Survival impact of surgical resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: results from a large population-based cohort study

Lymph node ratio prognosticates overall survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Lymph node ratio (LNR) is suggested to address the shortcomings of using only lymph node yield (LNY) or status in colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis. This study explores how LNR affects survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), seeking to provide clearer insights into its application.

METHODS

This observational cohort study investigated stage IV patients with CRC (1995-2021) who underwent an upfront resection of their primary tumour at Concord Hospital, Sydney. Clinicopathological data were extracted from a prospective database, and LNR was calculated both continuously and dichotomously (LNR of 0 and LNR > 0). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The associations between LNR and various clinicopathological variables were tested using regression analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses estimated OS in univariate and multivariate survival models.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients who underwent a primary CRC resection with clear margins (mean age 68.1 years [SD 13.4]; 58.0% M; colon cancer [n = 339,73.1%]) had AJCC stage IV disease. The median LNR was 0.18 (IQR 0.05-0.42) for colon cancer (CC) resections and 0.21 (IQR 0.09-0.47) for rectal cancer (RC) resections. A total of 84 patients had an LNR = 0 (CC = 66 patients; RC = 18 patients). The 5-year OS for the CC cohort was 10.5% (95% CI 8.7-12.3) and 11.5% (95% CI 8.4-14.6) for RC. Increasing LNR demonstrated a decline in OS in both CC (P < 0.001) and RC (P < 0.001). In patients with non-lymphatic dissemination only (LNR = 0 or N0 status), there was better survival compared with those with lymphatic spread (CC aHR1.50 [1.08-2.07;P = 0.02], RC aHR 2.21 [1.16-4.24;P = 0.02]).

CONCLUSIONS

LNR is worthy of consideration in patients with mCRC. An LNR of 0 indicates patients have a better prognosis, underscoring the need for adequate lymphadenectomy to facilitate precise mCRC staging.

Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stents as a Bridge to Surgery for Obstructive and Symptomatic Primary Tumors of Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Analysis

Background: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) was introduced for the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC) a few decades ago. However, its long-term outcomes remain controversial, especially for stage IV CRC. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcomes of SEMS as a "bridge to surgery" (BTS) for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in stage IV CRC by one-to-one propensity-score matching. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center from January 2007 to December 2017. Patients with obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors of stage IV CRC underwent primary resection (PR) or placement of a SEMS as a BTS. They were divided into SEMS and PR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared. Results: In total, 52 patients were reviewed (SEMS group, 21; PR group, 31). Sixteen patients in both groups were matched using propensity scores. Patients in the SEMS group more frequently underwent laparoscopic surgery than those in the PR group (75% versus 19%, P = .004). The two groups showed no significant differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes. The 5-year overall survival was not significantly different between groups (29% versus 20%, P = .53). Conclusions: As a BTS, the use of SEMS for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in CRC stage IV can be a comparable option to PR in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, and would be less invasive with respect to surgical procedures.

Patients with stage IV colorectal carcinoma selected for palliative primary tumor resection and systemic therapy survive longer compared with systemic therapy alone - A retrospective comparative cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival of palliative stage IV colorectal cancer patients selected for primary tumor resection and systemic treatment (PTR+SYST) to patients with systemic treatment only (SYST).

BACKGROUND

About 20-25% of all colorectal cancer patients are diagnosed with stage IV disease. The benefit of primary tumor resection in the palliative situation is therefore of high concern. However, empirical evidence from randomized and observational studies is inconsistent.

METHODS

Mortality after PTR and systemic treatment was compared to systemic treatment alone in a retrospective observational cohort of patients diagnosed 2012-2020 from the cancer registry in the federal state of Brandenburg (Germany), excluding patients with rectal cancer of the lower two-thirds, emergency procedures, unknown ECOG status, ECOG >2, unknown metastatic status or unclear grading.

RESULTS

Of 480 patients, 416 died during an average follow-up of 23 months in mean. 12-months survival was 75% after PTR+SYST compared with 49% after SYST (HR=0.39, 95% CI 0.29-0.53, P<0.001). The difference persisted to 36 months (28% vs. 13%, HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.66, P<0.001). Results were similar after multivariate adjustment, propensity score matching and delayed entry.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Patients with stage IV colorectal carcinoma who are selected for primary tumor resection in combination with systemic therapy and who receive such treatment survive longer compared with patients who receive only systemic treatment. Whether the difference is due to selection of patients or PTR remains unclear. At present, current practice of selecting patients for PTR appears to do no harm.

Primary Tumor Resection Before Systemic Therapy in Patients With Colon Cancer and Unresectable Metastases: Combined Results of the SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV Trials

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy is established as primary treatment in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer and unresectable metastases. Data from nonrandomized clinical trials have fueled persistent uncertainty if primary tumor resection (PTR) before chemotherapy prolongs survival. We investigated the prognostic value of PTR in patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer who were not amenable to curative treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients enrolled in the multicenter, randomized SYNCHRONOUS and CCRe-IV trials were included in the analysis. Patients with colon cancer with synchronous unresectable metastases were randomly assigned at 100 sites in Austria, Germany, and Spain to undergo PTR or up-front chemotherapy (No PTR group). The chemotherapy regimen was left at discretion of the local team. Patients with tumor-related symptoms, inability to tolerate surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy, and history of another cancer were excluded. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the analyses were performed with intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

A total of 393 patients were randomly assigned to undergo PTR (n = 187) or no PTR (n = 206) between November 2011 and March 2017. Chemotherapy was not administered to 6.4% in the No PTR group and 24.1% in the PTR group. The median follow-up time was 36.7 months (95% CI, 36.6 to 37.3). The median OS was 16.7 months (95% CI, 13.2 to 19.2) in the PTR group and 18.6 months (95% CI, 16.2 to 22.3) in the No PTR group (P = .191). Comparable OS between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944 [95% CI, 0.738 to 1.209], P = .65) and across all subgroups. Patients with serious adverse events were more common in the No PTR group (10.2% v 18.0%; P = .027).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases, PTR before systemic chemotherapy was not associated with prolonged OS.

Distinguishing optimal candidates for primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma: A predictive model based on propensity score matching

Background

Primary tumor resection is associated with survival benefits in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (mLUAD). However, there are no established methods to determine which individuals would benefit from surgery. Therefore, we developed a model to predict the patients who are likely to benefit from surgery in terms of survival.

Methods

Data on patients with mLUAD were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Depending on whether surgery was performed on the primary tumor, patients were categorized into two groups: cancer-directed surgery (CDS) and no-cancer-directed surgery (No-CDS). Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was utilized to address bias between the CDS and No-CDS groups. The prognostic impact of CDS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Subsequently, we constructed a nomogram to predict the potential for surgical benefits based on multivariable logistic regression analysis using preoperative factors.

Results

A total of 89,039 eligible patients were identified, including 6.4% (5705) who underwent surgery. Following PSM, the CDS group demonstrated a significantly longer median overall survival (mOS) compared with the No-CDS group (23 [21-25] vs. 7 [7-8] months; P < 0.001). The nomogram showed robust performance in both the training and validation sets (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.698 and 0.717, respectively), and the calibration curves exhibited high consistency. The nomogram proved clinically valuable according to decision curve analysis (DCA). According to this nomogram, surgical patients were categorized into two groups: no-benefit candidates and benefit candidates groups. Compared with the no-benefit candidate group, the benefit candidate group was associated with longer survival (mOS: 25 vs. 6 months, P < 0.001). Furthermore, no difference in survival was observed between the no-benefit candidates and the no-surgery groups (mOS: 6 vs. 7 months, P = 0.9).

Conclusions

A practical nomogram was developed to identify optimal CDS candidates among patients with mLUAD.

The Real-Life Impact of Primary Tumor Resection of Synchronous Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-From a Clinical Oncologic Point of View

AIM

The complex medical care of synchronous metastatic colorectal (smCRC) patients requires prudent multidisciplinary planning and treatments due to various challenges caused by the primary tumor and its metastases. The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) is currently uncertain; strong arguments exist for and against it. We aimed to define its effect and find its best place in our therapeutic methodology.

METHOD

We performed retrospective data analysis to investigate the clinical course of 449 smCRC patients, considering treatment modalities and the location of the primary tumor and comparing the clinical results of the patients with or without PTR between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 at the Institute of Oncotherapy of the University of Pécs.

