Preoperative chemoradiotherapy in older patients with rectal cancer guided by comprehensive geriatric assessment within a multidisciplinary team-a multicenter phase II trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (preCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in older people who were classified as "fit" by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).

METHODS

A single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial was designed. Patients were eligible for this study if they were aged 70 years or above and met the standards of "fit" (SIOG1) as evaluated by CGA and of the locally advanced risk category. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). Patients were scheduled to receive preCRT (50 Gy) with raltitrexed (3 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22).

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients were evaluated by CGA, of whom eighty-six, eleven and twelve were classified into the fit, intermediate and frail category. Sixty-eight fit patients with a median age of 74 years were enrolled. Sixty-four patients (94.1%) finished radiotherapy without dose reduction. Fifty-four (79.3%) patients finished the prescribed raltitrexed therapy as planned. Serious toxicity (grade 3 or above) was observed in twenty-four patients (35.3%), and fourteen patients (20.6%) experienced non-hematological side effects. Within a median follow-up time of 36.0 months (range: 5.9-63.1 months), the 2-year overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 89.6% (95% CI: 82.3-96.9), 92.4% (95% CI: 85.9-98.9) and 75.6% (95% CI: 65.2-86.0), respectively. Forty-eight patients (70.6%) underwent surgery (R0 resection 95.8%, R1 resection 4.2%), the corresponding R0 resection rate among the patients with positive mesorectal fascia status was 76.6% (36/47).

CONCLUSION

This phase II trial suggests that preCRT is efficient with tolerable toxicities in older rectal cancer patients who were evaluated as fit based on CGA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registration number on ClinicalTrials.gov was NCT02992886 (14/12/2016).

Updates on the Management of Colorectal Cancer in Older Adults

Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health challenge. Notably, the risk of CRC escalates with age, with the majority of cases occurring in those over the age of 65. Despite recent progress in tailoring treatments for early and advanced CRC, there is a lack of prospective data to guide the management of older patients, who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. This article reviews the contemporary landscape of managing older individuals with CRC, highlighting recent advancements and persisting challenges. The role of comprehensive geriatric assessment is explored. Opportunities for treatment escalation/de-escalation, with consideration of the older adult's fitness level. are reviewed in the neoadjuvant, surgical, adjuvant, and metastatic settings of colon and rectal cancers. Immunotherapy is shown to be an effective treatment option in older adults who have CRC with microsatellite instability. Promising new technologies such as circulating tumor DNA and recent phase III trials adding later-line systemic therapy options are discussed. Clinical recommendations based on the data available are summarized. We conclude that deliberate efforts to include older individuals in future colorectal cancer trials are essential to better guide the management of these patients in this rapidly evolving field.

Analysis of the impact of radiotherapy and surgical treatment regimens based on the SEER database on the survival outcomes of rectal cancer patients over 70 years

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the impact of different combinations of treatment regimens, such as additional radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical treatments, on the survival of elderly rectal cancer patients ≥ 70 years of age to support physicians' clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Data from a sample of elderly rectal cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years diagnosed from 2005-2015 from the US surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database were retrospectively analyzed. The best cut-off point was selected using the x-tile software for the three continuity indices: age, tumor size, and number of regional lymph nodes. All patients were categorized into either the neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery group (R_S group), the surgical treatment group (S group), or the surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy group (S_R group). The propensity score allocation was used to match each included study subject in a 1:1 ratio, and the restricted mean survival time method (RMST) was used to predict the mean survival of rectal cancer patients within 5 and 10 years. The prognostic risk factors for rectal cancer patients were determined using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, and nomograms were constructed. A subgroup stratification analysis of patients with different treatment combination regimens was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank tests were used for between-group comparisons. The model's predictive accuracy was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, correction curves, and a clinical decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

