Christopher G. Willett

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

BACKGROUND Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, the current state of knowledge regarding pathologic prognostic factors (factors linked to outcome) and predictive factors (factors predicting response to therapy) in colorectal carcinoma was evaluated. A multidisciplinary group of clinical (including the disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology), pathologic, and statistical experts in colorectal cancer reviewed all relevant medical literature and stratified the reported prognostic factors into categories that reflected the strength of the published evidence demonstrating their prognostic value. Accordingly, the following categories of prognostic factors were defined. Category I includes factors definitively proven to be of prognostic import based on evidence from multiple statistically robust published trials and generally used in patient management. Category IIA includes factors extensively studied biologically and/or clinically and repeatedly shown to have prognostic value for outcome and/or predictive value for therapy that is of sufficient import to be included in the pathology report but that remains to be validated in statistically robust studies. Category IIB includes factors shown to be promising in multiple studies but lacking sufficient data for inclusion in category I or IIA. Category III includes factors not yet sufficiently studied to determine their prognostic value. Category IV includes factors well studied and shown to have no prognostic significance. MATERIALS AND METHODS The medical literature was critically reviewed, and the analysis revealed specific points of variability in approach that prevented direct comparisons among published studies and compromised the quality of the collective data. Categories of variability recognized included the following: (1) methods of analysis, (2) interpretation of findings, (3) reporting of data, and (4) statistical evaluation. Additional points of variability within these categories were defined from the collective experience of the group. Reasons for the assignment of an individual prognostic factor to category I, II, III, or IV (categories defined by the level of scientific validation) were outlined with reference to the specific types of variability associated with the supportive data. For each factor and category of variability related to that factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) to increase the uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) to enhance the quality of the data needed for definitive evaluation of the prognostic value of individual prognostic factors, and (3) ultimately, to improve patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Factors that were determined to merit inclusion in category I were as follows: the local extent of tumor assessed pathologically (the pT category of the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer [AJCC/UICC]); regional lymph node metastasis (the pN category of the TNM staging system); blood or lymphatic vessel invasion; residual tumor following surgery with curative intent (the R classification of the AJCC/UICC staging system), especially as it relates to positive surgical margins; and preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen elevation (a factor established by laboratory medicine methods rather than anatomic pathology). Factors in category IIA included the following: tumor grade, radial margin status (for resection specimens with nonperitonealized surfaces), and residual tumor in the resection specimen following neoadjuvant therapy (the ypTNM category of the TNM staging system of the AJCC/UICC). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Phase III Trial of Trimodality Therapy With Cisplatin, Fluorouracil, Radiotherapy, and Surgery Compared With Surgery Alone for Esophageal Cancer: CALGB 9781

PURPOSE The primary treatment modality for patients with carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction has been surgery, although primary radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy produces similar results. As both have curative potential, there has been great interest in the use of trimodality therapy. To this end, we compared survival, response, and patterns of failure of trimodality therapy to esophagectomy alone in patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred seventy-five eligible patients were planned for enrollment. Patients were randomly assigned to either esophagectomy with node dissection alone or cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m(2)/d for 4 days on weeks 1 and 5 concurrent with radiation therapy (50.4 Gy total: 1.8 Gy/fraction over 5.6 weeks) followed by esophagectomy with node dissection. RESULTS Fifty-six patients were enrolled between October 1997 and March 2000, when the trial was closed due to poor accrual. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to trimodality therapy and 26 were assigned to surgery alone. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between groups. Treatment was generally well tolerated. Median follow-up was 6 years. An intent-to-treat analysis showed a median survival of 4.48 v 1.79 years in favor of trimodality therapy (exact stratified log-rank, P = .002). Five-year survival was 39% (95% CI, 21% to 57%) v 16% (95% CI, 5% to 33%) in favor of trimodality therapy. CONCLUSION The results from this trial reflect a long-term survival advantage with the use of chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer, and support trimodality therapy as a standard of care for patients with this disease.