RESULTS

A total of 63.5% of the 449 smCRC patients had PTR. Comparing their data to those whose primary tumor remained intact (IPT), we observed significant differences in median progression-free survival with first-line chemotherapy (mPFS1) (301 vs. 259 days; p < 0.0001; 1 y PFS 39.2% vs. 26.6%; OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36-0.87)) and median overall survival (mOS) (760 vs. 495 days; p < 0.0001; 2 y OS 52.4 vs. 26.9%; OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.33-0.53)), respectively. However, in the PTR group, the average ECOG performance status was significantly better (0.98 vs. 1.1; p = 0.0456), and the use of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) (45.3 vs. 28.7%; p = 0.0005) and rate of metastasis ablation (MA) (21.8 vs. 1.2%; p < 0.0001) were also higher, which might explain the difference partially. Excluding the patients receiving MTA and MA from the comparison, the effect of PTR remained evident, as the mOS differences in the reduced PTR subgroup compared to the reduced IPT subgroup were still strongly significant (675 vs. 459 days; p = 0.0009; 2 y OS 45.9 vs. 24.1%; OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.79). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the site of the primary tumor also had a major impact on the outcome considering only the IPT patients; shorter mOS was observed in the extrapelvic IPT subgroup in contrast with the intrapelvic IPT group (422 vs. 584 days; p = 0.0026; 2 y OS 18.2 vs. 35.9%; OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.89)). Finally, as a remarkable finding, it should be emphasized that there were no differences in OS between the smCRC PTR subgroup and metachronous mCRC patients (mOS 760 vs. 710 days, p = 0.7504, 2 y OS OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.26)).

CONCLUSIONS

The role of PTR in smCRC is still not professionally justified. Our survey found that most patients had benefited from PTR. Nevertheless, further prospective trials are needed to clarify the optimal treatment sequence of smCRC patients and understand this cancer disease's inherent biology.

Identifying optimal candidates for primary tumor surgery in patients with metastatic head and neck cancer

Background

Primary tumor surgery (PTS) may enhance survival among part of patients with metastatic head and neck cancer (mHNC). Herein, a predictive model was needed to construct to identify who can gain benefit remarkably from tumor resection.

Methods

Data of patients with mHNC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The best cut-off value of age were analyzed using the X-tile software. One-to-one PSM, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test were performed for survival analysis.The independent factors determined using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were used to construct the nomogram.

Results

A total of 1,614 patients diagnosed with mHNC were included; among them, 356 (22.0%) underwent a surgical procedure for the excision of the primary tumor. cancer-specific survival (CSS) was remarkably prolonged in the PTS group relative to the non-PTS group following PSM [Median:19 months vs. 9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, P < 0.001]. Patients with mHNC who were younger than 52 years old, had well-differentiated tumors, had T1 and N0 stages, and were married at the time of the study may have significantly benefited from PTS. In addition, we constructed a nomogram based on the factors that independently affect the CSS in multivariate Cox analysis. The nomogram showed excellent discrimination in both the training and validation sets (AUC: 0.732 and 0.738, respectively).

Conclusion

A practical predictive model was constructed to determine the appropriate patients with mHNC, who would benefit from surgical resection.

A predictive scoring model to select suitable patients for surgery on primary tumor in metastatic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery on primary tumor (SPT) has been a common treatment strategy for many types of cancer.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate whether SPT could be considered a treatment option for metastatic esophageal cancer and to identify the patient population that would benefit the most from SPT.

METHODS

Data from 18 registration sites in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database (SEER database) were analyzed to select patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify potential risk factors for pre-treatment survival. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 were used to construct a pre-treatment nomogram. A pre-surgery predictive model was then developed using the pre-surgery factors to score patients, called the "pre-surgery score". The optimal cut-off value for the "pre-surgery score" was determined using X-tile analysis, and patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk subsets. It was hypothesized that patients with a low "pre-surgery score" risk would benefit the most from SPT.

RESULTS

A total of 3793 patients were included in the analysis. SPT was found to be an independent risk factor for the survival of metastatic esophageal cancer patients. Subgroup analyses showed that patients with liver or lung metastases derived more benefit from SPT compared to those with bone or brain metastases. A pre-treatment predictive model was constructed to estimate the survival rates at one, two, and three years, which showed good accuracy (C-index: 0.705 for the training set and 0.701 for the validation set). Patients with a "pre-surgery score" below 4.9 were considered to have a low mortality risk and benefitted from SPT (SPT vs. non-surgery: median overall survival (OS): 24 months vs. 4 months, HR = 0.386, 95% CI: 0.303-0.491, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that SPT could improve the OS of patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. The pre-treatment scoring model developed in this study might be useful in identifying suitable candidates for SPT. The strengths of this study include the large patient sample size and rigorous statistical analyses. However, limitations should be noted due to the retrospective study design, and prospective studies are needed to validate the findings in the future.

Survival outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver only metastasis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer with synchronous liver-only metastasis is managed with a multimodal approach, however, optimal sequencing of modalities remains unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive rectal or colon cancer cases with synchronous liver-only metastasis was conducted from the South Australian Colorectal Cancer Registry from 2006 to 2021. This study aimed to investigate how order and type of treatment modality affects overall survival.

RESULTS

Data of over 5000 cases were analysed (n = 5244), 1420 cases had liver-only metastasis. There were a greater number of colon than rectal primaries (N = 1056 versus 364). Colonic resection was the preferred initial treatment for the colon cohort (60%). In the rectal cohort, 30% had upfront resection followed by 27% that had chemo-radiotherapy as 1st line therapy. For the colon cohort, there was an improved 5-year survival with surgical resection as initial treatment compared to chemotherapy (25% versus 9%, P < 0.001). In the rectal cohort, chemo-radiotherapy as the initial treatment was associated with an improved 5-year survival compared to surgery or chemotherapy (40% versus 26% versus 19%, P = 0.0015). Patients who were able to have liver resection had improved survival, with 50% surviving over 5 years compared to 12 months in the non-resected group (P < 0.001). Primary rectal KRAS wildtype patients who underwent liver resection and received Cetuximab had significantly worse outcomes compared to KRAS wildtype patients who did not (P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Where surgery is possible, resection of liver metastasis and primary tumour improved overall survival. Further research is required on the use of targeted treatments in patients undergoing liver resection.

Role of radiation in oligometastases and oligoprogression in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: consensus and controversy

INTRODUCTION

The oligometastatic state in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has recently become well-established. However, the specific definition of oligometastases remains unclear. Several smaller randomized studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of radiation as metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in oligometastatic NSCLC, which have led the way to larger studies currently accruing patients globally.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the definitions of 'oligometastases' and explains why the oligometastatic state is becoming increasingly relevant in metastatic NSCLC. This includes the rationale for MDT in oligometastatic NSCLC, specifically reviewing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a treatment strategy. This review details many randomized trials that support radiation as MDT and introduces trials that are currently accruing patients. Finally, it explores some of the controversies that warrant further investigation.

EXPERT OPINION

Radiation treatment, specifically SBRT, has been shown to be safe, convenient, and cost-effective as MDT. As systemic therapy, including targeted agents and immunotherapy, continues to improve, the precise role(s) and timing of radiation therapy may evolve. However, radiation therapy as MDT will continue to be an integral part of treatment in patients with oligometastatic NSCLC.

Primary Tumor Resection for Metastatic Colorectal, Gastric and Pancreatic Cancer Patients: In Search of Scientific Evidence to Inform Clinical Practice

The management of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer patients may be challenging. Indeed, primary tumor progression could be associated with severe symptoms, compromising the quality of life and the feasibility of effective systemic therapy, and might result in life-threatening complications. While retrospective series have suggested that surgery on the primary tumor may confer a survival advantage even in asymptomatic patients, randomized trials seem not to definitively support this hypothesis. We discuss the evidence for and against primary tumor resection for patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (colorectal, gastric and pancreatic) cancers treated with systemic therapies and put in context the pros and cons of the onco-surgical approach in the time of precision oncology. We also evaluate current ongoing trials on this topic, anticipating how these will influence both research and everyday practice.

