•Patients with high-risk rectal cancer are generally treated with chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.•Compliance of postoperative chemotherapy in rectal cancer patients is known to be low.•In this ...study patients were randomized to the standard treatment of chemoradiotherapy or short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy prior to surgery.•Short-course radiotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy was associated with considerable toxicity.•Yet, high compliance of systemic therapy could be achieved by giving it after short-course radiotherapy and prior to surgery.•There were no differences in the details of surgical procedures or postoperative complications.
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision is widely accepted as the standard of care for high-risk rectal cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy is advised in several international guidelines, although the survival benefit remains unclear and compliance is poor. The current multidisciplinary approach has led to major improvements in local control, yet the occurrence of distant metastases has not decreased accordingly. The combination of short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) and chemotherapy in the waiting period before surgery might have several benefits, including higher compliance, downstaging and better effect of systemic therapy.
This is an investigator-initiated, international multicentre randomized phase III trial. High-risk rectal cancer patients were randomized to SCRT followed by chemotherapy (6 cycles CAPOX or alternatively 9 cycles FOLFOX4) and subsequent surgery, or long-course radiotherapy (25–28 × 2–1.8 Gy) with concomitant capecitabine followed by surgery and optional postoperative chemotherapy (8 cycles CAPOX or 12 cycles FOLFOX4) according to local institutions’ policy. The primary endpoint is time to disease-related treatment failure. Here, we report the compliance, toxicity and postoperative complications in both study groups.
Between June 2011 and June 2016, 920 patients were enrolled. Of these, 901 were evaluable (460 in the experimental arm and 441 in the standard arm). All patients in the experimental arm received 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy, and 84% of all patients received at least 75% of the prescribed chemotherapy. In the standard arm, the compliance for CRT was 93% and 58% for postoperative chemotherapy. Toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 48% of patients in the experimental arm, compared to 25% of patients in the standard arm during preoperative treatment and 35% of patients during postoperative chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in surgical procedures or postoperative complications were observed.
High compliance (84%) of preoperative systemic treatment could be achieved with the experimental approach. Although considerable toxicity was observed during preoperative therapy, this did not lead to differences in surgical procedures or postoperative complications. Longer follow-up time is needed to assess the primary endpoint and related outcomes.
Objective
This study aimed to assess psychological functioning, quality of life, and regret about screening after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and subsequent colonoscopy, and to ...evaluate changes over time.
Methods
This is a prospective cohort study. Individuals aged 55 to 75 with a positive FIT that were referred for colonoscopy between July 2017 and November 2018, were invited to complete questionnaires related to psychological distress and health‐related quality of life at three predefined time points: before colonoscopy, after histopathology result notification, and after 6 months. Four questionnaires were used: the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the six‐item Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and the 36‐item Short‐Form (SF‐36).
Results
A total of 1066 participants out of 2151 eligible individuals were included. Patients with cancer showed a significant increase in psychological dysfunction (P = .01) and cancer worry (P = .008) after colonoscopy result notification, and a decline to pre‐colonoscopy measurements after 6 months. In the no‐cancer groups, psychological dysfunction and cancer worry significantly decreased over time (P < .05) but there was no ongoing decline. After 6 months, 17% of participants with no cancer experienced high level of cancer worry (CWS ≥ 10). Yet, only 5% reported high level of regret about screening participation (DRS > 25). A good global quality of life was reported in participants with no cancer.
Conclusion
Some psychological distress remains up to 6 months after colonoscopy in participants who tested false‐positive in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program.
Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. ...However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians.
Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes.
In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88–26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9–6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1–32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5–19.4, p < 0.001).
When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.
Compare oncological long-term and short-term outcomes between patients with distal cT2NO rectal cancer treated with chemoradio-therapy and local excision (CRT + LE) and patients treated with total ...mesorectal excision (TME).
Previous studies showed that CRT + LE is equivalent to TME in local tumor control and survival for T2N0 rectal cancer.
