Current treatment of rectal cancer adapted to the individual patient

A case of Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) developed in the rectum

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) is histologically similar in form to nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and is an epithelial tumor that is suggested to be involved in infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), but it is rare to occur in the colon. A 35-year-old woman was found to have a rectal wall thickening by follow-up computed tomography (CT) image after sigmoidectomy and left salpingo-oophorectomy. Biopsy under colonoscopy revealed recurrence of ovarian cancer, and she underwent a low anterior resection. Pathological diagnosis was LELC. Although LELC of the stomach has been reported to have a high EBV infection rate as NPC, EBV infection was not detected in our case. Pelvic lymph node dissection was also performed, and metastasis was recognized around the iliac artery. There have been few reports of LELC occurring in the rectum, and there are no reports of distant metastasis only to the pelvic lymph node. We consider it a very valuable case, and report it with literature references.

The INTERACT Trial: Long-term results of a randomised trial on preoperative capecitabine-based radiochemotherapy intensified by concomitant boost or oxaliplatin, for cT2 (distal)-cT3 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Capecitabine-based radiochemotherapy (cbRCT) is standard for preoperative long-course radiochemotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer. This prospective, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial investigated two intensification regimens. cT4 lesions were excluded.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

pathological outcome (TRG 1-2) among arms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Low-located cT2N0-2M0, cT3N0-2M0 (up to 12 cm from anal verge) presentations were treated with cbRCT randomly intensified by either radiotherapy boost (Xelac arm) or multidrug concomitant chemotherapy (Xelox arm). Xelac: concomitant boost to bulky site (45 Gy/1.8 Gy/die, 5 sessions/week to the pelvis, +10 Gy at 1 Gy twice/week to the bulky) plus concurrent capecitabine (1650 mg/mq/die). Xelox: 45 Gy to the pelvis + 5.4 Gy/1.8 Gy/die, 5 sessions/week to the bulky site + concurrent capecitabine (1300 mg/mq/die) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/mq on days 1,19,38). Surgery was planned 7-9 weeks after radiochemotherapy.

RESULTS

From June 2005 to September 2013, 534 patients were analysed: 280 in Xelac, 254 in Xelox arm. Xelox arm presented higher G ≥ 3 haematologic (p = 0.01) and neurologic toxicity (p < 0.001). Overall, 98.5% patients received curative surgery. The tumour regression grade distribution did not differ between arms (p = 0.102). TRG 1+2 rate significantly differed: Xelac arm 61.7% vs. Xelox 52.3% (p = 0.039). Pathological complete response (ypT0N0) rates were 24.4 and 23.8%, respectively (p non-significant). Median follow-up:5.62 years. Five-year disease-free survival rate were 74.7% (Xelac) and 73.8% (Xelox), respectively (p = 0.444). Five-year overall survival rate were 80.4% (Xelac) and 85.5% (Xelox), respectively (p = 0.155).

CONCLUSION

Xelac arm significantly obtained higher TRG1-2 rates. No differences were found about clinical outcome. Because of efficacy on TRG, inferior toxicity and good compliance, Xelac schedules or similar radiotherapy dose intensification schemes could be considered as reference treatments for cT3 lesions.

Factors Associated With Receipt of Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Appropriate treatment for cancer is vital to increasing the likelihood of survival; however, for rectal cancer, there are demonstrated disparities in receipt of treatment by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. We evaluated factors associated with receipt of appropriate radiation therapy for rectal cancer using data from the Florida Cancer Data System that had been previously enriched with detailed treatment information collected from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Comparative Effectiveness Research study. This treatment information is not routinely available in cancer registry data and represents a unique data resource.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using multivariable regression, we evaluated factors associated with receiving radiation therapy among rectal cancer cases stage II/III. Our sample (n=403) included cases diagnosed in Florida in 2011 who were 18 years and older. Cases clinically staged as 0/I/IV were excluded.

RESULTS

Older age (odds ratio=0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97), the presence of one or more comorbidities (0.61; 0.39-0.96), and receipt of surgical intervention (0.44; 0.22-0.90) were associated with lack of radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients, sociodemographic factors such as race/ethnicity, insurance status, and socioeconomic status, did not influence the receipt of radiation. Further research is needed, however, to understand why aging, greater comorbidity, and having surgery present a barrier to radiation therapy, particularly given that it is a well-tolerated treatment in most patients.

