Preoperative hyperfractionated chemoradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer in patients previously irradiated to the pelvis: A multicentric phase II study

Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Proton beam reirradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer patients with prior pelvic irradiation

The aim of the present study was to report the feasibility of proton beam reirradiation for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with prior pelvic irradiation. The study population included patients who were treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) for LRRC between 2008 and December 2019 in our institution. Those who had a history of distant metastases of LRRC, with or without treatment, before reirradiation, were excluded. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and local control (LC) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Ten patients were included in the present study. The median follow-up period was 28.7 months, and the median total dose of prior radiotherapy (RT) was 50 Gy (range, 30 Gy-74.8 Gy). The median time from prior RT to reirradiation was 31.5 months (range, 8.1-96.6 months), and the median reirradiation dose was 72 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) (range, 56-77 Gy). The 1-year/2-year OS, PFS and LC rates were 100%/60.0%, 20.0%/10.0% and 70.0%/58.3%, respectively, with a median survival time of 26.0 months. Seven patients developed a Grade 1 acute radiation dermatitis, and no Grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity was recorded. Grade ≥ 3 late toxicity was recorded in only one patient, who had developed a colostomy due to radiation-related intestinal bleeding. Reirradiation using PBT for LRRC patients who had previously undergone pelvic irradiation was feasible. However, the indications for PBT reirradiation for LRRC patients need to be considered carefully due to the risk of severe late GI toxicity.

Novel and Innovative Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Uncommon Resections, Local Interventions for Pelvic Reoccurrence, and Intraoperative Radiation Therapy

The frequency of recurrent rectal cancer has dropped significantly with improved surgical approaches and adjunctive therapies. These recurrences have proven challenging to obtain R0 resection with salvage operations. Meticulous planning, clear understanding of anatomy with imaging, and multispecialty support have become essential in local control and long-term survival with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Technical considerations and prognosis indicators along with role of intraoperative radiation or boost radiation are discussed within.

PTCOG Gastrointestinal Subcommittee Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies Consensus Statement

Purpose

Radiotherapy delivery in the definitive management of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) tract malignancies is associated with substantial risk of acute and late gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, dermatologic, and hematologic toxicities. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as proton beam therapy (PBT) offer optimal dosimetric sparing of critical organs at risk, achieving a more favorable therapeutic ratio compared with photon therapy.

Materials and Methods

The international Particle Therapy Cooperative Group GI Subcommittee conducted a systematic literature review, from which consensus recommendations were developed on the application of PBT for LGI malignancies.

Results

Eleven recommendations on clinical indications for which PBT should be considered are presented with supporting literature, and each recommendation was assessed for level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Detailed technical guidelines pertaining to simulation, treatment planning and delivery, and image guidance are also provided.

Conclusion

PBT may be of significant value in select patients with LGI malignancies. Additional clinical data are needed to further elucidate the potential benefits of PBT for patients with anal cancer and rectal cancer.

TORCH-R trial protocol: hypofractionated radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy and toripalimab for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a prospective, single-arm, two-cohort, phase II trial

For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), the response rate to chemoradiotherapy is 40%-50%. Additionally, only approximately 40%-50% of patients with recurrent rectal cancer are able to undergo R0 resection. Recent studies in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) have shown promising synergistic effects when combining immunotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Therefore, incorporating immunotherapy into the treatment regimen for LRRC patients has the potential to further improve response rates and prognosis. To investigate this, the TORCH-R trial was conducted. This prospective, single-arm, two-cohort, phase II trial focuses on the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in LRRC patients without or with oligometastases. The trial will include two cohorts: cohort A consists of rectal cancer patients who are treatment-naive for local recurrence, and cohort B includes patients with progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy. Cohort A and cohort B patients will receive 25-40 Gy/5 Fx irradiation or 15-30 Gy/5 Fx reirradiation for pelvic recurrence, respectively. Subsequently, they will undergo 18 weeks of chemotherapy, toripalimab, and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for all metastatic lesions between chemoimmunotherapy cycles. Decisions regarding follow-up of complete response (CR), radical surgery, sustained treatment of non-resection, or exiting the trial are made by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). The primary endpoint of this study is the local objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints include the extrapelvic response rate, duration of response, local recurrence R0 resection rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. Notably, this trial represents the first clinical exploration of inducing hypofractionated radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in LRRC patients.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05628038, identifier NCT05628038.

High-dose rate endorectal brachytherapy for rectal cancer: A state-of-the-art review

Rectal cancer is a common malignancy that requires multidisciplinary treatment. By utilizing the dose-response relationship in rectal cancer radiotherapy, increasing the radiotherapy dose can improve clinical complete remission rates. High-dose rate endorectal brachytherapy (HDREBT) is a novel technique that delivers high doses of radiotherapy directly to the tumor via an endorectal applicator, sparing the adjacent normal tissues from excessive radiation exposure. HDREBT includes contact X-ray brachytherapy and high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy. We introduce the latest developments in applicators and imaging techniques for HDREBT in rectal cancer and summarize the current evidence on the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of HDREBT as a neoadjuvant, definitive, or palliative treatment option for all stages of rectal cancer patients. We also discuss the potential advantages and challenges of HDREBT in achieving organ preservation and improving the quality of life of rectal cancer patients. HDREBT has shown promising results in achieving high complete response rates, enabling nonoperative management, improving organ preservation rates, and providing effective palliation in rectal cancer patients. More studies are needed to optimize its dose and fractionation schemes in different clinical scenarios.