A total of 7556 cases of sample data from 2005 to 2015 were included, which were categorized into 6639 patients (87.86%) in the S group, 408 patients (5.4%) in the R_S group, and 509 patients (6.74%) in the S_R group, according to the relevant order of radiotherapy and surgery. After propensity score matching (PSM), the primary clinical characteristics of the groups were balanced and comparable. The difference in the mean survival time before and after PSM was not statistically significant in both R_S and S groups (P value > 0.05), and the difference in the mean survival time after PSM was statistically substantial in S_R and S groups (P value < 0.05). In the multifactorial Cox analysis, the M1 stage and Nodes ≥ 9 were independent risk factors. An age between 70-75 was an independent protective factor for patients with rectal cancer in the R_S and S groups. The Marital_status, T4 stage, N2 stage, M1 stage, and Nodes ≥ 9 were independent risk factors for patients with rectal cancer in the S_R and S groups, and an age between 70-81 was an independent protective factor. The ROC curve area, the model C index, and the survival calibration curve suggested good agreement between the actual and predicted values of the model. The DCA for 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival periods indicated that the model had some potential for application.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study showed no significant difference in the overall survival (OS) between elderly patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery and those who received surgery alone; elderly patients who received surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy had some survival benefits compared with those who received surgery alone, though the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy was not significant. Therefore, radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients older than 70 years old should be based on individual differences in condition, and a precise treatment plan should be developed.

Association of age with outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the association of age with outcomes in patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC) who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by major surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 328 patients with LARC, N = 99 < 70 years (younger) versus N = 229 ≥ 70 years (elderly) from 2004 to 2018.

RESULTS

Elderly patients had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), length of stay and 30-day readmissions (p < 0.05). They also had worse overall survival (OS) & disease-free survival (DFS) (p < 0.001), but similar disease-specific survival (DSS) compared to younger group. Age was not associated with hazard of death (HR 1.01, 0.98-1.03). Rather, CCI (HR 1.29, 1.01-1.5), extramural vascular invasion (HR 4.98, 2.84-8.74), and adjuvant therapy (0.37, 0.21-0.64) were significantly associated with the hazard of death; when controlled for stage, tumor distance from anal verge, and neoadjuvant completion.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities and lower rates of adjuvant therapy, and not chronologic age, are associated with poor OS of elderly patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant therapy and major surgery.

Guidance for Treating the Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The need for evidence-based data in the rapidly growing group of older patients is vast and more elderly-specific studies are desperately needed, for which there is clear demand from both patients and providers. Notably, many of the studies discussed in this review included unplanned subset analyses based on age and/or were not originally stratified by age; therefore, these data, particularly overall survival data, need to be interpreted with some caution as they may not be statistically valid based on the initial trial design and statistical plan. As we await data from ongoing elderly-specific trials, our recommendation for managing older patients with CRC should include geriatric screening tools (e.g., CSGA, VES-13, G8, CARG, CRASH) to help guide treatment adjustments for improved tolerability without sacrificing efficacy. For patients with a positive screen for significant geriatric concerns, a full geriatric assessment is recommended to guide treatment approach and supportive care. Prior data support the use of all approved medications for CRC in older adults who are fit; however, treatment breaks and dose attenuation with potential escalation are reasonable options for these patients. Ultimately, management decisions in the care of older adults with mCRC must be made through shared decision-making with the patient with consideration for the patient's functional status, comorbidities, goals of care, social support, as well as potential toxicities and possible effect on QoL.

FOxTROT2: innovative trial design to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for treating locally advanced colon cancer in older adults or those with frailty

Treating older adults with cancer is increasingly important in modern oncology practice. However, we currently lack the high-quality evidence needed to guide optimal management of this heterogeneous group. Principally, historic under-recruitment of older adults to clinical trials limits our understanding of how existing evidence can be applied to this group. Such uncertainty is particularly prevalent in the management of colon cancer (CC). With CC being most common in older adults, many patients also suffer from frailty, which is recognised as being strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Conducting clinical trials in older adults presents several major challenges, many of which impact the clinical relevance of results to a real-world population. When considering this heterogeneous group, it may be difficult to define the target population, recruit participants effectively, choose an appropriate trial design, and ensure participants remain engaged with the trial during follow-up. Furthermore, after overcoming these challenges, clinical trials tend to enrol highly selected patient cohorts that comprise only the fittest older patients, which are not representative of the wider population. FOxTROT1 was the first phase III randomised controlled trial to illustrate the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the treatment of CC. Patients receiving NAC had greater 2-year disease-free survival compared to those proceeding straight to surgery. Outcomes for older adults in FOxTROT1 were similarly impressive when compared to their younger counterparts. Yet, this group inevitably represents a fitter subgroup of the older patient population. FOxTROT2 has been designed to investigate NAC in a full range of older adults with CC, including those with frailty. In this review, we describe the key challenges to conducting a robust clinical trial in this heterogeneous patient group, highlight our strategies for overcoming these challenges in FOxTROT2, and explain how we hope to provide clarity on the optimal treatment of CC in older adults.