Adenomas - Genetic factors in colorectal cancer prevention

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer both in Europe and Poland. During the last 30 years more than a 3-fold increase has been observed in Poland due to environmental and genetic factors. Almost all colorectal malignancies are related to the formation and malignant transformation of colorectal dysplasia and adenoma. Efforts aiming to decrease the number of colorectal cancer deaths are focused on the disease early detection. Genetic diagnosis for hereditary syndromes predisposing to colorectal cancer has been developed and is a part of the routine treatment. Most cancers are sporadic. They often develop from polyps in the colon. In addition to the genetic events described in the 1990s, showing the adenoma transformation into carcinoma that has been a prime example of malignant transformation for a long time, there are also other possibilities of neoplastic transformation. The recognition of colorectal cancer risk factors make sense as their nature is lifestyle- and diet-related. In this review paper those risk factors are presented and the prevention of colorectal cancer is discussed taking into account genetic factors.

Radiotherapy for Patients With Resected Tumor Deposit-Positive Colorectal Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Based Population Study

CONTEXT

- According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer's Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, TNM classification, tumor deposit (TD)-positive colorectal cancers (CRCs) are classified as N1c. The effects of radiotherapy and the effects of the updated American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition TNM N1c classification for patients with TD-positive CRC are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

- To investigate outcomes of radiotherapy in patients with resected TD-positive CRC.

DESIGN

- Resected TD-positive CRCs diagnosed from 2010 to 2014 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database. Factors associated with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were investigated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

- We included 2712 qualified CRC patients, who either underwent adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 187; 6.9%) or received no radiotherapy (n = 2525; 93.1%). Univariate Cox proportional models showed improved CSS among all CRC patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy (CSS hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95) and among rectal cancer patients when separated by location (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.83), although these associations were attenuated in multivariable-adjusted models. There was improved OS among rectal cancer patients (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99). In subgroup analyses, radiotherapy was not associated with OS or CSS in either metastatic or nonmetastatic CRC patients. Instead, N1c category (versus N0) was associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.57) but was not associated with CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

- Radiotherapy did not independently improve OS among TD-positive CRC patients. In this study, classifying TD positivity as N1c was associated with worse OS than classifying TD positivity as N0. The findings seem to challenge the benefits of radiotherapy and the new N1c classification of TD for TD-positive CRC patients.

The importance of a multidisciplinary team in rectal cancer management

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments regarding the overall survival and recurrence-free survival in patients from a developing country. For stages II and III rectal cancer, international guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regardless of the tumor location. In the developing countries there is a shortage of radiotherapy centers, specialists, which lead to long waiting lists for radiotherapy. These problems might lead to protocol deviations.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 161 patients with rectal cancer treated with surgery, postoperative CRT and with or without chemotherapy for a total of 6 months, at The Oncology Institute Cluj-Napoca between 2006-2010. All patients had 5 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were enrolled in this study. The majority of patients were locally advanced stages (89.44%). The well known prognostic factors, such as TNM stage, performance status, CEA serum level, perineural, vascular and lymphatic invasion, and node capsular effraction had a statistically significant influence on overall survival. In 21.12% of patients the first adjuvant treatment was started in the first 4 weeks after surgery. Only 13.04% of patients started the concomitant CRT within the limit of 6 weeks after surgery. Concerning the time between surgery and CRT, we did not observe a statistically significantly difference in OS if the radiotherapy started after the first 6 weeks (p=0.701). The OS rate for locally advanced rectal cancer patients was 69.44%.

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal cancer, the importance of the first therapeutic act is crucial. Following international guidelines provides a survival advantage and a better quality of life. In case of adjuvant treatment, it is recommended to start this treatment as soon as the local infrastructure allows it.

Multidisciplinary Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer--An Evolving Landscape?