Pattern of care for re-irradiation in locally recurrent rectal cancer: a national survey on behalf of the AIRO gastrointestinal tumors study group

PURPOSE

Radical resection (R0) represents the best curative treatment for local recurrence (LR) rectal cancer. Re-irradiation (re-RT) can increase the rate of R0 resection. Currently, there is a lack of guidelines on Re-RT for LR rectal cancer. The Italian Association of Radiation and clinical oncology for gastrointestinal tumors (AIRO-GI) study group released a national survey to investigate the current clinical practice of external beam radiation therapy in these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In February 2021, the survey was designed and distributed to members of the GI working group. The questionnaire consisted of 40 questions regarding center characteristics, clinical indications, doses, and treatment techniques of re-RT for LR rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 37 questionnaires were collected. Re-RT was reported as an option for neoadjuvant treatment in resectable and unresectable disease by 55% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Long-course treatment with 30-40 Gy (1.8-2 Gy/die, 1.2 Gy bid) and hypofractionated regimen of 30-35 Gy in 5 fractions were used in most centers. A total dose of 90-100 Gy as EqD2 dose (α/β = 5 Gy) was delivered by 46% of the respondents considering the previous treatment. Modern conformal techniques and daily image-guided radiation therapy protocols were used in 94% of centers.

CONCLUSION

Our survey showed that re-RT treatment is performed with advanced technology that allow a good management of LR rectal cancer. Significant variations were observed in terms of dose and fractionation, highlighting the need for a consensus on a common treatment strategy that could be validated in prospective studies.

Rectal Cancer after Prostate Radiation: A Complex and Controversial Disease

A small proportion of rectal adenocarcinomas develop in patients many years after the treatment of a previous cancer using pelvic radiation, and the incidence of these rectal cancers depends on the length of follow-up from the end of radiotherapy. The risk of radiation-associated rectal cancer (RARC) is higher in patients treated with prostate external beam radiotherapy than it is in patients treated with brachytherapy. The molecular features of RARC have not been fully investigated, and survival is lower compared to non-irradiated rectal cancer patients. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the worse outcomes are related to differences in patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, or tumor biology. Radiation is widely used in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma; however, pelvic re-irradiation of RARC is challenging and carries a higher risk of treatment complications. Although RARC can develop in patients treated for a variety of malignancies, it is most common in patients treated for prostate cancer. This study will review the incidence, molecular characteristics, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer. For clarity, we will distinguish between rectal cancer not associated with prostate cancer (RCNAPC), rectal cancer in non-irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCNRPC), and rectal cancer in irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCRPC). RARC represents a unique but understudied subset of rectal cancer, and thus requires a more comprehensive investigation in order to improve its treatment and prognosis.

Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance-Guided Adaptive and Non-Adaptive Radiotherapy on Combination MR-Linear Accelerators: Current Practice and Future Directions

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective radiation therapy technique that has allowed for shorter treatment courses, as compared to conventionally dosed radiation therapy. As its name implies, SBRT relies on daily image guidance to ensure that each fraction targets a tumor, instead of healthy tissue. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers improved soft-tissue visualization, allowing for better tumor and normal tissue delineation. MR-guided RT (MRgRT) has traditionally been defined by the use of offline MRI to aid in defining the RT volumes during the initial planning stages in order to ensure accurate tumor targeting while sparing critical normal tissues. However, the ViewRay MRIdian and Elekta Unity have improved upon and revolutionized the MRgRT by creating a combined MRI and linear accelerator (MRL), allowing MRgRT to incorporate online MRI in RT. MRL-based MR-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT) represents a novel solution to deliver higher doses to larger volumes of gross disease, regardless of the proximity of at-risk organs due to the (1) superior soft-tissue visualization for patient positioning, (2) real-time continuous intrafraction assessment of internal structures, and (3) daily online adaptive replanning. Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) has enabled the safe delivery of ablative doses to tumors adjacent to radiosensitive tissues throughout the body. Although it is still a relatively new RT technique, SMART has demonstrated significant opportunities to improve disease control and reduce toxicity. In this review, we included the current clinical applications and the active prospective trials related to SMART. We highlighted the most impactful clinical studies at various tumor sites. In addition, we explored how MRL-based multiparametric MRI could potentially synergize with SMART to significantly change the current treatment paradigm and to improve personalized cancer care.

Intra-operative Radiation Therapy for Colorectal or Anal Cancer at Risk for Margin-Positive Resection: Initial Results of a Single-Institution Registry

PURPOSE

Pelvic recurrence of rectal or anal cancers is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We report our initial experience with an aggressive intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) program.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal or anal cancers considered to have a high likelihood of R1 or R2 resection after multi-disciplinary review underwent surgical excision and IORT using a high-dose-rate afterloader (Ir-192) and HAM applicator. Endpoints included local or distant recurrence, and acute and late toxicity graded using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP and the LENT-SOMA scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients, largely with prior history of both pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT, median 50.4 Gy) and surgical resection, underwent excision with IORT (median dose 12.5 Gy, range 10-15). Median follow-up was 20 months. Twelve (57%) patients had failure at the IORT site. Freedom from failure (FFF) within the IORT field was associated with resection status (FFF at 1 year 75% for R0 vs 15% for R1/2, p = 0.0065) but not re-irradiation EBRT or IORT dose (p > 0.05). Twelve, 5, and 13 patients experienced local, regional, and distant failure, respectively; 3 (14%) patients were disease-free at last follow-up. The most frequent acute toxicity was sepsis/abscess (24%). One patient (5%) required a ureteral stent; no patients developed neuropathy attributable to IORT.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with excision and IORT for locally recurrent cancer, R0 resection is a critical determinant of local control. For patients with R1/2 resection, poor disease-free outcomes warrant consideration of a different treatment strategy.

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed.

RESULTS

Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly.

Differences in Surgical Outcomes and Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Pelvic Exenteration Between Locally Advanced Versus Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND

Although pelvic exenteration remains the only curative option for locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer, only limited evidence is available on the differences in surgical and quality-of-life outcomes between the two.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes and identify any differences or predictors of quality of life of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration.

DESIGN

This was a cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

PATIENTS

This study included patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration between July 2008 and March 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures included Short Form 36 version 2 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal score.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients were included in this study. Locally advanced rectal cancer patients had higher rates of R0 resection ( p = 0.003), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy ( p < 0.001), and had greater median overall survival (75.1 vs. 45.8 months), although the latter was clinically but not statistically significant. There was a higher blood loss ( p < 0.001), longer length of stay ( p = 0.039), and longer operative time ( p = 0.002) in the locally recurrent rectal cancer group. This group also had a higher mean baseline physical component summary score and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal score; however, there were no significant differences in complications or quality-of-life outcomes between with the two groups at any time points postoperatively up to 12 months.