Seventy-nine patients with cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT + LE in the ACOSOG Z6041 trial were compared to a cohort of 79 patients with pT2N0 tumors treated with upfront TME in the Dutch TME trial. Survival, short-term outcomes, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared between groups.
Three patients (4%) in the CRT + LE group required abdominoperineal resection, compared with 31 (40%) in the TME group. Forty TME patients (51%) required a permanent stoma. CRT-related toxicity occurred in 43% of the CRT + LE patients; however, TME patients had a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation (1 vs 9%; P = 0 .03). Five-year disease-free survival {88.2% confidence interval (CI), 77.7%-93.9% vs 88.3% CI, 78.7%-93.7%; P = 0.88} and overall survival 90.3% (CI, 80.8%-95.3%) vs 88.4% (CI, 78.9%-93.8%); P = 0 .82 were similar in the 2 groups. Compared to baseline, overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in the TME group. In both groups, patients with sphincter preservation had worse HRQOL scores 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: In patients who underwent CRT + LE, oncological outcomes were similar to those of patients who underwent TME, with fewer complications requiring reoperation but significant CRT toxicity. Although overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in TME patients, when considering anorectal function, results were worse in both groups.
Neoadjuvant therapy before surgical resection is indicated for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, a significant number of patients show minimal or no response to neoadjuvant ...therapy. Unfortunately, we are currently unable to predict response and identify non-responding patients before neoadjuvant treatment is given. Genomic mutational status might provide valuable prognostic information. However, it is unclear whether predictions based on genomic mutational status in single preoperative biopsies are reliable due to intra-tumoral heterogeneity. In this study we aim to investigate the reliability of genomic mutations found in single pre-operative biopsies by comparing genomic mutations to four other locations within the same tumor using next generation sequencing. Rectal cancer patients undergoing primary resection without neoadjuvant therapy were included. From each patient, one biopsy, two deep and two superficial samples were obtained and sequenced using a targeted next generation sequencing gene panel. Concordance between these five samples was assessed. In this feasibility study we included 11 patients. In 7 out of 11 (64%) patients, all 5 samples showed concordant mutations. In 4 out of 11 patients (36%) discordant mutations were observed. In conclusion, assessment of mutational status on a single pre-operative biopsy shows discordance with tumor tissue from other locations in 36% of cases. These results warrant careful interpretation of biopsy material analysis, as these might be influenced by tumor heterogeneity.
Intraoperative identification of rectal cancer (RC) can be challenging, especially because of fibrosis after treatment with preoperative chemo- and radiotherapy (CRT). Tumor-targeted fluorescence ...imaging can enhance the contrast between tumor and normal tissue during surgery. Promising targets for RC imaging are carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and the tyrosine-kinase receptor Met (c-Met). The effect of CRT on their expression determines their applicability for imaging. Therefore, we investigated whether CRT modifies expression patterns in tumors, lymph node (LN) metastases and adjacent normal rectal tissues.
Preoperative biopsies, primary tumor specimens and metastatic LNs were collected from 38 RC patients who did not receive CRT (cohort 1) and 34 patients who did (cohort 2). CEA, EpCAM and c-Met expression was determined using immunohistochemical staining and was semiquantified by a total immunostaining score (TIS), consisting of the percentage and intensity of stained tumor cells (0-12).
In both cohorts CEA, EpCAM and c-Met were significantly highly expressed in >60% of tumor tissues compared with adjacent normal epithelium (T/N ratio,
<0.01). EpCAM showed the most homogenous expression in tumors, whereas CEA showed the highest T/N ratio. Most importantly, CEA and EpCAM expression did not significantly change in normal or neoplastic RC tissue after CRT, whereas levels of c-Met changed (
=0.02). Tissues of eight patients with a pathological complete response after CRT showed expression of all biomarkers with TIS close to normal epithelium.