For many years, the multidisciplinary approach of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy has remained the accepted standard management for locally advanced rectal cancers. Over this time period, many new systemic treatment options have become available, including: additional chemotherapeutic agents (oxaliplatin) and targeted therapies (vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors), which can be added to neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens or given in combination with radiotherapy as radio-sensitizing agents. Here we review the current literature, examining emerging data related to the impact of multiple modifications to the standard approach, including the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the addition of new agents to standard chemoradiation, and postoperative fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, the optimal timing of surgery, and nonoperative approaches to the management of locally advanced rectal cancers.

Multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer in 2014: Where are we going?

In the present review we discuss the recent developments and future directions in the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, with respect to staging and re-staging modalities, to the current role of neoadjuvant chemo-radiation and to the conservative and more limited surgical approaches based on tumour response after neoadjuvant combined therapy. When initial tumor staging is considered a high accuracy has been reported for T pre-treatment staging, while preoperative lymph node mapping is still suboptimal. With respect to tumour re-staging, all the current available modalities still present a limited accuracy, in particular in defining a complete response. The role of short vs long-course radiotherapy regimens as well as the optimal time of surgery are still unclear and under investigation by means of ongoing randomized trials. Observational management or local excision following tumour complete response are promising alternatives to total mesorectal excision, but need further evaluation, and their use outside of a clinical trial is not recommended. The preoperative selection of patients who will benefit from neoadjuvant radiotherapy or not, as well as the proper identification of a clinical complete tumour response after combined treatment modalities,will influence the future directions in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Could preoperative short-course radiotherapy be the treatment of choice for localized advanced rectal carcinoma?

Short-course preoperative radiotherapy (RT) is widely used in northern Europe for locally advanced resectable rectal cancer, but its role in the era of advanced imaging techniques is uncertain. Here, we reviewed articles and abstracts on SCRT published from 1974 through 2013 with the goal of identifying patients who might be best suited for short-course RT. We included relevant articles comparing surgery with or without preoperative radiation published before and after the advent of total mesorectal excision. We also analyzed two randomized trials directly comparing short-course RT with conventionally fractionated chemoradiation (the Polish Colorectal Study Group and the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group) that compared short-course RT with conventional chemoradiotherapy. We conclude from our review that short-course RT can be generally applied for operable rectal cancer and produces high rates of pelvic control with acceptable toxicity; it reduces local recurrence rates but does not increase overall survival. SCRT seems to be best used for tumors considered "low risk," i.e., those that are >5 cm from the anal margin, without circumferential margin involvement, and involvement of fewer than 4 lymph nodes. Whether sequential chemotherapy can further improve outcomes remains to be seen, as does the best time for surgery (immediately or 6-8 weeks after RT). We further recommend that selection of patients for short-course RT should be based on findings from magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasonography.

Preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a comparative study of quality control adherence at two cancer hospitals in Spain and Poland

Background

We performed a clinical audit of preoperative rectal cancer treatment at two European radiotherapy centres (Poland and Spain). The aim was to independently verify adherence to a selection of indicators of treatment quality and to identify any notable inter-institutional differences.

Methods

A total of 162 patients, in Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) 68 and in Greater Poland Cancer Centre (GPCC) 94, diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and treated with preoperative radiotherapy or radio-chemotherapy were included in retrospective study. A total of 7 quality control measures were evaluated: waiting time, multidisciplinary treatment approach, portal verification, in vivo dosimetry, informed consent, guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, and patient monitoring during treatment.

Results

Several differences were observed. Waiting time from pathomorphological diagnosis to initial consultation was 31 (ICO) vs. 8 (GPCC) days. Waiting time from the first visit to the beginning of the treatment was twice as long at the ICO. At the ICO, 82% of patient experienced treatment interruptions. The protocol for portal verification was the same at both institutions. In vivo dosimetry is not used for this treatment localization at the ICO. The ICO utilizes locally-developed guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, while the GPCC is currently developing its own guidelines.

Conclusions

An independent external clinical audit is an excellent approach to identifying and resolving deficiencies in quality control procedures. We identified several procedures amenable to improvement. Both institutions have since implemented changes to improve quality standards. We believe that all radiotherapy centres should perform a comprehensive clinical audit to identify and rectify deficiencies.