LIMITATION

The study was from a specialized experienced center, which could limit its generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer tend to require a more extensive surgery with a longer operative time and more blood loss and longer recovery from surgery, but despite this, their quality of life is comparable to those with locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B1000 .

DIFERENCIAS EN LOS RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS Y LOS RESULTADOS DE LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN LA EXENTERACIN PLVICA ENTRE EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO Y EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE RECIDIVANTE

ANTECEDENTES:Aunque la exenteración pélvica sigue siendo la única opción curativa para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, solo hay evidencia limitada disponible sobre las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos y de calidad de vida entre los dos.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados quirúrgicos e identificar cualquier diferencia o predictor de la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y cáncer de recto localmente recurrente sometidos a exenteración pélvica.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en el Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.PACIENTES:Este estudio incluyó pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y cáncer de recto localmente recurrente que se sometieron a exenteración pélvica entre julio de 2008 y marzo de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las principales medidas de resultado incluyeron el formulario corto 36 versión 2 y la puntuación de la evaluación funcional de la terapia del cáncer colorrectal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 271 pacientes fueron incluidos en este estudio. Los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado tuvieron tasas más altas de resección R0 ( p = 0,003), quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante ( p < 0,001) y una mediana de supervivencia general más alta (75,1 frente a 45,8 meses),a pesar de que esta última fue clínica pero no estadísticamente significativa. Hubo una mayor pérdida de sangre ( p < 0,001), una estancia más prolongada ( p = 0,039) y un tiempo operatorio más prolongado ( p = 0,002) en el grupo de cáncer de recto localmente recurrente. También tenían una puntuación de componente físico inicial media más alta y una puntuación de Evaluación funcional de la terapia del cáncer colorrectal; sin embargo, no hubo diferencias significativas en las complicaciones o los resultados de la calidad de vida entre los dos grupos en ningún momento después de la operación hasta los 12 meses.LIMITACIÓN:El estudio fue de un centro especializado con experiencia, lo que podría limitar su generalización.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente recurrente tienden a requerir una cirugía más extensa con un tiempo operatorio más largo y más pérdida de sangre y una recuperación más prolongada de la cirugía, pero a pesar de esto, su calidad de vida es comparable a aquellos con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B1000 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Predictors of Definitive Treatment Interruptions of Long-Course Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Introduction To identify predictors of definitive treatment interruptions (DTI) of the neoadjuvant long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), and to determine their impact on clinical outcomes. Methods Patients with stage II-III LARC treated between 2009-2018 were retrospectively analyzed (n=101, median FU 49.5 months). Logistic regression models evaluated the impact of relevant clinical variables on grade 3 or greater (G3+) acute toxicity, definitive treatment interruption (DTI), pCR, and definitive ostomy (dOST) rates. The secondary outcomes were LRC, MFS, PFS, CSS, and OS. Results The incidences of grade 3 and 4 toxicities were 25.3%, and 1.1%, respectively. The most common G3+ toxicities were peri-anal dermatitis (14.7%) and diarrhea (7.4%), which were more frequent in females (p=0.040) and tumors close to the anal verge (p=0.019). In this study, 11 patients (10.9%) developed DTI, which was associated with these G3+ events (p<0.001). Resection occurred after 7.1 weeks (median, IQR:6.1-8.9). Downstaging occurred in 57.4% (17.8% pCR), 88% achieved negative margins and the dOST rate was 56.4%. The five-year LRC, MFS, PFS, CSS and OS were: 94.4%, 78.9%, 74.7%, 85.2% and 81.6%, respectively. DTI events did not impact any outcome. The factors associated with loco-regional failure were close/positive margins (p<0.001) and stage ypIII (p=0.002). Conclusions: Tumors close to the anal verge and female sex were associated with increased G3+ toxicity, which was predictive of DTI. The resultant partial/complete omission of the planned boost, however, dose did not increase the chance of LR. Further studies to clarify the benefit and optimal timing to deliver the boost are warranted, especially for positive margins.

Oncological outcomes of multimodality treatment for patients undergoing surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are several strategies in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with the optimum treatment yet to be established. This systematic review aims to compare oncological outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for LRRC who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant CRT, surgery only or surgery and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT).

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed for studies that reported data on oncological outcomes for the different treatment modalities in patients with LRRC from January 1990 to January 2022. Weighted means were calculated for the following outcomes: postoperative resection status, local control, and overall survival at 3 and 5 years.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies of 974 patients were included and they received the following treatment: 346 neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 279 neoadjuvant CRT, 136 adjuvant CRT, 189 surgery only, and 24 surgery and IORT. The highest proportion of R0 resection was found in the neoadjuvant CRT group followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant CRT groups (64.07% vs 52.46% vs 47.0% respectively). The neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean 5-year local control rate (49.50%) followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (22.0%). Regarding the 5-year overall survival rate, the neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean of 34.92%, followed by surgery only (29.74%), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (28.94%) and adjuvant CRT (20.67%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review suggest that neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery can lead to improved resection status, long-term disease control and survival in the management of LRRC. However, treatment strategies in LRRC are complex and further comparisons, particularly taking into account previous treatments for the primary rectal cancer, are required.

Pelvic exenteration: a review of current issues/controversies

Management of advanced or recurrent pelvic cancer has evolved dramatically over the past few decades. Patients who were previously considered inoperable are now candidates for potentially curative surgery and avoid suffering with intractable symptoms. Up to 10% of primary rectal cancers present with isolated advanced local disease and between 10% and 15% of patients develop localized recurrence following proctectomy. Advances in surgical technique, reconstruction and multidisciplinary involvement have led to a reduction in mortality and morbidity and culminated in higher R0 resection rates with superior longer-term survival outcomes. Recent studies boast over 50% 5-year survival for rectal with an R0 resection. Exenteration has cemented itself as an important treatment option for advanced primary/recurrent pelvic tumours, however, there are still a few controversies. This review will discuss some of these issues, including: limitations of resection and the approach to high/wide tumours; the role of acute exenteration; re-exenteration; exenteration in the setting of metastatic disease and palliation; the role of radiotherapy (including intra-operative and re-irradiation); management of the empty pelvis; and the impact on quality of life and function.