Histological evaluation shows that CEA, EpCAM and c-Met are suitable targets for RC imaging, because all three are significantly enhanced in cancer tissue from primary tumors or LN metastases compared with normal adjacent tissue. Furthermore, the expression of CEA and EpCAM is not significantly changed after CRT. These data underscore the applicability of c-Met and especially, CEA and EpCAM as targets for image-guided RC surgery, both before and after CRT.
In the West, pre-treatment abnormal lateral lymph nodes (LLN+) in patients with a low locally advanced rectal cancer (AJCC Stage III), are treated with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (nCRT), without ...a lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). It has been suggested, however, that LLN+ patients have higher local recurrence (LR) rates than similarly staged patients with abnormal mesorectal lymph nodes only (LLN-), but no comparative data exist. Therefore, we conducted this international multi-center study in the Netherlands and Australia of Stage III rectal cancer patients with either LLN+ or LLN- to compare oncological outcomes from both groups.
Patients with Stage III low rectal cancer with (LLN+ group) or without (LLN- group) abnormal lateral lymph nodes on pre-treatment MRI were included. Patients underwent nCRT followed by rectal resection surgery with curative intent between 2009 and 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 2-years. No patient had a LLND. Propensity score matching corrected differences in baseline characteristics.
Two hundred twenty-three patients could be included: 125 in the LLN+ group and 98 in the LLN- group. Between groups, there were significant differences in cT-stage and in the rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administered. Propensity score matching resulted in 54 patients in each group, with equal baseline characteristics. The 5-year LR rate in the LLN+ group was 11 vs. 2% in the LLN- group (
= 0.06) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 64 vs. 76%, respectively (
= 0.09). Five-year overall survival was similar between groups (73 vs. 80%, respectively;
= 0.90).
In Western patients with Stage III low rectal cancer, there is a trend toward worse LR rate and DFS rates in LLN+ patients compared to similarly staged LLN- patients. These results suggest that LLN+ patients may currently not be treated optimally with nCRT alone, and the addition of LLND requires further consideration.
For patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer, palliative, systemic treatment can be started immediately, or can be delayed until disease-related symptoms occur. How the ...potential survival benefit of starting palliative, systemic treatment immediately after diagnosis weighs up against the potential side effects is currently under debate, and was investigated in this review.
To assess the effects of immediate versus delayed chemotherapy, with or without targeted therapy, on overall survival, toxicity, quality of life, progression-free survival, and compliance with chemotherapy for individuals with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.
We searched CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 8, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to 23 August 2018. We did not apply limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that may not have been identified from the electronic searches.
Randomised controlled trials evaluating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in persons with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer.
We applied standard methodological procedures, according to the recommendations of Cochrane and Cochrane Colorectal Cancer. Two review authors independently reviewed the studies identified by literature searches, selected relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias, Review Manager 5 software for meta-analysis, GRADE methods to evaluate the quality of the evidence, and GRADEpro GDT software to develop a 'Summary of findings' table.
We included three randomised controlled trials (351 participants) investigating immediate versus delayed chemotherapy in people diagnosed with asymptomatic, metastatic, incurable colorectal cancer. Giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.46; 3 studies, 351 persons; low-quality evidence). For toxicity, giving immediate versus delayed chemotherapy may make little or no difference to the risk of grade 3 or 4 nausea and vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.25; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), stomatitis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.55; 2 studies, 140 persons; very low-quality evidence), or diarrhoea (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.40; 2 studies, 140 persons, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether delayed chemotherapy made a difference to quality of life (very low-quality evidence), progression-free survival (low-quality evidence), or compliance with chemotherapy (low-quality evidence), as we had insufficient data to pool for these outcomes.
Based on a limited number of trials, very sparse data, and uncertainty of the evidence, this review was unable to establish whether there was a difference in overall survival or other clinically relevant outcomes, between immediate or delayed chemotherapy in persons with metastatic, incurable, colorectal cancer. The results should be interpreted with caution.
PDF