Geriatric Radiation Oncology: What We Know and What Can We Do Better?

Elderly patients represent a growing subgroup of cancer patients for whom the role of radiation therapy is poorly defined. Older patients are still clearly underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in very limited high-level evidence. Moreover, elderly patients are less likely to receive radiation therapy in similar clinical scenarios compared to younger patients. However, there is no clear evidence for a generally reduced radiation tolerance with increasing age. Modern radiation techniques have clearly reduced acute and late side effects, thus extending the boundaries of the possible regarding treatment intensity in elderly or frail patients. Hypofractionated regimens have further decreased the socioeconomic burden of radiation treatments by reducing the overall treatment time. The current review aims at summarizing the existing data for the use of radiation therapy or chemoradiation in elderly patients focusing on the main cancer types. It provides an overview of treatment tolerability and outcomes with current standard radiation therapy regimens, including possible predictive factors in the elderly population. Strategies for patient selection for standard or tailored radiation therapy approaches based on age, performance score or comorbidity, including the use of prediction tests or geriatric assessments, are discussed. Current and future possibilities for improvements of routine care and creation of high-level evidence in elderly patients receiving radiation therapy are highlighted.

Low baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios predict increased overall survival in locally recurrent rectal cancer despite R1 margins

BACKGROUND

Prognostic features in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), beyond R0 surgery, are unknown.

AIMS

Aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic role of peripheral immune estimators, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), on survival outcomes in LRRC patients.

METHODS

184 LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Italy) were included. Optimal cut-off values for NLR and PLR were determined. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox analyses were used to assess the 5-yr overall survival (OS) according to NLR and PLR, also considering margins status.

RESULTS

NLR >3.9 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.96, P = 0.049), PLR >275 (HR 5.39, P = 0.002) and size on imaging (HR 1.36, P = 0.044) were associated to worse OS. R+ patients with NLR >3.9 showed a significantly lower 5-yr OS compared to NLR ≤3.9 (13.5% vs. 36.7%, P < 0.0001). Also PLR >275 was related with a lower 5-yr OS compared to PLR ≤275 in R+ patients (6.4% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.0003). Conversely, NLR and PLR were irrelevant in case of R0 surgery.

CONCLUSION

NLR and PLR predict 5-yr OS in LRRC, also identifying a subset of R+ patients with a similar expected survival compared to R0 cases.

Outcomes on diverting ostomy formation and reversal after low anterior resection in the older more advanced rectal cancer patient

BACKGROUND

To decrease morbidity caused by anastomotic leakages after a low anterior resection (LAR) with primary anastomosis, a diverting ostomy is often created. Reversal of a diverting ostomy is associated with morbidity, which may result in non-reversal, particularly in the elderly. This study aimed to describe the diverting ostomy-related outcomes in elderly patients with more advanced rectal cancer after LAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All rectosigmoid and rectal cancer patients ≥70 years who underwent LAR with primary anastomosis between 2006 and 2019 in the Catharina Hospital (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) were included for analyses. Reversal rates, ostomy-related complications, morbidity and mortality after ostomy reversal, and definitive ostomy rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total 164 patients were included, of which 150 (91.5%) underwent primary or secondary ostomy creation. Ostomy-related complications were reported in 34.7% (95%-CI 27.1-42.9%). In total, 72.5% (95%-CI 64.2-79.7%) reversed their diverting ostomy. Non-reversal was mostly due to relapsing disease (52.6%). Median time to ostomy reversal was 3.2 months (IQR 2.3-5.0). No or minor complications after ostomy reversal were observed in 84.0% (95%-CI 75.3-90.6%). Over time, ostomy recreation was performed in 15.0% (95%-CI 8.6-23.5%), and ultimately 65.8% (95%-CI 57.8-73.2%) were ostomy-free after the median follow-up of 3.8 years.

CONCLUSION

Although most elderly successfully reversed their diverting ostomy after LAR with limited morbidity, attention should be paid for the risk of non-reversal and ostomy recreation over time. Preoperative patient counselling is important in every individual to be able to decide if LAR with primary anastomosis or a permanent end colostomy is preferred.