Dose-Escalated Magnetic Resonance Image–Guided Abdominopelvic Reirradiation With Continuous Intrafraction Visualization, Soft Tissue Tracking, and Automatic Beam Gating

Purpose

Methods and Materials

Results

Conclusions

Comparison of clinical outcomes between carbon ion radiotherapy and X-ray radiotherapy for reirradiation in locoregional recurrence of rectal cancer

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has garnered interest for the treatment of locoregional rectal cancer recurrence. No study has compared CIRT and X-ray radiotherapy (XRT) for reirradiation (reRT) in such cases. We analyzed and compared the clinical outcomes such as local control, overall survival, and late toxicity rate between CIRT and XRT, for treating locoregional rectal cancer recurrence. Patients with rectal cancer who received reRT to the pelvis by CIRT or XRT from March 2005 to July 2019 were included. The CIRT treatment schedule was 70.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 16 fractions. For the XRT group, the median reRT dose was 50 Gy (range 25-62.5 Gy) with a median of 25 fractions (range 3-33). Thirty-five and 31 patients received CIRT and XRT, respectively. Tumour and treatment characteristics such as recurrence location and chemotherapy treatment differed between the two groups. CIRT showed better control of local recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.17; p = 0.002), better overall survival (HR 0.30; p = 0.004), and lower severe late toxicity rate (HR 0.15; p = 0.015) than XRT. CIRT was effective for treating locoregional rectal cancer recurrence, with high rates of local control and survival, and a low late severe toxicity rate.

Rectal Cancer Metastasis to the Anal Verge: An Unusual Case Presentation and Review of the Literature

Background

Anal metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinoma is very rare, represented by only a handful of case reports in the literature. Previously, reports of metastasis to this region had occurred following a history of anorectal disease, such as anal fistulae. Antecedent trauma to the area from hemorrhoidectomy, fissures, or perineal retractor injury have also been implicated.

Case Presentation

Herein we report the case of 69-year-old man without any history of anal disease presenting with a metachronous metastasis of a colorectal-type adenocarcinoma to the anal verge. He was previously treated for T1N0 rectal adenocarcinoma at the rectosigmoid junction with a low anterior resection 5 years prior, then had a T3N0 local recurrence at the colorectal anastomosis treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and eventually a Hartmann's procedure 4 years later. Subsequently, on surveillance flexible sigmoidoscopy, a new tumor was identified on the perianal skin extending from the anal verge. Histopathology demonstrated colorectal-type adenocarcinoma. Flexible endoscopy identified no other residual or recurrent disease in the colon or rectal stump. The patient was treated with wide local excision and advancement flap reconstruction.

Conclusion

Isolated metastasis to the anus is an extremely rare occurrence for colorectal adenocarcinoma. There exists little evidence to inform management. One option is to treat like a locally recurrent rectal cancer with aggressive tri-modality management consisting of chemoradiation, abdominal perineal resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy. In the absence of metastatic disease, local resection and close surveillance remain an option. As always, patient factors should guide management.

Quality of internet information to aid patient decision making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To review whether online decision aids are available for patients contemplating pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC).

METHODS

A grey literature review was carried out using the Google Search™ engine undertaken using a predefined search strategy (PROSPERO database CRD42019122933). Written health information was assessed using the DISCERN criteria and International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) with readability content assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease test and Flesch-Kincaid grade level score.

RESULTS

Google search yielded 27, 782, 200 results for the predefined search criteria. 131 sources were screened resulting in the analysis of 6 sources. No sources were identified as a decision aid according to the IPDAS criteria. All sources provided an acceptable quality of written health information, scoring a global score of 3 for the DISCERN written assessment. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading ease was 50.85 (32.5-80.8) equating to a reading age of 15-18 years and the median Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was 7.65 (range 3-9.7), which equates to a reading age of 13-14.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has found that there is a paucity of online information for patients contemplating PE. Sources that are available are aimed at a high health literate patient. Given the considerable morbidity associated with PE surgery there is a need for high quality relevant information in this area. A PDA should be developed to improve decision making and ultimately improve patient experience.

Evaluation of Efficacy and Tolerance of Radical Radiotherapy and Radiochemotherapy in Treatment of Locally Advanced, Unresectable Rectal Cancer

Background: A retrospective evaluation of tolerance and efficacy of two schemes of neoadjuvant treatment in patients (pts) with unresectable rectal cancer: radiochemotherapy (CRT) and radiotherapy (RT), including conventional and accelerated hyperfractionation. Material and Method: A total of 145 consecutive pts with unresectable, locally advanced rectal cancer. The schemes used are RT in 73 (50%) or CRT in 72 (50%). In CRT, 54 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions was given with chemotherapy, In the RT group, conventional fractionation (CFRT) and hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART). HART was introduced at first as an alternative to CFRT, after radiobiological studies suggesting a therapeutic gain of hyperfractionation in other cancers, and second to administer relatively high dose needed in unresectable cancer, which is not feasible in hypofractionation because of critical organs sensitivity to high fraction doses (fd). HART was an alternative option in pts with medical contraindications to chemotherapy and to shorten overall treatment time with greater radiobiological effectiveness than CFRT. Results: Objective response (OR) in the RT and CRT group was 60% versus 75%. Resection rate (RR) in RT and CRT: 37% versus 65%. Tumor mobility and laparotomy-based unresectability were significant factors for OR. Performance status (PS), tumor mobility, and neoadjuvant treatment method were significant for RR.

