Is dose/time fractionation important in treating rectal cancer?

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

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

Future directions in neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer: maximizing pathological complete response rates

Neoadjuvant therapy is widely accepted as the current standard of care for localized rectal cancer. Downstaging of disease has been significantly improved and pathological complete response rates (pCR) which were historically below 10% with preoperative radiation alone, now range from 15% to 30% with preoperative chemo-radiation. While the availability of new chemotherapeutic drugs (Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, etc.) and molecular targeted agents (Bevacizamab, Cetuximab, etc.) hold a great deal of promise, results of recent studies indicate that the pCR rate with neoadjuvant therapy appears to have plateaued at 20-30%. The use of more intensive multidrug combinations has, however, significantly increased the toxicity of treatment. New paradigms in neoadjuvant therapy are therefore needed to further improve results of treatment. This review presents strategies for neoadjuvant therapy, with the potential to improve pCR rates and also survival of patients.

Pre-operative radiotherapy and curative surgery for the management of localized rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) has become part of standard practice offered to improve treatment outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if PRT improves outcome for patients with localized resectable rectal cancer and how it compared with other adjuvant or neoadjuvant strategies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A computerized search was performed December 2006 on MEDLINE (from 1966 to December 2006) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), conference proceedings, using MeSH and textwords where appropriate to identify randomized trials in PRT and rectal cancer. In addition, MetaRegister of Clinical Trials was searched for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials with a PRT arm versus surgery alone, or other neoadjuvant or adjuvant (NA/A) strategies, targeted patients with localized rectal cancer planned for radical surgery were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were selected, data extracted and quality assessed by 2 authors. Quality was assessed using a 14 point checklist. Summary statistics included Hazard ratios and variances (for the outcomes: overall (OA) mortality, cause specific (CS) mortality, any recurrence and local recurrences (LR)) and Odds Ratio (OR) for other outcomes. Potential sources of heterogeneity hypothesized a priori included study quality, biological effective dose (BED), radiotherapy RT technique, and total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials compared PRT versus surgery alone. Overall (OA) mortality was marginally improved HR 0.93 [95% CI -0.87-1](absolute difference is 2% if the expected survival rate is 60%). Local recurrence (LR) was improved but the magnitude of benefit was heterogeneous across trials. Sensitivity analyses suggested greater benefits in patients treated with BED>30Gy(10) and multiple field RT techniques. There was significantly more pelvic or perineal wound infection, late rectal and sexual dysfunction. Nine trials compared PRT vs. other NA/A. Available evidence did not support an OA mortality or sphincter preserving benefit with the use of combined chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or selective postoperative RT. CRT provides incremental benefit for local control compared with PRT, which was independent of the timing of the CT. There was no significant difference in outcome for different intervals between RT and surgery (2 vs. 8 wk). Dose escalation with endocavitary boost showed significant effect on sphincter preservation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Optimal PRT improves LR, OA mortality, but no increase in sphincter sparing procedure. CRT further increases local control. If the objective is to increase the incidence of sphincter sparing surgery, endocavitary boost showed the most promise. Strategies with the potential to improve outcomes, especially OAS and sphincter sparing while reducing acute and late toxicities (rectal and sexual function) are needed to guide future strategy designs.