Fluorouracil vs Gemcitabine Chemotherapy Before and After Fluorouracil-Based Chemoradiation Following Resection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Among patients with locally advanced metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gemcitabine has been shown to improve outcomes compared with fluorouracil. OBJECTIVE To determine if the addition of gemcitabine to adjuvant fluorouracil chemoradiation (chemotherapy plus radiation) improves survival for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized controlled phase 3 trial of patients with complete gross total resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no prior radiation or chemotherapy enrolled between July 1998 and July 2002 with follow-up through August 18, 2006, at 164 US and Canadian institutions. INTERVENTION Chemotherapy with either fluorouracil (continuous infusion of 250 mg/m2 per day; n = 230) or gemcitabine (30-minute infusion of 1000 mg/m2 once per week; n = 221) for 3 weeks prior to chemoradiation therapy and for 12 weeks after chemoradiation therapy. Chemoradiation with a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (250 mg/m2 per day) was the same for all patients (50.4 Gy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Survival for all patients and survival for patients with pancreatic head tumors were the primary end points. Secondary end points included toxicity. RESULTS A total of 451 patients were randomized, eligible, and analyzable. Patients with pancreatic head tumors (n = 388) had a median survival of 20.5 months and a 3-year survival of 31% in the gemcitabine group vs a median survival of 16.9 months and a 3-year survival of 22% in the fluorouracil group (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.03]; P = .09). The treatment effect was strengthened on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.00]; P = .05). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was 1% in the fluorouracil group and 14% in the gemcitabine group (P < .001) without a difference in febrile neutropenia or infection. There were no differences in the ability to complete chemotherapy or radiation therapy (>85%). CONCLUSIONS The addition of gemcitabine to adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemoradiation was associated with a survival benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer, although this improvement was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003216.

Fluorouracil, Mitomycin, and Radiotherapy vs Fluorouracil, Cisplatin, and Radiotherapy for Carcinoma of the Anal Canal: A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Chemoradiation as definitive therapy is the preferred primary therapy for patients with anal canal carcinoma; however, the 5-year disease-free survival rate from concurrent fluorouracil/mitomycin and radiation is only approximately 65%. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of cisplatin-based (experimental) therapy vs mitomycin-based (standard) therapy in treatment of anal canal carcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS US Gastrointestinal Intergroup trial RTOG 98-11, a multicenter, phase 3, randomized controlled trial comparing treatment with fluorouracil plus mitomycin and radiotherapy vs treatment with fluorouracil plus cisplatin and radiotherapy in 682 patients with anal canal carcinoma enrolled between October 31, 1998, and June 27, 2005. Stratifications included sex, clinical nodal status, and tumor diameter. INTERVENTION Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention groups: (1) the mitomycin-based group (n = 341), who received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1-4 and 29-32) plus mitomycin (10 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29) and radiotherapy (45-59 Gy) or (2) the cisplatin-based group (n = 341), who received fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 on days 1-4, 29-32, 57-60, and 85-88) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on days 1, 29, 57, and 85) and radiotherapy (45-59 Gy; start day = day 57). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival; secondary end points were overall survival and time to relapse. RESULTS A total of 644 patients were assessable. The median follow-up for all patients was 2.51 years. Median age was 55 years, 69% were women, 27% had a tumor diameter greater than 5 cm, and 26% had clinically positive nodes. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53%-67%) in the mitomycin-based group and 54% (95% CI, 46%-60%) in the cisplatin-based group (P = .17). The 5-year overall survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%) in the mitomycin-based group and 70% (95% CI, 63%-76%) in the cisplatin-based group (P = .10). The 5-year local-regional recurrence and distant metastasis rates were 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) and 15% (95% CI, 10%-20%), respectively, for mitomycin-based treatment and 33% (95% CI, 27%-40%) and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), respectively, for cisplatin-based treatment. The cumulative rate of colostomy was significantly better for mitomycin-based than cisplatin-based treatment (10% vs 19%; P = .02). Severe hematologic toxicity was worse with mitomycin-based treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In this population of patients with anal canal carcinoma, cisplatin-based therapy failed to improve disease-free-survival compared with mitomycin-based therapy, but cisplatin-based therapy resulted in a significantly worse colostomy rate. These findings do not support the use of cisplatin in place of mitomycin in combination with fluorouracil and radiotherapy in the treatment of anal canal carcinoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003596.

Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarkers of Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab, Radiation Therapy, and Fluorouracil in Rectal Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Phase II Study

PURPOSE To assess the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab with standard chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer and explore biomarkers for response. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a phase I/II study, 32 patients received four cycles of therapy consisting of: bevacizumab infusion (5 or 10 mg/kg) on day 1 of each cycle; fluorouracil infusion (225 mg/m(2)/24 hours) during cycles 2 to 4; external-beam irradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks); and surgery 7 to 10 weeks after completion of all therapies. We measured molecular, cellular, and physiologic biomarkers before treatment, during bevacizumab monotherapy, and during and after combination therapy. RESULTS Tumors regressed from a mass with mean size of 5 cm (range, 3 to 12 cm) to an ulcer/scar with mean size of 2.4 cm (range, 0.7 to 6.0 cm) in all 32 patients. Histologic examination revealed either no cancer or varying numbers of scattered cancer cells in a bed of fibrosis at the primary site. This treatment resulted in an actuarial 5-year local control and overall survival of 100%. Actuarial 5-year disease-free survival was 75% and five patients developed metastases postsurgery. Bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy showed acceptable toxicity. Bevacizumab decreased tumor interstitial fluid pressure and blood flow. Baseline plasma soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (sVEGFR1), plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), placental-derived growth factor (PlGF), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) during treatment, and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) after treatment showed significant correlations with outcome. CONCLUSION Bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy appears safe and active and yields promising survival results in locally advanced rectal cancer. Plasma VEGF, PlGF, sVEGFR1, and IL-6 and CECs should be further evaluated as candidate biomarkers of response for this regimen.

Biomarkers of response and resistance to antiangiogenic therapy

No validated biological markers (or biomarkers) currently exist for appropriately selecting patients with cancer for antiangiogenic therapy. Nor are there biomarkers identifying escape pathways that should be targeted after tumors develop resistance to a given antiangiogenic agent. A number of potential systemic, circulating, tissue and imaging biomarkers have emerged from recently completed phase I–III studies. Some of these are measured at baseline (for example VEGF polymorphisms), others are measured during treatment (such as hypertension, MRI-measured Ktrans, circulating angiogenic molecules or collagen IV), and all are mechanistically based. Some of these biomarkers might be pharmacodynamic (for example, increase in circulating VEGF, placental growth factor) while others have potential for predicting clinical benefit or identifying the escape pathways (for example, stromal-cell-derived factor 1α, interleukin-6). Most biomarkers are disease and/or agent specific and all of them need to be validated prospectively. We discuss the current challenges in establishing biomarkers of antiangiogenic therapy, define systemic, circulating, tissue and imaging biomarkers and their advantages and disadvantages, and comment on the future opportunities for validating biomarkers of antiangiogenic therapy.

Resection margins in carcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Implications for radiation therapy.