A multicentre retrospective review of SABR reirradiation in rectal cancer recurrence

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with considerable morbidity, poor quality of life and an overall survival of 9 months. The non-operative treatment of LRRC is an understudied area, there is no consensus on management in this setting. We aim to perform a retrospective, multicentre analysis of patients treated with SABR reirradiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients were identified who received SABR re-irradiation for LRRC, at 3 UK centres, between August 2015 and September 2020. Eligible patients had pelvic recurrence and were either not suitable/opted not for surgery, or margin positive after exenturative surgery. Patients were treated with 30 Gy in 5 fractions and followed up with clinical review and CT scan at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

RESULTS

69 patients with 81 lesions were identified and median follow up was 28 months. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 12.1 months (10.4, 17.7) and 38.7 months (28.9,-) respectively. 2-year OS was 0.77 (0.66, 0.89). 58.3% of deaths were as a result of consequences of local relapse. 42.6% of patients had local relapse at death or last follow up.

CONCLUSION

Our outcomes are encouraging for a population who had R1 resections, refused or were refused surgery; as they are similar to those in surgical series. Prospective data including details of survival, local relapse and QOL; with an optimised SABR technique, is required to establish SABR as an alternative to surgery.

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background

A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC.

Methods

This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m² on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life.

Discussion

This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections.

Surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a narrative review

Objective

To summarize the recent literature on surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

Background

LRRC is a heterogeneous disease that requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment and prognosis depend on the site and type of recurrence. Radical resection remains the primary method for achieving long-term survival and improving symptom control. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy can reduce tumor volume and improve the R0 resection rate. Surgeons must clearly understand pelvic anatomy, develop a detailed preoperative plan, adopt a multidisciplinary approach for the surgical resection of the tumor as well as any invaded soft tissues, vessels, and bones, and ensure proper reconstruction. However, extended radical surgery often leads to a higher risk of postoperative complications and a low quality of life.

Methods

We searched English-language articles with keywords “locally recurrent rectal cancer”, “surgery” and “multidisciplinary team” in PubMed published between January 2000 to October 2020.

Conclusions

LRRC is a complex problem. Long-term survival is not impossible following multidisciplinary treatment in appropriately selected LRRC patients. The management of LRRC relies on a specialist team that determines the biological behavior of the tumor and evaluates treatment options through multidisciplinary discussions, thereby balancing the surgical costs and benefits, alleviating postoperative complications, and improving patients’ quality of life.

Autophagy Induction by Trichodermic Acid Attenuates Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Mediated Apoptosis in Colon Cancer Cells

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading malignant tumor in the world, which has high morbidity and mortality. In this study we found that trichodermic acid (TDA), a secondary metabolite isolated from the plant endophytic fungus Penicillium ochrochloronthe with a variety of biological and pharmacological activities, exhibited the antitumor effects on colorectal cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Our results showed that TDA inhibited the proliferation of colon cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner. TDA induces sustained endoplasmic reticulum stress, which triggers apoptosis through IRE1α/XBP1 and PERK/ATF4/CHOP pathways. In addition, we found that TDA mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress also induces autophagy as a protective mechanism. Moreover, combined treatment of TDA with autophagy inhibitors significantly enhanced its anticancer effect. In conclusion, our results indicated that TDA can induce ER stress and autophagy mediated apoptosis, suggesting that targeting ER stress and autophagy may be an effective strategy for the treatment of CRC.

Re-Irradiation in Patients with Recurrent Rectal Cancer is Safe and Feasible

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus yet for the best treatment regimen in patients with recurrent rectal cancer (RRC). This study aims to evaluate toxicity and oncological outcomes after re-irradiation in patients with RRC in our center. Clinical (cCR) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates and radicality were also studied.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2018, 61 locally advanced RRC patients were treated and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy at a dose of 30.0-30.6 Gy (reCRT) or 50.0-50.4 Gy chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of no prior irradiation because of low-risk primary rectal cancer. In both groups, patients received capecitabine concomitantly.

RESULTS

In total, 60 patients received the prescribed neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery, 35 patients (58.3%) in the reRCT group and 25 patients (41.7%) in the long-course CRT group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p = 0.82), disease-free survival (p = 0.63), and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17) between the groups. Patients in the long-course CRT group reported more skin toxicity after radiotherapy (p = 0.040). No differences were observed in late toxicity. In the long-course CRT group, a significantly higher cCR rate was observed (p = 0.029); however, there was no difference in the pCR rate (p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of RRC patients with re-irradiation is comparable to treatment with long-course CRT regarding toxicity and oncological outcomes. In the reCRT group, less cCR was observed, although there was no difference in pCR. The findings in this study suggest that it is safe and feasible to re-irradiate RRC patients.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Watch and Wait After Complete Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is interest in deescalating local therapy after a clinical complete response to CRT. We hypothesized that a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy offers comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and reduced cost compared with upfront TME.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to compare WW, low anterior resection, and abdominoperineal resection for patients achieving a clinical complete response to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, pelvic recurrence, and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW with TME after pathologic complete response. Lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to study model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The base case 5-year cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.5% to 94.9%) on a WW program compared with 95.9% (95% CI = 93.6% to 97.4%) after upfront TME. WW was dominant relative to low anterior resection, with cost savings of $28 500 (95% CI = $22 200 to $39 000) and incremental QALY of 0.527 (95% CI = 0.138 to 1.125). WW was also dominant relative to abdominoperineal resection, with a cost savings of $32 100 (95% CI = $21 800 to $49 200) and incremental QALY of 0.601 (95% CI = 0.213 to 1.208). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of surgical salvage fell to 73.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Using current multi-institutional recurrence estimates, we observed comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and decreased costs with WW compared with upfront TME. Upfront TME was preferred when surgical salvage rates were low.