Rectal cancer treatment and outcomes in elderly patients treated with curative intent

The elderly population comprises a significant proportion of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence to guide treatment decisions in this group. Thus, this multicentre study compares the histopathology, treatment patterns and outcomes between the elderly and young populations with non-metastatic rectal cancer. The present study reported on the clinicopathological variables, treatment modalities and survival outcomes in 736 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2006 and 2015. Patients were divided into the following two groups, <70 and ≥70 years of age, which were compared using Chi-square and survival outcome analysis using Kaplan-Meier. Elderly patients made up nearly half of the cohort and were less likely to undergo trimodality therapy or be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. Surgery in the elderly patients was associated with increased mortality. Elderly patients had worse cancer-specific survival (75 vs. 85%), which was particularly evident in stage III disease (hazard ratio, 2.1). Elderly patients in this subgroup treated with trimodality therapy had similar survival outcomes to younger patients. Elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer comprise a large proportion of the patient cohort. Consideration should be given for trimodality therapy in this group, taking into account biological age, especially in the context of increasing life expectancy and improvement in the management of age-related comorbidities.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Oncologic and survival outcomes in elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer in elderly patients has not been established.

METHODS

A total of 3096 locally advanced rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, along with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, between January 2010 and December 2018, were studied retrospectively. Patients were divided into elderly (>75 years) and younger (≤75 years) groups, and propensity score matching was used to balance a potentially confounding clinical bias. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and local recurrence-free survival rates for the two groups were compared. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different clinicopathological variables were calculated to determine predictors of 3-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 39.0 (range, 5-140) months. The overall 3-year overall survival, cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and locoregional relapse-free survival rates were 86.1, 87.6, 80.0, 82.4 and 95.4%, respectively. Only 3-year overall survival rates differed significantly between the elderly (77.2%) and younger (88.9%) groups (P = 0.01). Cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and locoregional relapse-free survival rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. Significant negative independent prognostic factors for 3-year overall survival were age >75 years (HR = 2.016, 95% CI 1.157-23.511, P = 0.01) and high pathologic TNM stage (yp stage III, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For elderly locally advanced rectal cancer patients who have good health and performance status, the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision can result in disease-related survival rates and oncological outcomes similar to those experienced by younger patients. The decision to use this treatment approach in elderly patients should not be based solely on chronological age.

Current Treatment Approaches and Outcomes in the Management of Rectal Cancer Above the Age of 80

Background: The number of cases of rectal cancer in our older cohort is expected to rise with our ageing population. In this study, we analysed patterns in treatment and the long-term outcomes of patients older than 80 years with rectal cancer across a health district. Methods: All cases of rectal cancer managed at the Illawarra Cancer Care Centre, Australia between 2006 and 2018 were analysed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were stratified into three age groups: ≤65 years, 66–79 years and ≥80 years of age. The clinicopathological characteristics, operative and non-operative treatment approach and survival outcomes of the three groups were compared. Results: Six hundred and ninety-nine patients with rectal cancer were managed, of which 118 (17%) were aged 80 and above. Patients above 80 were less likely to undergo surgery (71% vs. 90%, p < 0.001) or receive adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (p < 0.05). Of those that underwent surgical resection, their tumours were on average larger (36.5 vs. 31.5 mm, p = 0.019) and 18 mm closer the anal verge (p = 0.001). On Kaplan–Meier analysis, those above 80 had poorer cancer-specific survival when compared to their younger counterparts (p = 0.032), but this difference was no longer apparent after the first year (p = 0.381). Conclusion: Patients above the age of 80 with rectal cancer exhibit poorer cancer-specific survival, which is accounted for in the first year after diagnosis. Priority should be made to optimise care during this period. There is a need for further research to establish the role of chemoradiotherapy in this population, which appears to be underutilised.

Safety and efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy in fit older patients with intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer evaluated by comprehensive geriatric assessment: A planned interim analysis of a multicenter, phase II trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a diagnostic method to assess the physical and mental health status of older patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (preCRT) for intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer in older people who were classified as "fit" by CGA. The interim analysis focusing on safety was reported here as the first part of this trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a single arm, multicenter, phase II trial. The eligible patients for this study were aged 70 years or above that fulfilled the standard of intermediate or locally advanced risk category, and met the standard of fit (SIOG1) evaluated by CGA. All patients received preCRT (50 Gy) with Raltitrexed (3 mg/m² on d1 and d22). Qualitative and quantitative variables were described using descriptive statistics. The surgery adherence predicting was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine fit patients were enrolled. All patients except one finished radiotherapy without dose reduction. Thirty-two patients finished the prescribed Raltitrexed therapy as scheduled. A serious toxicity was observed in 12 patients (30.8%), and only six patients (15.4%) experienced non-hematological side effects.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our results showed that preCRT was feasible and safe in older patients with rectal cancer who were evaluated as fit based on CGA, supporting the use of CGA to tailor oncological treatment and predict the tolerance of a specific therapy. Completing this trial as planned would provide further valuable insights.