Survival Outcomes after Elective or Emergency Surgery for Synchronous Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

Patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) who have not undergone primary tumor resection (PTR) are at risk of sudden medical emergencies. Despite the ongoing controversy over the necessity and timing of PTR in patients with stage IV CRC, studies comparing the survival outcomes of elective and emergency surgery in this population are scarce. This is a retrospective study conducted at a single institute. The patients were divided into two groups: the elective surgery (ELS) group (n = 46) and the emergency surgery (EMS) group (n = 26). The primary outcome was 2-year overall survival (OS). During a median follow-up period of 27.0 months, the 2-year OS was significantly better in the ELS group (80% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in the 2-year relapse-free survival and 30-day postoperative complication rates. Planning and performing elective surgery could help increase the survival rate of patients with synchronous stage IV CRC, especially those that undergo simultaneous or staged metastasectomy.

The effect of primary tumour resection on patients with synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab-containing regimens

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the effect of primary tumour resection (PTR) on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary cancer center in Turkey. Patients with mCRC between January 2009 and December 2020 were extracted from the electronic hospital management system. Patients with RAS wild-type synchronous metastatic left-sided colon or rectum cancer who had cetuximab-containing treatment protocol were included in the study. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcome was response rates.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients with mCRC were included in this study. PTR was performed in 57.7% of all patients. Fifty-nine (53.2%) and 52 (46.8%) patients had rectal and left colon tumours, respectively. The combination treatment with cetuximab was FOLFIRI in 62.2% and FOLFOX in 29.7% of all patients. In subgroup analysis, the median PFS was 7.9 and 9 months in PTR (+) and PTR (-) patients, respectively. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.3). The median OS was 33 months in all patients. In subgroup analysis, the median OS was 39 and 27.9 months in PTR (+) and PTR (-) patients, respectively. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (P = 0.002). After adjusting for confounding factors, PTR and ECOG performance score were the independent prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSION

PTR improved the OS in patients with RAS wild-type synchronous left-sided colon or rectum cancer treated with cetuximab-containing chemotherapy regimens.

Predicting Surgical Benefit for Primary Tumor Resection in Patients with Stage IV Colorectal Cancer.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2031087/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Purpose There exists continuous controversy regarding the effect of primary tumor resection (PTR) for stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Little is known about how to predict the patients’ survival benefit from PTR. This study aimed to develop a tool for surgical benefit prediction. Methods Stage IV CRC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were included. After propensity score matching, patients receiving PTR that survived longer than the median cancer-specific survival (CSS) time of those who did not undergo PTR were considered to benefit from surgery. Logistic regression analysis identified prognostic factors influencing the surgical benefit, based on which a nomogram was constructed. A user-friendly webserver was then built for convenient clinical use. The predictive model was assessed using Harrell’s concordance index, calibration plot, receiver operative curve and decision curve analysis. Results The median CSS of the PTR group was 23 months, which was significantly longer than the non-PTR group (12 months, P < 0.001). In the PTR group, 32.9% of patients did not benefit from surgery. Logistic regression analysis identified age, tumor location, CEA level, histological grade, number of distant metastasis, and preoperative chemotherapy independently associated with surgical benefit. The established prognostic nomogram demonstrated satisfactory performance. Conclusion PTR was associated with prolonged survival in stage IV CRC. The proposed nomogram could be used as a risk-to-benefit assessment evidenced-based platform for selecting appropriate patients to undergo PTR.

Primary Tumor Resection Provides Survival Benefits for Patients with Synchronous Brain Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Background: Brain metastases (BMs), particularly synchronous brain metastases, in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are uncommon. The survival benefit of primary tumor resection (PTR) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is controversial. Whether PTR can bring survival benefits to patients with BMs of CRC has not been reported. Methods: From 2010 to 2016, 581 CRC patients with BMs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were divided into PTR and non-PTR groups. The log-rank test was used to compare the survival distributions. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. By controlling additional prognostic factors, a Cox proportional multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the survival benefit of PTR. Results: The median overall survival for CRC patients with synchronous BMs was 3 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 27.2% and a 2-year survival rate of 12.8%. The PTR group contained 171 patients (29.4%), whereas the non-PTR group had 410 patients (70.6%). Patients who underwent PTR had a 1-year survival rate of 40.2% compared to 21.7% in those who did not (p < 0.0001). Cox proportional analysis showed that patients ≥60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.718, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.423−2.075, p < 0.0001) had a shorter OS than patients < 60 years of age. OS was better in CEA-negative than in CEA-positive patients (HR 0.652, 95% CI 0.472−0.899, p = 0.009). Patients in whom the primary tumor was removed had considerably improved prognoses (HR 0.654, 95% CI 0.531−0.805, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the PTR group achieved a survival advantage except for patients with CEA negative. Conclusions: Patients with synchronous BMs from CRC may benefit from primary tumor resection (PTR). Age, CEA level, and PTR were independent prognostic risk factors for CRC patients with synchronous BMs.

Primary tumor resection with or without metastasectomy for left- and right-sided stage IV colorectal cancer: an instrumental variable analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether primary tumor location (PTL) is predictive of survival benefits following primary tumor resection plus metastasectomy (PMTR) and primary tumor resection (PTR) alone in stage IV colorectal cancer patients is not known. We sought to address this issue by employing instrumental variable analysis to evaluate the efficacy of PMTR and PTR with stratification for primary tumor location in stage IV colorectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Stage IV colorectal cancer patients diagnosed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. To account for both measured and unmeasured confounders, the efficacy of PMTR and PTR in the left- and right-sided subgroups was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, with the health service area as the instrument variable. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 50,333 eligible patients were analyzed (left-sided, n = 29,402 and right-sided, n = 20,931). OS was significantly better with PMTR than with other treatments (PTR, metastasectomy only, or no surgery) in patients with left-sided tumors (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37 [95% CI 0.24-0.58], P < 0.001), but not in patients with right-sided tumors (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.65-1.47], P = 0.910; interaction test P < 0.001). OS was comparable in patients treated with PTR and those treated with no surgery in both the left-sided (HR = 1.11 [95% CI 0.68-1.81], P = 0.690) and right-sided (HR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.50-1.43], P = 0.530; interaction test P = 0.466) subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

PMTR appears to only benefit patients with left-sided stage IV colorectal cancer but not those with right-sided tumors. PTR does not improve OS, regardless of primary tumor location. When selecting patients for PMTR, primary tumor location should be considered. Overuse of PTR should be avoided.

Treatment of Stage IV Colon Cancer in the United States: A Patterns-of-Care Analysis

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend chemotherapy as the mainstay of treatment for stage IV colon cancer, with primary tumor resection (PTR) reserved for patients with symptomatic primary or curable disease. The aims of this study were to characterize the treatment modalities received by patients with stage IV colon cancer and to determine the patient-, tumor-, and hospital-level factors associated with those treatments.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer in 2014 were extracted from the SEER Patterns of Care initiative. Treatments were categorized into chemotherapy only, PTR only, PTR + chemotherapy, and none/unknown.

RESULTS

The total weighted number of cases was 3,336; 17% of patients received PTR only, 23% received chemotherapy only, 41% received PTR + chemotherapy, and 17% received no treatment. In multivariable analyses, compared with chemotherapy only, PTR + chemotherapy was associated with being married (odds ratio [OR], 1.9), having bowel obstruction (OR, 2.55), and having perforation (OR, 2.29), whereas older age (OR, 5.95), Medicaid coverage (OR, 2.46), higher T stage (OR, 3.51), and higher N stage (OR, 6.77) were associated with PTR only. Patients who received no treatment did not have more comorbidities or more severe disease burden but were more likely to be older (OR, 3.91) and non-Hispanic African American (OR, 2.92; all P<.05). Treatment at smaller, nonacademic hospitals was associated with PTR (± chemotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

PTR was included in the treatment regimen for most patients with stage IV colon cancer and was associated with smaller, nonacademic hospitals. Efforts to improve guideline implementation may be beneficial in these hospitals and also in non-Hispanic African American and older populations.

Coincident Patterns of Suicide Risk Among Adult Patients with a Primary Solid Tumor: A Large-Scale Population Study

Background

Suicide rate is much higher in cancer patients than in general population. This study examined the suicide risk in survivors of primary solid tumor across 19 cancer sites considering risk coincident patterns based on area-based SES indicators.