Re-irradiation With Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Pelvic Rectal Cancer Recurrences in Patients Previously Irradiated to the Pelvis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Re-irradiation of locally recurrent rectal cancer poses challenges due to the proximity of critical organs, such as the bowel. This study aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of re-irradiation with Carbon Ion Radiotherapy (CIRT) in rectal cancer patients with local recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2014 and 2018, 14 patients were treated at the National Center of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO Foundation) with CIRT for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

RESULTS

All patients concluded the treatment. No G≥3 acute/late reaction nor pelvic infections were observed. The 1-year and 2-year local control rates were, 78% and 52%, respectively, and relapse occurred close to the bowel in 6 patients. The 1-year and 2-year overall survival rates were 100% and 76.2% each; while the 1-year and 2-year metastasis free survival rates were 64.3% and 43%.

CONCLUSION

CIRT as re-irradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer emerges as a safe and valid treatment with an acceptable rate of morbidity of surrounding healthy tissue.

Risk and Prognosis of Secondary Rectal Cancer After Radiation Therapy for Pelvic Cancer

Background

The relationship between pelvic radiation therapy (RT) and second primary rectal cancer (SPRC) is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the risk and prognosis of SPRC after pelvic RT.

Materials and Methods

Data for patients who had primary pelvic cancer (PPC) between 1973 and 2016 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Multiple primary standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were used to assess the risk of SPRC. Five-year overall survival (OS) and rectal cancer-specific survival (RCSS) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

A total of 573,306 PPC patients were included, 141,225 of whom had been treated with RT. Primary cancers were located in the prostate (50.83%), bladder (24.18%), corpus uterus (16.26%), cervix (5.83%), and ovary (2.91%). A total of 1,491 patients developed SPRC. Overall, the patients who received RT were at increased risk of developing SPRC (SIR = 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27–1.52). The risk of SPRC decreased in patients who did not undergo RT (SIR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80–0.91). The SIR for SPRC in patients who underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09–1.36). The SIR for SPRC in patients who underwent a combination of EBRT and brachytherapy (EBRT–BRT) was 1.85 (95% CI: 1.60–2.14). For patients who received RT, the SIR for SPRC increased with time after a 5-year latency period from PPC diagnosis. The survival of RT-treated SPRC patients was significantly worse than that of patients with primary rectal cancer only (PRCO).

Conclusions

Patients receiving pelvic RT were at an increased risk of developing SPRC. Different pelvic RT treatment modalities had different effects on the risk of SPRC. We suggest that long-term surveillance of SPRC risk is required for patients who have undergone pelvic RT, especially young patients.

Reirradiation for Rectal Cancer Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy: A Single Institutional Experience

Purpose

Reirradiation for rectal cancer (RC) after prior pelvic radiation therapy (RT) has been shown to be safe and effective. However, limited data exist for proton therapy (PT), including pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT). We hypothesize that PT is safe and feasible for re-treatment and may allow for decreased toxicity and treatment escalation.

Methods and materials

A single-institution, retrospective, institutional review board–approved analysis of all patients with RC and prior pelvic RT receiving PBS-PT reirradiation was performed. Data on patient and treatment characteristics and outcomes were collected. Local progression, progression-free survival, overall survival, and late grade >3 toxicity were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (median follow-up: 28.6 months) received PBS-PT reirradiation between 2016 and 2019, including 18 patients with recurrent RC (median prior dose: 54.0 Gy) and 10 patients with de novo RC and variable prior RT. The median reirradiation dose was 44.4 Gy (range, 16.0-60.0 Gy; 21 of 28 twice daily), and 24 of 28 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Six underwent surgical resection. Three (10.7%) experienced grade 3 acute toxicities, and 1 did not complete RT owing to toxicity. Four (14.2%) had late grade <3 toxicity, including 1 grade 5 toxicity in a patient with a prior RT-related injury. The 1-year local progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates were 33.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5%-52.9%), 45.0% (95% CI, 26.2%-63.8%), and 81.8% (95% CI, 67.3%-96.3%), respectively.

Conclusions

This is the largest series using PT for reirradiation for RC and the first study using PBS-PT. Low acute toxicity rates and acceptable late toxicity support PBS-PT as an option for this high-risk patient population, with a need for continued follow-up.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Reirradiation for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Outcomes and Toxicity

Purpose

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic option for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) but contemporaneous clinical data are limited. We aimed to evaluate the local control, toxicity, and survival outcomes in a cohort of patients previously treated with neoadjuvant pelvic radiation therapy for nonmetastatic locally recurrent rectal cancer, now treated with SBRT.

Methods and Materials

Inoperable rectal cancer patients with ≤3 sites of pelvic recurrence and >6 months since prior pelvic radiation therapy were identified from a prospective registry over 4 years. SBRT dose was 30 Gy in 5 fractions, daily or alternate days, using cumulative organ at risk dose constraints. Primary outcome was local control (LC). Secondary outcomes were progression free survival, overall survival, toxicity, and patient reported quality of life scores using the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) tool.

Results

Thirty patients (35 targets) were included. Median gross tumor volume size was 14.3 cm³. In addition, 27 of 30 (90%) previously received 45 to 50.4 Gy in 25 of 28 fractions, with 10% receiving an alternative prescription. All patients received the planned reirradiation SBRT dose. The median follow-up was 24.5 months (interquartile range, 17.8-28.8). The 1-year LC was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.6-99) and a 2-year LC was 69% (95% CI, 51.8-91.9). The median progression free survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.6-17.66), and median overall survival was 28.3 months (95% CI, 17.88-39.5 months). No patient experienced >G2 acute toxicity and only 1 patient experienced late G3 toxicity. Patient-reported QoL outcomes were improved at 3 months after SBRT (Δ EQ-VAS, +10 points, Wilcoxon signed-rank, P = .009).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that, for small volume pelvic disease relapses from rectal cancer, reirradiation with 30 Gy in 5 fractions is well tolerated and achieves an excellent balance between high local control rates with limited toxicity.

ESTRO/ACROP IORT recommendations for intraoperative radiation therapy in locally recurrent rectal cancer

Multimodal strategies have been implemented for locally recurrent rectal cancer scheduled for complete surgical resection. Irradiation and systemic therapy have been added to improve the oncological outcome, as surgery alone was associated with a poor prognosis. Intraoperative irradiation (IORT) is a component of irradiation intensification. Long-term cancer control and a higher survival rate were consistently reported in patients who had IORT as a component of their multidisciplinary treatment. The experience reported by expert IORT groups is reviewed and recommendations to guide clinical practice are explained in detail.