Clinical outcomes in elderly rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: impact of tumor regression grade : Tumor regression grade after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in elderly rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and the relationship between pathological complete response (pCR) with clinical outcomes has been evaluated in elderly locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 117 LARC patients treated with conformal RT and concomitant fluoropirimidine-based chemotherapy. A dose of 4500 cGy, on the pelvis, up to 5500 cGy on the tumor was delivered. Multidisciplinary evaluation, including geriatric assessment, was previously performed to identify frail patients unsuitable for combined treatment.

RESULTS

The median age was 75 (range 70-88 years), and 103 (88%) patients had ECOG Performance Status (PS) = 0. All patients except one completed CRT. Ten (8.5%) patients temporarily suspended CRT for acute severe hematologic complication, diarrhea and/or proctitis and hypokalemia. Of the 103 operated patients (88%), a pCR, according to Mandard tumor regression grade (TRG) score, was obtained in 28 patients (27.2%), with TRG1-2 rate of 43.7%. The 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 80.2% ± 4.2% and 68.0% ± 5.2%, 72.4% ± 4.5% and 57.8% ± 5.2% for disease-free survival (DFS), and 92.2% ± 2.8% and 89.5% ± 3.9% for loco-regional control. Patients with TRG1-2 had 3- and 5-year OS rates of 84.1% ± 6.6% and 84.1% ± 6.6% compared with 82.8% ± 5.5% and 67.7% ± 7.2% for patients with TRG3-5 (p = 0.012). The 3- and 5-year DFS rates for patients with TRG1-2 were 77.6% ± 7.0% and 74.2% ± 7.5% compared with 70.9% ± 6.3% and 54.7% ± 7.3% for patients with TRG3-5 (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Our results reported good tolerability and clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant CRT, with a benefit in patients ≥ 70 years, confirming the prognostic role of pCR on clinical outcomes.

Effect of Health Care Provider Delays on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Multicenter Population-Based Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom has lower survival figures for all types of cancers compared to many European countries despite similar national expenditures on health. This discrepancy may be linked to long diagnostic and treatment delays.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether delays experienced by patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) affect their survival.

METHODS

This observational study utilized the Somerset Cancer Register to identify patients with CRC who were diagnosed on the basis of positive histology findings. The effects of diagnostic and treatment delays and their subdivisions on outcomes were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to illustrate group differences.

RESULTS

A total of 648 patients (375 males, 57.9% males) were included in this study. We found that neither diagnostic delay nor treatment delay had an effect on the overall survival in patients with CRC (χ²₃=1.5, P=.68; χ23=0.6, P=.90, respectively). Similarly, treatment delays did not affect the outcomes in patients with CRC (χ²₃=5.5, P=.14). The initial Cox regression analysis showed that patients with CRC who had short diagnostic delays were less likely to die than those experiencing long delays (hazard ratio 0.165, 95% CI 0.044-0.616; P=.007). However, this result was nonsignificant following sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and treatment delays had no effect on the survival of this cohort of patients with CRC. The utility of the 2-week wait referral system is therefore questioned. Timely screening with subsequent early referral and access to diagnostics may have a more beneficial effect.