Methods

A retrospective search of the SEER database was conducted. Independent risk factors for suicide were identified using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Exploratory factor analysis and cluster analysis were used to create coincident patterns of SES factors.

Results

Suicide risk was higher for patients with a primary solid tumor who were older, male, white, unmarried, had no insurance, poorly differentiated, distant metastasis and did not undergo active treatment (especially surgery). The suicide risk was higher for patients living in areas with economic and education disadvantage, high levels of immigration and crowding, and high levels of residential instability. Concomitant presence of high economic and education disadvantage, high immigration and crowding levels and low residential instability, showed the highest risk of suicide.

Conclusion

In order to mitigate suicidal risk, clinicians should pay more attention to patients who are older, male, white, not married, high levels of cancer severity, not received active treatment (especially surgery), and having no insurance. Identifying coincident patterns of suicide help further screen high suicidal risk patients based on area-based socioeconomic status.

Primary Tumor Resection Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for Colorectal Cancer Patients With Asymptomatic, Synchronous Unresectable Metastases (JCOG1007; iPACS): A Randomized Clinical Trial

It remains controversial whether primary tumor resection (PTR) before chemotherapy improves survival in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with asymptomatic primary tumor and synchronous unresectable metastases.

A population-based predictive model predicting candidate for primary tumor surgery in patients with metastatic esophageal cancer

Background

The survival benefit of primary tumor surgery for metastatic esophageal cancer (mEC) patients has been observed, but methods for discriminating which individual patients would benefit from surgery have been poorly defined. Herein, a predictive model was developed to test the hypothesis that only certain metastatic patients would gain a survival benefit from primary tumor surgery.

Methods

Clinical data for patients with mEC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database [2004-2016] and then divided into surgery and no-surgery groups according to whether surgery was performed on the primary tumor. Propensity-score-matching (PSM) was performed to balance the confounding factors. We hypothesized that the patients who had undergone surgery and lived longer than the median cancer-specific-survival (CSS) of the no-surgery group could benefit from surgery. We constructed a nomogram to predict surgery benefit potential based on multivariable logistic-regression analysis using preoperative factors. The predictive performance of the nomogram was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) and calibration curves. The clinical application value of the nomogram was estimated with decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

A total of 5,250 eligible patients with mEC were identified, and 9.4% [492] received primary tumor surgery. After PSM, CSS for the surgery group was significantly longer [median: 19 vs. 9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, P<0.001] compared with the no-surgery group. Among the surgery group, 69.3% [327] survived >9 months (surgery-beneficial group). The prediction nomogram showed good discrimination both in training and validation sets (AUC: 0.72 and 0.70, respectively), and the calibration curves indicated a good consistency. DCA demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically useful. According to this nomogram, surgery patients were classified into two groups: no-benefit-candidate and benefit-candidate. The benefit-candidate group was associated with longer survival than the no-benefit-candidate group (median CSS: 19 vs. 6.5 months, P<0.001). Additionally, there was no difference in survival between the no-benefit-candidate and no-surgery groups (median CSS: 6.5 vs. 9 months, P=0.070).

Conclusions

A predictive model was created for the selection of candidates for surgical treatment among mEC patients. This predictive model might be used to select patients who may benefit from primary tumor surgery.

Efficacy of Primary Tumor Resection in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of palliative primary tumor resection in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with unresectable metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS Clinicopathological characteristics of eligible patients who underwent surgery to remove the primary tumor and those who did not between 2004 and 2013 were compared. We also evaluated the association between survival and different clinicopathologic characteristics in metastatic CRC. RESULTS The percentage of patients undergoing surgical resection of the primary tumor was higher during the earlier years and trended toward less use of surgery in later years. Palliative primary tumor resection was strongly associated with better cause-specific survival (hazard ratio=0.403, 95% confidence interval=0.389 to 0.417, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS We added new strong evidence supporting the survival benefit of palliative resection, which should be confirmed in future randomized controlled trials.

Nonoperative Management Versus Radical Surgery of Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy-Induced Clinical Complete Response: A Markov Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management of rectal cancer was introduced for patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to avoid short- and long-term surgical morbidity related to radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the expected life-years and quality-adjusted life-years for nonoperative management and radical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer after clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

DESIGN

Markov modeling was used to simulate nonoperative management and radical surgery for a base case scenario over a 10-year time horizon. Estimates for various clinical variables were obtained after extensive literature search. Outcome was expressed in both life-years and quality-adjusted life-years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were completed to assess the impact of variation in key parameters.

SETTING

A decision model using a Markov model was designed.

PATIENTS

The base case was a 65-year-old man with a distal rectal tumor who had achieved clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Life-years and quality-adjusted life-years were measured.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted life-years (5.79 for nonoperative management vs 5.62 for radical surgery) and life-years (6.92 for nonoperative management vs 6.96 for radical surgery) were similar between nonoperative management and radical surgery. The preferred treatment strategy changed with variations in the probability of local regrowth in nonoperative management, the probability of salvage surgery for regrowth in nonoperative management, utilities associated with nonoperative management and low anterior resection, and the utility of low anterior resection syndrome. The model was not sensitive to (dis)utilities associated with stoma, chemotherapy, or postoperative morbidity and mortality.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by assumptions inherent to modeling studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management and radical surgery resulted in similar (quality-adjusted) life-years. Nonoperative management should therefore be considered as a reasonable treatment option. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B246. MANEJO NO-QUIRÚRGICO VERSUS CIRUGÍA RADICAL DEL CÁNCER RECTAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESPUESTA CLÍNICA COMPLETA INDUCIDA POR TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ANÁLISIS DE DECISIÓN DE MARKOV: Se introdujo el tratamiento no quirúrgico del cáncer rectal para pacientes con respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante para evitar la morbilidad quirúrgica a corto y largo plazo relacionada con la resección radical.Determinar los años de vida esperados y los años de vida ajustados por calidad para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico y la resección radical del cáncer rectal localmente avanzado, después de la respuesta clínica completa siguiente de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.El modelo de Markov se usó para simular el manejo no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical para un escenario de caso base en un horizonte temporal de 10 años. Se obtuvieron estimaciones para diversas variables clínicas después de una extensa búsqueda bibliográfica. El resultado se expresó tanto en años de vida como en años de vida ajustados por calidad. Se completaron análisis determinísticos de sensibilidad para evaluar el impacto de la variación en los parámetros clave.Se diseñó un modelo de decisión utilizando un modelo de Markov.El caso base fue un hombre de 65 años con un tumor rectal distal que había logrado una respuesta clínica completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.Años de vida y años de vida ajustados por calidad.Los años de vida ajustados por calidad (5.79 para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico frente a 5.62 para la cirugía radical) y los años de vida (6.92 para el tratamiento no-quirúrgico frente a 6.96 para la cirugía radical) fueron similares entre el tratamiento no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical. La estrategia de tratamiento preferida cambió con las variaciones en la probabilidad de nuevo crecimiento local en el manejo no-operatorio, la probabilidad de cirugía de rescate para el rebrote en el manejo no-operatorio, las utilidades asociadas con el manejo no-operatorio, y la resección anterior baja y la utilidad de el syndrome de resección anterior baja. El modelo no era sensible a las (des) utilidades asociadas con el estoma, la quimioterapia o la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.El estudio estuvo limitado por suposiciones inherentes a los estudios de modelado.El manejo no-quirúrgico y la cirugía radical resultaron en años de vida similares (ajustados por calidad). Por lo tanto, el tratamiento no-quirúrgico debe considerarse como una opción de tratamiento razonable. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B246.

Survival benefits of palliative gastrectomy in stage IV gastric cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Background

This study aimed to investigate the effect of palliative gastrectomy on survival in stage IV gastric cancer.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with stage IV gastric cancer between 2010 and 2016 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for survival in patients who underwent palliative gastrectomy.

Results

We examined 6,529 patients with stage IV gastric cancer, of which 625 underwent palliative gastrectomy. Using a 1:2 PSM, the 625 patients were matched with 1,250 patients from the no gastrectomy group. The overall survival was higher in the gastrectomy group before [hazard ratio (HR) =0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.62, P<0.0001] and after PSM (HR =0.51, 95% CI: 0.46-0.57, P<0.0001). Multivariate Cox analysis confirmed the survival benefits of palliative gastrectomy and chemotherapy. Older age, over-lapping lesions, non-adenocarcinomas, higher tumor grade, and lung metastasis significantly increased the risk of mortality. In the gastrectomy group, patients aged ≥80 years, diagnosed with grades 3/4 non-adenocarcinomas, or with lung metastasis showed poorer prognosis. However, chemotherapy could improve the survival of these patients.