To Radiate or Not to Radiate-The Challenges of Pelvic Reirradiation

Patients who receive pelvic radiation are at risk for both local recurrences of their primary malignancy or for the development of a new malignancy in the irradiated pelvic structures. The management of postirradiation pelvic tumor is complicated and can be associated with both poor prognosis and significant morbidity. Historically, reirradiation within the pelvis was never entertained as part of treatment management due to concern for severe toxicity and exceeding of normal-tissue tolerances. However, it may play a role with modern techniques and careful patient selection. The following case and accompanying expert opinions demonstrate some of the key considerations for pelvic reirradiation as a treatment option.

A proposal of an updated classification for pelvic relapses of rectal cancer to guide surgical decision-making

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Selection of patients affected by pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer (PRRC) who are likely to achieve a R0 resection is mandatory. The aim of this study was to propose a classification for PRRC to predict both radical surgery and disease-free survival (DFS).

METHODS

PRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Italy) were included in the study. PRRC were classified as S1, if located centrally (S1a-S1b) or anteriorly (S1c) within the pelvis; S2, in case of sacral involvement below (S2a) or above (S2b) the second sacral vertebra; S3, in case of lateral pelvic involvement.

RESULTS

Of 280 reviewed PRRC patients, 152 (54.3%) were evaluated for curative surgery. The strongest predictor of R+ resection was the S3 category (OR, 6.37; P = .011). Abdominosacral resection (P = .012), anterior exenteration (P = .012) and extended rectal re-excision (P = .003) were predictive of R0 resection. S3 category was highly predictive of poor DFS (HR 2.53; P = .038). DFS was significantly improved after R0 surgery for S1 (P < .0001) and S2 (P = .015) patients but not for S3 cases (P = .525).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification allows selection of subjects candidates to curative surgery, emphasizing that lateral pelvic involvement is the main predictor of R+ resection and independently affects the DFS.

Re-irradiation for recurrent rectal cancer - a single-center experience

Background: There is no clear consensus on the use of re-irradiation (reRT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of the present study was to investigate all reRT administered for rectal cancer at a large referral institution and to evaluate patient outcomes and toxicity.Material and methods: All patients with rectal cancer were identified who had received previous pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and underwent reRT during 2006-2016. Medical records and RT details of the primary tumor treatments and rectal cancer recurrence treatments were registered, including details on reRT, chemotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and long-term outcomes.Results: Of 77 patients who received ReRT, 67 had previously received pelvic RT for rectal cancer and were administered reRT for LRRC. Re-irradiation doses were 30.0-45.0 Gy, most often given as hyperfractionated RT in 1.2-1.5 Gy fractions twice daily with concomitant capecitabine. The median time since initial RT was 29 months (range, 13-174 months). Of 36 patients considered as potentially resectable, 20 underwent surgery for LRRC within 3 months after reRT. Operated patients had better 3-year overall survival (OS) (62%) compared to those who were not operated (16%; HR 0.32, p = .001). The median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 107 cm³, and 3-year OS was significantly better in patients with GTV <107 cm³ (44%) compared to patients with GTV ≥107 cm³ (21%; HR 0.52, p = .03).Conclusion: Three-year survival was significantly better for patients who underwent surgery after reRT or who had small tumor volume. Prospective clinical trials are recommended for further improvements in patient selection, outcomes, and toxicity assessment.

Improved Outcomes for Responders After Treatment with Induction Chemotherapy and Chemo(re)irradiation for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in the multimodality treatment for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), oncological outcomes remain poor. This study evaluated the effect of induction chemotherapy and subsequent chemo(re)irradiation on the pathologic response and the rate of resections with clear margins (R0 resection) in relation to long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with LRRC treated in the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven who underwent a resection after treatment with induction chemotherapy and subsequent chemo(re)irradiation between January 2010 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Induction chemotherapy consisted of CAPOX/FOLFOX. Endpoints were pathologic response, resection margin and overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local recurrence free survival (LRFS), and metastasis free survival (MFS).

RESULTS

A pathologic complete response was observed in 22 patients (17%), a "good" response (Mandard 2-3) in 74 patients (56%), and a "poor" response (Mandard 4-5) in 36 patients (27%). An R0 resection was obtained in 83 patients (63%). The degree of pathologic response was linearly correlated with the R0 resection rate (p = 0.026). In patients without synchronous metastases, pathologic response was an independent predictor for LRFS, MFS, and DFS (p = 0.004, p = 0.003, and p = 0.024, respectively), whereas R0 resection was an independent predictor for LRFS and OS (p = 0.020 and p = 0.028, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Induction chemotherapy in addition to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation is a promising treatment strategy for patients with LRRC with high pathologic response rates that translate into improved oncological outcomes, especially when an R0 resection has been achieved.

American Brachytherapy Society working group report on the patterns of care and a literature review of reirradiation for gynecologic cancers

PURPOSE

Recurrences of previously irradiated gynecological malignancies are uncommon. Standardized management of these cases is not well established. We aim to provide an in-depth literature review and present current practice patterns among an international group of experienced practitioners in the reirradiation setting of gynecologic cancers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An extensive literature search was performed and 35 articles were selected based on preset criteria. A 20-question online survey of 10 experts regarding their retreatment practices was also conducted.