Oncologic Outcome and Morbidity in the Elderly Rectal Cancer Patients After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision: A Multi-institutional and Case-matched Control Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the toxicity and oncologic outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME) in the elderly (≥70 yrs) and younger (<70 yrs) rectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Sufficient data for elderly rectal cancer patients who received definitive trimodality have not been accumulated yet.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1232 rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant CRT and TME were enrolled in this study. After propensity-score matching, 310 younger patients and 310 elderly patients were matched with 1:1 manner. Treatment response, toxicity, surgical outcome, recurrence, and survival were assessed and compared between the 2 groups of patients.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years for the younger patient group and 74 years for the elderly group. Pathologic complete response rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups (younger and elderly: 17.1% vs 14.8%, P = 0.443). The 5-year recurrence-free survival (younger and elderly: 67.7% vs 65.5%, P = 0.483) and overall survival (younger and elderly: 82.9% vs. 79.5%, P = 0.271) rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups either. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery was less frequently delivered to the elderly than that to younger patients (83.9% vs 69.0%). Grade 3 or higher acute hematologic toxicity was observed more frequently in the elderly than that in the younger group (9.0% vs 16.1%, P = 0.008). Late complication rate was higher in the elderly group compared with that in the younger group without statistical significance (2.6% vs 4.5%, P = 0.193).

CONCLUSIONS

Although acute hematologic toxicity was observed more frequently in the elderly patients than that in the younger patients, elderly rectal cancer patients with good performance status who received preoperative CRT and TME showed favorable tumor response and recurrence-free survival similar to younger patients.

Increased Levels of Genomic Instability and Mutations in Homologous Recombination Genes in Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinomas

Pre-operative 5-fluoracil-based chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients with pathological complete response (pCR–0% of tumor cells in the surgical specimen after nCRT) have better overall survival and lower risk of recurrence in comparison with incomplete responders (pIR). Predictive biomarkers to be used for new therapeutic strategies and capable of stratifying patients to avoid overtreatment are needed. We evaluated the genomic profiles of 33 pre-treatment LARC biopsies using SNP array and targeted-next generation sequencing (tNGS). Based on the large number of identified genomic alterations, we calculated the genomic instability index (GII) and three homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores, which have been reported as impaired DNA repair markers. We observed high GII in our LARC cases, which was confirmed in 165 rectal cancer cases from TCGA. Patients with pCR presented higher GII compared with pIR. Moreover, a negative correlation between GII and the fraction of tumor cells remaining after surgery was observed (ρ = –0.382, P = 0.02). High HRD scores were detected in 61% of LARC, of which 70% were incomplete responders. Using tNGS (105 cancer-related genes, 13 involved in HR and 5 in mismatch repair pathways), we identified 23% of cases with mutations in HR genes, mostly in pIR cases (86% of mutated cases). In agreement, the analysis of the TCGA dataset (N = 145) revealed 21% of tumors with mutations in HR genes. The HRD scores were shown to be predictive of better response to PARP-inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy in breast and ovarian cancer. Our results suggest that the same strategy could be applied in a set of LARC patients with HRD. In conclusion, we identified high genomic instability in LARC, which was related to alterations in the HR pathway, especially in pIR. These findings suggest that patients with impaired HRD would clinically benefit from PARP-inhibitors and platinum-based therapy.

Feasibility of neoadjuvant therapy for elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The feasibility of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for elderly patients with rectal cancer has not been evaluated well.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2014, 506 patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer underwent curative resection. Fifty-four were over 75 years old (elderly group), and 452 were under 75 years old (young group). The patients were divided into sub-groups according to whether they received NAT.

RESULTS

Nineteen (35.2%) patients from the elderly group and 348 (77.0%) from the young group received NAT. The proportion of patients who received NAT was significantly lower in the elderly group. In the elderly group, the median age and prevalence of co-morbidities were significantly lower in patients with than in those without NAT. The incidence of severe adverse events was similar in the two groups. On multivariate analysis, age was not related to postoperative complications in patients who received NAT. The 5-year local recurrence rate was significantly lower in the elderly patients who received NAT, and similar to that of the young patients who received NAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible and should be considered as a treatment option for carefully selected elderly patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer.

Adjuvant treatment in older patients with rectal cancer: a population-based review

Background

Little is known about the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy (adj) in the older population with locally advanced rectal cancer (larc). We evaluated use of adj, survival outcomes, and adj-related toxicity in older patients with larc.

Methods

Our retrospective review included 286 patients with larc (stages ii and iii) diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2013 in Nova Scotia who underwent curative-intent surgery. Baseline patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics were collected. The survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression statistics.