Conclusions

Palliative gastrectomy provides survival benefits to stage IV gastric cancer patients. However, age, tumor grade, tumor histology, and lung metastasis status should be considered while making a decision regarding gastrectomy. Chemotherapy should also be recommended for these patients.

Palliative resection or radiation of primary tumor prolonged survival for metastatic esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

We aimed to explore the value of palliative resection or radiation of primary tumor for metastatic esophageal cancer (EC) patients.

METHODS

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used for identifying metastatic EC patients. The patients were divided into resection and nonresection groups. And patients without resection were divided into radiation and nonradiation groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were adopted to reduce the baseline differences between the groups. Cancer specific survivals (CSSs) and overall survivals (OSs) were compared by Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves. Multivariable analyses by COX proportion hazards model were performed to identify risk factors for CSS and OS. Predictive nomograms were conducted according to both postoperative factors and preoperative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 7982 metastatic EC patients were selected for our analyses. After PSM, 978 patients were included in the survival analyses comparing palliative resection and nonresection. The CSS and OS for patients underwent palliative resection were significantly longer than those without resection (median CSS: 21 months vs 7 months, P < .001; median OS: 20 months vs 7 months, P < .001). In the overall population without resection, 654 patients were matched for radiation and nonradiation groups. And K-M curves showed that patients with radiation had longer CSS and OS than those without radiation (median CSS: 11 months vs 6 months, P < .001; median OS: 10 months vs 6 months, P < .001). Nomograms were generated for prediction of 1-, 2-, and 3-year CSS and OS. All C-indexes implied moderate discrimination and accuracy. And all nomograms had good calibration.

CONCLUSION

Palliative resection or radiation of primary tumor could prolong CSS and OS of metastatic EC patients.

Nomograms for predicting survival in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma who undergo palliative gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, evidence has emerged that palliative gastrectomy in patients with stage IV gastric cancer may offer some survival benefits. However, the decision whether to perform primary tumor surgery remains challenging for surgeons, and investigations into models that are predictive of prognosis are scarce. Current study aimed to develop and validate prognostic nomograms for patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma treated with palliative gastrectomy.

METHODS

The development dataset comprised 1186 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program who were diagnosed with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma in 2004-2011, while the validation dataset included 407 patients diagnosed in 2012-2015. Variables were incorporated into a Cox proportional hazards model to identify independent risk factors for survival. Both pre- and postoperative nomograms for predicting 1- or 2-year survival probabilities were constructed using the development dataset. The concordance index (c-index) and calibration curves were plotted to determine the accuracy of the nomogram models. Finally, the cut-off value of the calculated total scores based on preoperative nomograms was set and validated by comparing survival with contemporary cases without primary tumor surgery.

RESULTS

Age, tumor size, location, grade, T stage, N stage, metastatic site, scope of gastrectomy, number of examined lymph node(s), chemotherapy and radiotherapy were risk factors of survival and were included as variables in the postoperative nomogram; the c-indices of the development and validation datasets were 0.701 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.693-0.710) and 0.699 (95% CI: 0.682-0.716), respectively. The preoperative nomogram incorporated age, tumor size, location, grade, depth of invasion, regional lymph node(s) status, and metastatic site. The c-indices for the internal (bootstrap) and external validation sets were 0.629 (95% CI: 0.620-0.639) and 0.607 (95% CI: 0.588-0.626), respectively. Based on the preoperative nomogram, patients with preoperative total score > 28 showed no survival benefit with gastrectomy compared to no primary tumor surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survival nomograms for patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing palliative gastrectomy can assist surgeons in treatment decision-making and prognostication.

Risk factors associated with suicide among kidney cancer patients: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results analysis

Background

The suicide risk was higher in kidney cancer patients than in the general population. The purpose of this study was to characterize the suicide rates among kidney cancer patients and to identify the potential risk factors associated with suicide from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Methods

Kidney cancer patients were identified from the SEER database during 1973‐2015. Suicide rates and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of this population were calculated, and the US general population during 1981‐2015 was chosen as a reference. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to find out potential risk factors of suicide.

Results

There were 207 suicides identified among 171 819 individuals with kidney cancer observed for 948 272 person‐years. The suicide rate was 21.83 per 100 000 person‐years, and SMR was 1.83 (95% CI: 1.59‐2.10). On Cox regression, diagnosis in early years (1973‐1982 vs 2003‐2015, HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.01‐4.11, P = 0.048; 1983‐1992 vs 2003‐2015, HR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.18‐3.35, P = 0.010), male sex (vs female sex, HR: 4.43, 95% CI: 2.95‐6.65, P < 0.001), unmarried status (vs married status, HR: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.91‐3.38, P < 0.001), non‐black race (white race vs black race, HR: 4.47, 95% CI: 2.09‐9.58, P < 0.001; other races vs black race, HR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.08‐8.37, P = 0.035), higher histologic grade (grade IV vs grade I, HR: 3.27, 95% CI: 1.50‐7.13, P = 0.003; grade III vs grade I, HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.19‐3.81, P = 0.011) and cancer‐directed surgery not performed (vs performed, HR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.52‐5.11, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors of suicide among kidney cancer patients.

Conclusions

Diagnosis in early years, male sex, unmarried status, non‐black race, higher histologic grade, and cancer‐directed surgery not performed were significantly associated with suicide among kidney cancer patients. In order to prevent suicidal death, clinicians should pay more attention to patients with high‐risk factors of suicide.

Metastatic lymph node ratio as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage IV colon cancer undergoing resection

Background: It has been shown that the metastatic lymph node ratio (LNR, metastatic LNs divided by the total number of retrieved LNs) significantly affects the prognosis of patients with non-stage IV and some curative stage IV colon cancer undergoing curative resection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of the LNR as a predictor of prognosis in patients with stage IV colon cancer undergoing curative or palliative resection. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 424 patients who were initially diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer at the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center from 2003 to 2014. The patients were divided into the curative and palliative primary tumor resection groups with regional lymph nodes harvest. The median value was used as the cutoff for the LNR. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the prognostic factors for OS. Results: The cutoff value for the LNR was 0.2. A total of 71 and 353 patients were classified as being in the curative and palliative resection groups, respectively. Patients in the palliative resection group showed higher pretreatment levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199; P = 0.014), a deeper infiltration of the primary tumor (P = 0.049), a lower regional lymph node harvest (i.e., total lymph node yield [TLN] ≤ 11; P = 0.001), and more extensive metastasis (P = 0.006). Among all patients, initial elevated CA199 levels, a TLN≤11, a negative lymph nodes (NLN) ≤7, and a LNR ≤0.2 were significantly associated with an unfavorable prognosis. OS was significantly longer in patients with a low LNR in both groups (P = 0.008 and P = 0.001, respectively). The LNR was an independent prognostic indicator in patients with stage IV colon cancer, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.91; P = 0.003) in total population, and an HR of 1.43 (95% CI 1.09-1.86; P = 0.009) in patients with palliative resection. Conclusion: The LNR can be used as an independent prognostic factor in patients with stage IV colon cancer patients undergoing resection.

A Concise Review of Pelvic Radiation Therapy (RT) for Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases

Background and Objective

Colorectal cancer is a major health concern as a very common cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The liver is a very common site of metastatic spread for colorectal cancers, and, while nearly half of the patients develop metastases during the course of their disease, synchronous liver metastases are detected in 15% to 25% of cases. There is no standardized treatment in this setting and no consensus exists on optimal sequencing of multimodality management for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases.

Methods

Herein, we review the use of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) as part of potentially curative or palliative management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases.

Results

There is accumulating evidence on the utility of pelvic RT for facilitating subsequent surgery, improving local tumor control, and achieving palliation of symptoms in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. Introduction of superior imaging capabilities and contemporary RT approaches such as Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) offer improved precision and toxicity profile of radiation delivery in the modern era.