RESULTS

The reviewed publications include a diverse group of patients, multiple treatment techniques, a range of total doses, local control, overall survival, and toxicity outcomes. Overall, local control ranged from 44% to 88% over 1-5 years with OS in the range of 39.5-82% at 2-5 years. Late G3-4 toxicity varied very broadly from 0% to 42.9%, with most papers reporting serious toxicities greater than 15%. The most common reirradiation technique utilized was brachytherapy. Some low-dose-rate data suggest improved outcomes with doses >50 Gy. The high-dose-rate data are more varied with some studies suggesting improved local control with doses >40 Gy. In general, a longer time interval between the first and second course of radiation as well as recurrences <2-4 cm tend to have improved outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Reirradiation with brachytherapy results in relatively reasonable local control and toxicities for women with recurrent gynecologic cancers. The appropriate dose for each case needs to be individualized given the heterogeneity of cases. Multidisciplinary management is critical to develop individualized plans and to clearly communicate potential side effects and expected treatment outcomes.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Reirradiation with brachytherapy is an acceptable effective organ preserving approach for recurrent gynecologic cancers with a reasonable local control and toxicity profile. Each case requires multidisciplinary management to develop an individualized approach. Monitoring for potential long-term toxicities is essential.

Increased risk for second primary rectal cancer after pelvic radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyse the association between pelvic radiation therapy (RT) and the development of rectal cancer as a second primary cancer.

METHODS

Data on patients treated for a primary pelvic cancer between 1989 and 2007 were retrieved from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated for more than one pelvic cancer were excluded. To estimate the cumulative incidence of rectal cancer, Fine and Gray's competing risk model was used with death as a competing event. Survival was calculated using multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 192,658 patients were included, of which 62,630 patients were treated with RT for their pelvic cancer. Primary tumours were located in the prostate (50.1%), bladder (19.2%), endometrium (13.9%), ovaries (10.0%), cervix (6.4%) and vagina (0.4%). At a median interval of 6 years (range 0-24), 1369 patients developed a rectal cancer. Overall, the risk for rectal cancer was increased in patients who underwent RT for the previous pelvic cancer (subhazard ratio [SHR]: 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-1.91). Analysis for each tumour location specifically showed an increased risk in patients who received RT for prostate (SHR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.66-2.16) or endometrial cancer (SHR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13-2.00). A protective effect of RT was observed for patients with bladder cancer (SHR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47-0.94). There was no survival difference between patients with rectal cancer with or without previous RT (hazard ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received RT for a previous pelvic cancer were at increased risk for rectal cancer. The risk was modest and pronounced in patients receiving RT for prostate and endometrial cancer.

The Value of Clinical Colorectal Cancer Registries in Colorectal Cancer Research: A Systematic Review

Importance

Clinical colorectal cancer registries (CCCRs) are potentially powerful tools in colorectal cancer research. They are resource intensive, but to our knowledge, no formal review of their value exists. While quality control, clinical audit, and benchmarking are important factors in assessing the value of maintaining CCCRs, they are difficult to quantify. This study focuses on registry research output as a measure of value; the study hypothesizes that CCCRs do not produce sufficient published research output of clinical significance to justify the resources required to maintain them.

Objective

To assess the value of maintaining CCCRs by identifying and characterizing existing CCCRs and measuring their comparative research impact.

Evidence Review

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar for articles published from January 1990 to July 2016 that identified multi-institutional CCCRs with peer-reviewed published outcomes. Purely population-based registries were excluded. We then searched the same databases in the same time period for articles that were published by each included CCCR. The articles must have been based on outcomes relating to individual CCCR data. We categorized published outcomes into oncological, surgical, or other outcomes. We measured the research impact of each CCCR using the number of articles, citation index, impact factor, and Altmetric score.

Findings

A total of 18 CCCRs were identified, with sample sizes between 104 and 1 400 000 cases. Data fields, published aims, and outcomes were similar between registries. The most frequently published outcomes related to anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery. The National Cancer Database formed the basis of the highest number of publications (66), the Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group had the highest median article citation number (28.5), the National Bowel Cancer Audit had the highest median impact factor (4.72), and the National Cancer Database had the highest median Altmetric score (4.5).

Conclusions and Relevance

There is a significant body of colorectal cancer outcomes research generated from the CCCRs. However, given the enormous resources required, the overall research output and impact of CCCRs is low in proportion to the size of the data sets. These registries hold key oncological and surgical outcomes data; focusing on data linkage between registries and developing automated data collection will enable international comparisons in colorectal cancer management and will increase the research impact of CCCRs, thereby increasing their value.

Definitive hyperfractionated, accelerated proton reirradiation for patients with pelvic malignancies

Introduction

Pelvic reirradiation (re-RT) presents challenges due to concerns for late toxicity to tissues-at-risk including pelvic bone marrow (PBM). We routinely utilize a hyperfractionated, accelerated re-RT for recurrent rectal or anal cancer in the setting of prior radiation. We hypothesized that proton beam radiation (PBR) is uniquely suited to limit doses to pelvic non-target tissues better than photon-based approaches.

Materials and methods

All patients who received hyperfractionated, accelerated PBR re-RT to the pelvis from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Re-RT was delivered twice daily with a 6 h minimum interfraction interval at 1.5 Gray Relative Biological Effectiveness (Gy(RBE)) per fraction to a total dose of 39-45 Gy(RBE). Concurrent chemotherapy was given to all patients. Comparison photon plans were generated for dosimetric analysis. Dosimetric parameters compared using a matched-pair analysis and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Survival analysis was performed Kaplan Meier curves.

Results

Fifteen patients were identified, with a median prior pelvic RT dose of 50.4 Gy (range 25-80 Gy). Median time between the initial RT and PBRT re-RT was 4.7 years (range 1.0-36.1 years). In comparison to corresponding photon re-RT plans, PBR re-RT plans had lower mean PBM dose, and lower volume of PBM getting 5 Gy, 10 Gy, 20 Gy, and 30 Gy (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.033, respectively).With median 13.9 months follow-up after PBR re-RT, five patients had developed local recurrences, and four patients had developed distant metastases. One-year overall survival following PBR re-RT was 67.5% and one-year progression free survival was 58.7%. No patients developed acute or late Grade 4 toxicity.

Conclusion

PBR re-RT affords improved sparing of PBM compared with photon-based re-RT. Clinically, PBR re-RT is well-tolerated. However, given modest control rates with definitive re-RT without subsequent surgical resection, a multidisciplinary approach should be favored in this setting when feasible.