence were evaluated among 45 of 47 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Among 70 nonirradiated patients, 19 were pathologic Stage pT3. Transrectal ultrasound correctly identified 18 of 19 patients with Stage pT3 (sensitivity, 94.7 percent). Transrectal ultrasound correctly identified 44 of 51 patients with less than pT3 disease (specificity, 86.3 percent). After preoperative chemoradiation in 45 patients with ultrasound Stage uT3 or uT4 tumors, 56 percent of them experienced a reduction in T stage. Residual nodal disease was found in 31 percent of patients. A complete pathologic response with no residual disease at operation was observed in 22 percent of patients. During a median follow-up period of 21 months after diagnosis, seven patients experienced a recurrence of their disease at a median of 12 months after diagnosis. Five of seven patients with recurrence were among a subgroup of ten patients who both failed to downstage T and had residual nodal disease at operation.

CONCLUSION

Transrectal ultrasound is an accurate modality for selecting patients for neoadjuvant treatment. Preoperative chemoradiation produced downstaging in 56 percent of patients. Factors related to early recurrence included residual nodal disease and failure to downstage T after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for primary colorectal cancer

The management of rectal cancer presents substantial challenges. Patients with T3 and/or node-positive rectal cancers are at high risk for local failure and distant metastases (DM). Adjuvant radiation has been shown to decrease local recurrence (LR) rates; however, this local therapy has not been demonstrated to improve survival when compared to surgery alone. In several prospective randomized trials adjuvant chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil-(5-FU)-based chemotherapy improved LR rates, DM rates, and overall survival (OS). The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen has not been determined; however, studies comparing standard IV bolus 5-FU administration with continuous infusion (CI) 5-FU demonstrated that CI administration was superior. Preoperative therapy has potential advantages over adjuvant therapy such as less acute bowel toxicity and improved sphincter preservation. Preoperative chemoradiation has been shown in several studies to improve LR rates and OS when compared to surgery alone. Our current approach to patients with resectable T3 or N1 cancer in the distal two-thirds of the rectum on preoperative staging is preoperative chemoradiation with planned postoperative chemotherapy. This regimen offers the best chance for local control and disease-free survival while potentially downstaging the tumor and improving sphincter preservation.