Conclusion

Even in the setting of stage IV rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases, there may be potential for extended survival and cure by aggressive management of primary tumor and metastases in selected patients. Despite lack of consensus on sequencing of treatment modalities, pelvic RT may serve as a critical component of multidisciplinary management. Resectability of primary rectal tumor and liver metastases, patient preferences, comorbidities, symptomatology, and logistical issues should be thoroughly considered in decision making for optimal management of patients.

Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Oligometastasis

Oligometastatic disease is defined as “a condition with a few metastases arising from tumors that have not acquired a potential for widespread metastases.” Its behavior suggests a transitional malignant state somewhere between localized and metastatic cancer. Treatment of oligometastatic disease is expected to achieve long-term local control and to improve survival. Historically, patients with oligometastases have often undergone surgical resection since it was anecdotally believed that surgical resection could result in progression-free or overall survival benefits. To date, no prospective randomized trials have demonstrated surgery-related survival benefits. Short courses of highly focused, extremely high-dose radiotherapies (e.g., stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR)) have frequently been used as alternatives to surgery for treatment of oligometastasis. A randomized study has demonstrated the overall survival benefits of stereotactic radiosurgery for solitary brain metastasis. Following the success of stereotactic radiosurgery, SABR has been widely accepted for treating extracranial metastases, considering its efficacy and minimum invasiveness. In this review, we discuss the history of and rationale for the local treatment of oligometastases and probe into the implementation of SABR for oligometastatic disease.

Treatment and survival of rectal cancer patients over the age of 80 years: a EURECCA international comparison

Background

The optimal treatment strategy for older rectal cancer patients remains unclear. The current study aimed to compare treatment and survival of rectal cancer patients aged 80+.

Methods

Patients of ≥80 years diagnosed with rectal cancer between 2001 and 2010 were included. Population-based cohorts from Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO) and Sweden (SE) were compared side by side for neighbouring countries on treatment strategy and 5-year relative survival (RS), adjusted for sex and age. Analyses were performed separately for stage I–III patients and stage IV patients.

Results

Overall, 19 634 rectal cancer patients were included. For stage I–III patients, 5-year RS varied from 61.7% in BE to 72.3% in SE. Proportion of preoperative radiotherapy ranged between 7.9% in NO and 28.9% in SE. For stage IV patients, 5-year RS differed from 2.8% in NL to 5.6% in BE. Rate of patients undergoing surgery varied from 22.2% in DK to 40.8% in NO.

Conclusions

Substantial variation was observed in the 5-year relative survival between European countries for rectal cancer patients aged 80+, next to a wide variation in treatment, especially in the use of preoperative radiotherapy in stage I–III patients and in the rate of patients undergoing surgery in stage IV patients.

Primary tumor sidedness is an independent prognostic marker for survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from a large retrospective cohort with mutational analysis

Recent reports demonstrate inferior outcomes associated with primary right‐sided vs left‐sided colorectal tumors in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We sought to describe our experience with mCRC patients on whom we have molecular data to determine whether primary tumor sidedness was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival (OS). mCRC patients with documented primary tumor sidedness who received mutational profiling between 2009 and 2014 were identified (n = 367, median follow‐up 30.4 months). Mutational profiling for >150 mutations across commonly mutated cancer genes including RAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN as well as treatment data, including receipt of a biologic agent, were collected. Univariable/multivariable models were used to analyze relationships between collected data and OS. Among 367 patients, sidedness breakdown was as follows: 234 left (64%), 133 right (36%). 56% were male, with a median age at diagnosis of 57 (range 24‐89). A total of 143 patients had RAS mutations. Five‐year OS was 41%, median OS was 54 months (range 1‐149). Five‐year OS for left‐ vs right‐sided tumors was 46% vs 24% (P < .0001). On univariable analysis, among both RAS wildtype and mutant tumors, left‐sided tumors continued to have improved OS vs right‐sided tumors (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.34‐0.69 RAS wildtype; HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40‐0.95 RAS mutant). Left‐sidedness was an important prognostic factor for OS among RAS wildtype patients despite treatment with or without a biologic agent (P < .05). Left‐sidedness remained significant for improved OS on multivariable analysis (P < .0001). Left‐sided primary tumor remained most important prognostic factor for OS, even when adjusting for mutational status and receipt of biologic agent.

Outcomes of stage IV patients with colorectal cancer treated in a single institution: What is the key to the long-term survival?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to summarize our short- and long-term treatment results for stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) and to clarify the factors predicting the favorable long-term survival.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2015, 149 consecutive patients with stage IV CRC underwent initial treatment at Nagoya University Hospital. Their clinical and pathological characteristics, the treatment methods used, and the outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median observation period was 23 months. All of the primary and metastatic lesions were technically resectable in 74 patients; however, the remaining 75 were judged as initially unresectable. R0/1 resection during the treatment course was achieved in 74 patients (50%). For the cohort as a whole, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 35%. The 5-year OS rate in the R0/1 resection group was 57%, which was significantly better than that of the non-R0/1 resection group (6%, p < 0.001). In the R0/1 resection group, perioperative chemotherapy significantly improved the outcome (5-year OS; 62% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). In the non-R0/1 resection group, primary tumor resection was associated with a significantly higher favorable prognosis (3-year OS; 20.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.026). Moreover, the additional use of molecular targeted drugs significantly improved the survival. In multivariate analysis, the differentiated histologic type, R0/1 resection, and parallel use of molecular targeted drugs remained independent factors of a favorable outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that aggressive curative resection with perioperative chemotherapy might improve survival and that primary tumor resection might improve the outcome in the non-R0/1 group.

Risk and predictors of suicide in colorectal cancer patients: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results analysis

Background

The risk of suicide is higher for patients with colorectal cancer (crc) than for the general population. Given known differences in morbidity and sites of recurrence, we sought to compare the predictors of suicide for patients with colon cancer and with rectal cancer.

Methods

Using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, adult patients with confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum during 1973-2009 were identified. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to assess selected variables, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictors of suicide.

Results

The database identified 187,996 patients with rectal cancer and 443,368 with colon cancer. Compared with the rectal cancer group, the colon cancer group was older (median age: 70 years vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) and included more women (51% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Suicide rates were similar in the colon and rectal cancer groups [611 (0.14%) vs. 337 (0.18%), p < 0.001]. On univariate analysis, rectal cancer was a predictor of suicide [hazard ratio (hr): 1.26; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.10 to 1.43]. However, after adjusting for clinical and pathology factors, rectal cancer was not a predictor of suicide (hr: 1.05; 95% ci: 0.83 to 1.33). In the colon cancer cohort, independent predictors of suicide included older age, male sex, white race, and lack of primary resection. The aforementioned predictors, plus metastatic disease, similarly predicted suicide in the rectal cancer cohort.

Conclusions

The suicide risk in crc patients is low (<0.2%), and no difference was found based on location of the primary tumour. Sex, age, race, distant spread of disease, and intact primary tumour were the main predictors of suicide among crc patients. Further studies and interventions are needed to target these high-risk groups.

Meta-analysis of outcomes following resection of the primary tumour in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether resection of the primary tumour (when there are metastases) alters survival and/or whether resection is associated with increased morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prognostic value of primary tumour resection in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed was performed on 12 March 2016, with no language or date restrictions, for studies comparing primary tumour resection versus conservative treatment without primary tumour resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. The quality of the studies was assessed using the MINORS and STROBE criteria. Differences in survival, morbidity and mortality between groups were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of 37 412 initially screened articles, 56 retrospective studies with 148 151 patients met the inclusion criteria. Primary tumour resection led to an improvement in overall survival of 7·76 (95 per cent c.i. 5·96 to 9·56) months (risk ratio (RR) for overall survival 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·47 to 0·53), but did not significantly reduce the risk of obstruction (RR 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·16 to 1·53) or bleeding (RR 1·19, 0·48 to 2·97). Neither was the morbidity risk altered (RR 1·14, 0·77 to 1·68). Heterogeneity between the studies was high, with a calculated I² of more than 50 per cent for most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Primary tumour resection may provide a modest survival advantage in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer: what has changed?