Results

Of 286 identified patients, 152 were 65 years of age or older, and 92 were 70 years of age or older. Median follow-up was 46 months, and 163 patients (57%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Although adj was given to 81% of patients (n = 109) less than 65 years of age, only 29% patients (n = 27) 70 years of age and older received adj. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested a potential survival advantage for adj regardless of age. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, T stage, and adj were significant predictors of overall survival (p < 0.04); age was not. Similarly, N stage, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and adj were significant predictors of disease-free survival (p < 0.01). Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was the most common cause of adj omission. In patients 70 years of age and older, grade 1 or greater chemotherapy-related toxicities were experienced significantly more often by those treated with adj (85% vs. 68% for those not treated with adj, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Regardless of age, patients with larc seem to experience a survival benefit with adj. However, older patients are less likely to receive adj, and when they do, they experience more chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Discerning Patterns and Quality of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Use Among Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is underutilized in bladder cancer patients who undergo radical cystectomy. However, the quality of regimens used in this setting remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine utilization treatment patterns and survival outcomes according to regimens administered.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify patients diagnosed with clinical stage TII-IV bladder cancer from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2011.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Temporal trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall survival according to regimens administered.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 2738 patients treated with radical cystectomy, 344 (12.6%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The agents most commonly used were gemcitabine (72.3%), cisplatin (55.2%), and carboplatin (31.1%). The regimens most commonly used were gemcitabine-cisplatin (45.3%), gemcitabine-carboplatin (24.1%), and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC; 6.7%). Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy more than tripled during the study period, from 5.7% in 2001 to 17.3% in 2011 (p<0.001). The quality of the regimen administered impacted survival outcomes, as M-VAC use was significantly associated with better overall survival among patients diagnosed with stage II bladder cancer (hazard ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.86; p=0.030]. Limitations include the limited ability of retrospective analysis to control for selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was underused, and the quality of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens administered for bladder cancer was inconsistent with guideline recommendations. These findings are important when interpreting population-based data on the use of chemotherapy and extrapolating survival outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a large population-based study, 12.6% of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, half of whom received guideline-recommended regimens. The quality of the regimen impacted survival outcomes, as use of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly associated with better overall survival among patients diagnosed with stage II bladder cancer. However, <1% of radical cystectomy patients received this regimen.

Progress in neoadjuvant drug therapy of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors of the digestive system. A portion of patients have had locally advanced disease at the time of diagnosis and have lost the chance of radical surgery. How to increase the R0 resection rate has always been a major difficulty in clinical practice. Some studies have shown that for some patients, neoadjuvant drug therapy can achieve reduction of clinical stage, increase the R0 resection rate and anus-preserving rate, reduce the local recurrence and micro-metastasis, and prolong the survival time of patients. This article mainly reviews the progress in neoadjuvant drug therapy of rectal cancer.

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.

Management of locally advanced rectal cancer in the elderly: a critical review and algorithm

Colorectal cancer incidence and death rates have been declining over the past 10 years. However, it remains the second leading cause of death in men ages 60-79 and the third leading cause of death in men over 80 and in women over 60 years old. However, there is little data specific to the treatment of the elder patient, since few of these patients are included in trials. With the advent of improved therapies, there are many alternative options available. Still, no definitive consensus or guidelines have been defined for this particular patient population. The goal of this study is to review the literature on the management of rectal cancer in the elderly and to propose treatment algorithms to help the oncology team in treatment decision-making.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer Patients With Clinical Stage II to III Across European Countries: Variations and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy improves survival of patients with clinical stage II and III rectal cancer in clinical trials. In this study, we investigated the administration of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (neo-RT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT) and its association with survival in resected patients in 2 European countries (The Netherlands and Sweden) and at 3 specialist centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Administration of neoadjuvant treatment (all registries) and overall survival after surgery in The Netherlands and Sweden were assessed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained using Cox regression adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 16,095 rectal cancer patients with clinical stage II and III were eligible for analyses. Large variations in administration of neo-RT and neo-CRT were observed. Elderly patients less often received neo-RT and neo-CRT. Patients with stage III disease received neo-CRT more frequently than neo-RT. Administration of neo-RT versus surgery without neoadjuvant treatment was significantly associated with improved survival in The Netherlands (HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.73) as well as in Sweden (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90). Administration of neo-CRT was associated with enhanced survival in The Netherlands (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78) but not in Sweden (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). The mortality of patients treated with neo-CRT compared with neo-RT showed inconsistent results in population-based centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support an association of neo-RT with enhanced survival among stage II and III rectal cancer patients. Comparing neo-CRT with neo-RT, larger variations and inconsistent results with respect to survival were observed across centers.