Most current guidelines do not recommend primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer. Rapid chemotherapy development over the last decade has substantially changed the decision making. However, results of recently published trials and meta-analyses suggest that primary tumor resection may in fact be beneficial, principally in terms of prolonged survival. Additional factors, such as use of minimally invasive approach or protocols of enhanced recovery after surgery, affect clinical outcomes as well, but are often neglected when discussing the state of the art in this area. There are still no randomized studies determining the legitimacy of upfront surgery in asymptomatic patients. Also, quality of life also plays an important role in choosing appropriate treatment. Having said that, there is no data that would prove whether primary tumor resection has an advantage on that issue. With all the uncertainty, currently decision making in unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer is primarily up to clinicians' knowledge, common sense and patients' preferences.

Phase II study on early start of chemotherapy after excising primary colorectal cancer with distant metastases (Pearl Star 02)

Initiating chemotherapy usually requires a delay of more than 4 weeks after surgically resecting colorectal cancer. However, there is little evidence regarding the required delay interval. We have previously reported a pilot study to determine the safety and feasibility of early initiation of chemotherapy after resecting primary colorectal cancer with distant metastases. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of early initiation of chemotherapy after resecting colorectal cancer with distant metastases.

This phase II study (trial number UMIN000006310) was a prospective, single-arm trial. A total of 20 patients (men, 15 and women, 5) were enrolled. They underwent XELOX therapy (130 mg/m² oxaliplatin on day 1+1000 mg/m² capecitabine twice daily on days 1-4) on postoperative day 7 and XELOX+bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab on day 1) after the second chemotherapy cycle.

Baseline characteristics included a median age of 64 (range, 43-72) years. Surgical procedures included right hemicolectomy in six patients, sigmoidectomy in three, anterior resection in five, and Hartmann procedure in six. All patients started chemotherapy on postoperative day 7. Median progression-free survival was 14.9 months; overall response rate was 80%. Disease control rate was 100%. Grade 3 or higher hemotoxicity and grade 3 or higher non-hematological toxicity was noted in 5.0% and 25.0% of patients, respectively. Postoperative complications were observed in two patients (superficial incisional surgical site infection and ileus).

Early initiation of chemotherapy after surgery is feasible. These findings suggest future changes of the start time of chemotherapy after surgery.

The expanding role of stereotactic body radiation therapy in oligometastatic solid tumors: What do we know and where are we going?

The spectrum hypothesis posits that there are distinct clinical states of metastatic progression. Early data suggest that aggressive treatment of more biologically indolent metastatic disease, characterized by metastases limited in number and destination organ, may offer an opportunity to alter the disease course, potentially allowing for longer survival, delay of systemic therapy, or even cure. The development of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has opened new avenues for the treatment of oligometastatic disease. Early data support the use of SBRT for treating oligometastases in a number of organs, with promising rates of treated metastasis control and overall survival. Ongoing investigation is required to definitively establish benefit, determine the appropriate treatment regimen, refine patient selection, and incorporate SBRT with systemic therapies.

Asymptomatic primary tumour in incurable metastatic colorectal cancer: is there a role for surgical resection prior to systematic therapy or not?

INTRODUCTION

The role of the resection of asymptomatic primary colorectal cancer in patients with incurable disease is questionable.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of the resection of asymptomatic primary tumour on overall survival in patients with unresectable distant metastases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients treated in the National Cancer Institute, Lithuania, in the period 2008-2012, were selected retrospectively. The main inclusion criteria were: metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), endoscopically and histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma, without any symptoms for urgent operation, and at least one cycle of palliative chemotherapy administered. Information on patients' age, gender, tumour histology, localization of the tumour, regional lymph node involvement, number of metastatic sites, surgery and systemic treatment was collected prospectively. Eligible patients for the study were divided into two groups according to the initial treatment - surgery (patients who underwent primary tumour resection) and chemotherapy (patients who received chemotherapy without surgery). The impact of initial treatment strategy, tumour size and site, regional lymph nodes, grade of differentiation of adenocarcinoma and application of biotherapy on overall cumulative survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. To compare survival between groups the log-rank test was used. Cox regression analysis was employed to assess the effects of variables on patient survival.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 183 patients: 103 men and 80 women. The median age was 66 years (range: 37-91). There were no notable imbalances with regard to age, gender, number of metastatic sites, metastases (such as pulmonary, peritoneal, liver, metastases into non-regional lymph nodes and other metastases), the number of received cycles of chemotherapy, first line chemotherapy type or biological therapy. Only 27 (14.8%) patients received biological therapy and the majority of them (n = 25, 92.6%) were treated with bevacizumab. For surgically treated patients 1-year survival was 71.2% (95% CI: 62.1-78.5) and 5-year survival was 4.0% (95% CI: 1.0-10.5). In the chemotherapy group, survival rates were lower - 43.9% (95% CI: 31.4-55.7) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.1-8.1), respectively. Better survival rates were in the palliative surgery group. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the initial palliative surgery and the application of biological therapy were statistically significant independent prognostic factors for survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that palliative resectional surgery for the primary tumour in patients with incurable mCRC improves survival. Of course, one can argue that patients in the surgery group were "less problematic". Prospective randomized trials are needed to delineate precisely the role of palliative surgery of the primary tumour in these patients.

Meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy with and without primary tumor resection

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of death worldwide. Currently, novel chemotherapeutic agents are first-line therapy for unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer, while benefits of noncurative primary tumor resection in advanced disease remain debatable.

Objective

This meta-analysis evaluated outcomes of patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer receiving systemic chemotherapy with or without primary tumor resection.

Materials and methods

A database search of PubMed and Cochrane Library databases identified 167 studies that were screened for relevance. After 119 were excluded, 48 were assessed for eligibility and 26 were included for meta-analysis, including 24 retrospective studies, one prospective study, and one randomized, controlled trial. Extracted data included patient demographics (age, sex), clinical data (tumor stage, metastasis), targeted therapy agents, and surgical data (with/without tumor resection). Patients’ overall and progression-free survival was compared between groups with/without primary tumor resection.

Results

The 26 studies included 43,903 patients with colorectal cancer, with 29,639 receiving chemotherapy/radiotherapy plus primary tumor resection, and 14,264 managed medically with chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy alone without primary tumor resection. Patients receiving primary tumor resection plus chemotherapy/radiotherapy had longer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR 0.59], 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51–0.68; P<0.001), with significant differences in overall survival between patients with and without primary tumor resection (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49–0.68; P<0.001). Longer overall survival was also found among patients receiving primary tumor resection who were treated with bevacizumab/cetuximab targeted therapy agents (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46–0.86; P=0.003). Patients from three studies who received primary tumor resection had longer progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58–0.91; P=0.005). Results are limited by retrospective data, inconsistent complications data, and publication bias.

Conclusion

Study results support primary tumor resection in stage IV colorectal cancer, but significant biases in studies suggest that randomized trials are warranted to confirm findings.

Comparative effectiveness of primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the safety of combination chemotherapy without primary tumor resection (PTR) in patients with stage IV colon cancer has been established, questions remain regarding a potential survival benefit with PTR. The objective of this study was to compare mortality rates in patients who had colon cancer with unresectable metastases who did and did not undergo PTR.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted among patients with unresectable metastatic colon cancer identified from the National Cancer Data Base (2003-2005). Multivariate Cox regression analyses with and without propensity score weighting (PSW) were performed to compare survival outcomes. Instrumental variable analysis, using the annual hospital-level PTR rate as the instrument, was used to account for treatment selection bias. To account for survivor treatment bias, in situations in which patients might die soon after diagnosis from different reasons, a landmark method was used.

RESULTS

In the total cohort, 8641 of 15,154 patients (57%) underwent PTR, and 73.8% of those procedures (4972 of 6735) were at landmark. PTR was associated with a significant reduction in mortality using Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.47) or PSW (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0. 44-0.49). However, instrumental variable analysis revealed a much smaller effect (relative mortality rate, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96). Although a smaller benefit was observed with the landmark method using Cox regression (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.55-0.64) and PSW (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.64), instrumental variable analysis revealed no survival benefit (relative mortality rate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with unresectable metastatic colon cancer, after adjustment for confounder effects, PTR was not associated with improved survival compared with systemic chemotherapy; therefore, routine noncurative PTR is not recommended. Cancer 2017;123:1124-1133. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Palliative primary tumor resection provides survival benefits for the patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and low circulating levels of dehydrogenase and carcinoembryonic antigen

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether palliative primary tumor resection (PPTR) can provide survival benefits to the patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have unresectable metastases. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether PPTR could improve the survival of patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive mCRC patients with unresectable metastases who were diagnosed at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, between January 2005 and December 2012. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line chemotherapy failure were compared between the PPTR and non-PPTR patient groups.

RESULTS

A total of 387 patients were identified, including 254 who underwent PPTR and 133 who did not. The median OS of the PPTR and non-PPTR groups was 20.8 and 14.8 months (P < 0.001), respectively. The median PFS after first-line chemotherapy was 7.3 and 4.8 months (P < 0.001) in the PPTR and non-PPTR groups, respectively. A larger proportion of patients in the PPTR group (219 of 254, 86.2%) showed local progression compared with that of patients in the non-PPTR group (95 of 133, 71.4%; P < 0.001). Only patients with normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels and with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels <70 ng/mL benefited from PPTR (median OS, 22.2 months for the PPTR group and 16.2 months for the non-PPTR group; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For mCRC patients with unresectable metastases, PPTR can improve OS and PFS after first-line chemotherapy and decrease the incidence of new organ involvement. However, PPTR should be recommended only for patients with normal LDH levels and with CEA levels <70 ng/mL.

Bevacizumab Efficacy Is Influenced by Primary Tumor Resection in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in a Retrospective Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

There is no predictive factor of response to bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, preclinical studies demonstrated an interaction between primary tumor and metastatic sites for the neoangiogenesis regulation. The primary objective of our study was to identify an effect of up-front primary tumor resection (UPTR) on bevacizumab efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2010, we retrospectively analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 316 patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer according to bevacizumab addition to first-line chemotherapy and UPTR.

RESULTS

Among 206 patients with UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to chemotherapy alone (29.8 vs. 23.9 months respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.83; P = .003). This effect was confirmed in multivariate analysis. There was also a nonsignificant trend toward improved PFS (9.7 vs. 8.4 months respectively; HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.02; P = .062). Conversely, among 110 patients without UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy had no effect on OS compared to chemotherapy alone (18.2 vs. 19.3 months respectively; HR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.42; P = .853). Bevacizumab significantly improved PFS (8.1 vs. 5.7 months respectively; HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96; P = .032) without confirmation in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, bevacizumab seems to improve OS only in patients with UPTR, which could suggest a complementarity of both therapeutic modalities for antiangiogenic effect.

Surgical Management of the Primary Tumor in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Confirmatory Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested that patients with stage IV colorectal cancer who undergo surgical resection of the primary tumor (SRPT) have better survival. Yet the results are not confirmed in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. Lack of randomization and failure to control prognostic variables such as performance status are major critiques to the findings of the observational studies. We previously have shown that SRPT, independent of chemotherapy and performance status, improves survival of stage IV CRC patients. The current study aims to validate our findings in patients with stage IV CRC who were diagnosed during the period of modern chemotherapy.

METHODS

A cohort of 569 patients with stage IV CRC diagnosed during 2006-2010 in the province of Saskatchewan was evaluated. Cox regression model was used for the adjustment of prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Median age was 69 years (59-95) and M: F was 1.4:1. Fifty-seven percent received chemotherapy, 91.4% received FOLFIRI or FOLFOX & 67% received a biologic agent. Median overall survival (OS) of patients who underwent SRPT and received chemotherapy was 27 months compared with 14 months of the non-resection group (p<0.0001). Median OS of patients who received all active agents and had SRPT was 39 months (95%CI: 25.1-52.9). On multivariate analysis, SRPT, hazard ratio (HR):0.44 (95%CI: 0.35-0.56), use of chemotherapy, HR: 0.33 (95%CI: 0.26-0.43), metastasectomy, HR: 0.43 (95%CI: 0.31-0.58), second line therapy, HR: 0.50 (95%CI: 0.35-0.70), and third line therapy, HR: 0.58 (95%CI: 0.41-0.83) were correlated with superior survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms our findings and supports a favorable association between SRPT and survival in patients with stage IV CRC who are treated with modern therapy.

Control of primary lesions using resection or radiotherapy can improve the prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Control of the primary lesions in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is still controversial. For rectal cancer patients, not only resection but also irradiation is expected to provide palliative effects. We investigated the effects of resection and irradiation of primary lesions (local control) on the prognosis of mCRC patients.

PATIENTS

Forty-seven patients with mCRC at our institute were examined, with 34 in the local controlled group and 13 in the uncontrolled group.

RESULTS

The median survival time (MST) of the local controlled and uncontrolled groups were 2.90 and 1.39 years (P = 0.028). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed that local control was an independent prognostic factor (P < 0.05). The patients who underwent primary lesion resection had significantly longer MST (2.90 vs. 1.39 years, P = 0.032) than those in the uncontrolled group. In rectal cancer patients, the patients who underwent irradiation to control the primary lesions had a significantly longer MST than the uncontrolled patient group (1.97 vs. 1.39 years, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Local control of primary lesions may improve the prognosis in mCRC patients. In rectal cancer patients with metastasis, not only resection but also irradiation of the primary lesions may be a useful therapeutic strategy. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:75-79. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Regional Lymph Nodes Status and Ratio of Metastatic to Examined Lymph Nodes Correlate with Survival in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although lymph nodes status and the ratio of metastatic to examined lymph node (LNR) are important prognostic factors in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), their significance in patients with metastatic disease remains unknown. The study aims to determine prognostic importance of nodal status and LNR in patients with stage IV CRC.

METHODS

A cohort of 1109 eligible patients who were diagnosed with synchronous metastatic CRC in Saskatchewan during 1992-2010 and underwent primary tumor resection was evaluated. We conducted the Cox proportional multivariate analyses to determine the prognostic significance of nodal status and LNR.

RESULTS

Median age was 70 years (22-98) and M:F was 1.2:1. Rectal cancer was found in 26 % of patients; 96 % had T3/T4 tumor, and 82 % had node positive disease. The median LNR was 0.36 (0-1.0). Fifty-four percent received chemotherapy. Median overall survival of patients who had LNR of <0.36 and received chemotherapy was 29.7 months (95 % CI 26.6-32.9) compared with 15.6 months (95 % CI 13.6-17.6) with LNR of ≥0.36 (P < .001). On multivariate analyses, no chemotherapy (HR 2.36 [2.0-2.79]), not having metastasectomy (HR 1.94 [1.63-2.32]), LNR ≥0.36 (HR 1.59 [1.38-1.84]). nodal status (HR 1.34 [1.14-1.59]), and T status (HR 1.23 [1.07-1.40]) were correlated with survival. Test for interaction was positive for LNR and high-grade cancer (HR 1.51 [1.10-2.10]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that nodal status and LNR are important prognostic factors independent of chemotherapy and metastasectomy in stage IV CRC patients.

Management of asymptomatic primary tumours in stage IV colorectal cancer: Review of outcomes

AIM: To compare outcomes for patients presenting with stage IV colorectal cancer and an asymptomatic primary tumour, undergoing primary tumour resection (PTR) plus palliative chemotherapy vs primary chemotherapy up-front.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality, morbidity and delayed surgical intervention rates in patients undergoing PTR and subsequent complication rates in patients with an un-resected primary tumour. Tertiary outcomes included impact on systemic treatment and identification of prognostic factors relevant for survival in this cohort.

RESULTS: Twenty non-randomised studies met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies included comparative overall survival data. Three studies showed an overall survival advantage for PTR, 7 studies showed no statistically significant advantage, and 1 study showed a significant worsening in survival in the surgical group. The perioperative mortality rate ranged from 0% to 8.5%, and post-operative morbidity rate from 10% to 35%, mainly minor complications that did not preclude subsequent chemotherapy. The rate of delayed primary-tumour related symptoms, most commonly obstruction, in patients with an un-resected primary tumour ranged from 3% to 46%. The strongest independent poor prognostic factor was extensive hepatic metastases, in addition to poor performance status, M1b stage and non-use of modern chemotherapy agents.

CONCLUSION: Based on the current literature, both PTR and up front chemotherapy appear appropriate initial management strategies, with a trend towards an overall survival advantage with PTR. The procedure has a low post-operative mortality, and most complications are transient and minor. The results of recruiting randomised trials are eagerly anticipated.