A retrospective review of the pathology and clinical course of 72 patients undergoing resection of carcinoma of the head of the pancreas was undertaken to identify the frequency of tumor involvement at standard surgical transection margins (stomach, duodenum, pancreas, and bile duct) as well as the peripancreatic soft tissue margin and the potential clinical significance of these findings. Of 72 patients undergoing resection, 37 patients (51%) were found to have tumor extension to the surgical margins. The most commonly involved margin was peripancreatic soft tissue (27 patients) followed by pancreatic transection line (14 patients) and bile duct transection line (4 patients). For 37 patients with tumor present at a resection margin, there were no survivors beyond 41 months. No difference in survival or local control was seen between 14 patients receiving postoperative radiation therapy and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) compared with 23 patients not receiving additional treatment. In contrast, the 5-year actuarial survival and local control of 35 patients undergoing resection without tumor invasion to a resection margin was 22% and 43%, respectively. The 5-year survival and local control of 16 patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy and 5-FU was 29% and 42%, respectively, whereas these figures were 18% and 31% for 19 patients not receiving adjuvant therapy (p > 0.10). Because residual local tumor after resection is common, preoperative radiation therapy may be beneficial in this disease. It should minimize the risk of dissemination during operative manipulation and facilitate a curative resection by promoting tumor regression. Because local failure rates approach 60% after resection and adjuvant therapy even in cases having clear resection margins, intraoperative radiation therapy to the tumor bed at the time of resection also might be considered. Protocols evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of preoperative radiation therapy and resection with intraoperative radiation therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer are underway.

Impact of T and N stage and treatment on survival and relapse in adjuvant rectal cancer: a pooled analysis.

PURPOSE To determine survival and relapse rates by T and N stage and treatment method in five randomized phase III North American rectal adjuvant studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were pooled from 3,791 eligible patients enrolled onto North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 79-47-51, NCCTG 86-47-51, US Gastrointestinal Intergroup 0114, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R01, and NSABP R02. Surgery alone (S) was the treatment arm in 179 patients. The remaining patients received adjuvant treatment as follows: irradiation (RT) alone (n = 281), RT + fluorouracil (FU) +/- semustine bolus chemotherapy (CT; n = 779), RT + protracted venous infusion CT (n = 325), RT + FU +/- leucovorin or levamisole bolus CT (n = 1,695), or CT alone (n = 532). Five-year follow-up was available in 94% of surviving patients, and 8-year follow-up, in 62%. RESULTS Overall (OS) and disease-free survival were dependent on TN stage, NT stage, and treatment method. Even among N2 patients, T substage influenced 5-year OS (T1-2, 67%; T3, 44%; T4, 37%; P <.001). Three risk groups of patients were defined: (1) intermediate (T1-2/N1, T3/N0), (2) moderately high (T1-2/N2, T3/N1, T4/N0), and (3) high (T3/N2, T4/N1, T4/N2). For intermediate-risk patients, those receiving S plus CT had 5-year OS rates of 85% (T1-2/N1) and 84% (T3/N0), which was similar to results with S plus RT plus CT (T1-2/N1, 78% to 83%; T3/N0, 74% to 80%). For moderately high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 43% to 70% with S plus CT, and 44% to 80% with S plus RT plus CT. For high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 25% to 45% with S plus CT, and 29% to 57% with S plus RT plus CT. CONCLUSION Different treatment strategies may be indicated for intermediate-risk versus moderately high- or high-risk patients based on differential survival rates and rates of relapse. Use of trimodality treatment for all patients with intermediate-risk lesions may be excessive, since S plus CT resulted in 5-year OS of approximately 85%; however, 5-year disease-free survival rates with S plus CT were 78% (T1-2/N1) and 69%(T3/N0), indicating room for improvement.

Long-Term Results of RTOG Trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): A Random Assignment Trial Comparison of Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery Compared With Surgery Alone for Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE We update Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113), a comparison of chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with localized esophageal cancer. The relationship between resection type and between tumor response and outcome were also analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS The chemotherapy group received preoperative cisplatin plus fluorouracil. Outcome based on the type of resection (R0, R1, R2, or no resection) was evaluated. The main end point was overall survival. Disease-free survival, relapse pattern, the influence of postoperative treatment, and the relationship between response to preoperative chemotherapy and outcome were also evaluated. RESULTS Two hundred sixteen patients received preoperative chemotherapy, 227 underwent immediate surgery. Fifty-nine percent of surgery only and 63% of chemotherapy plus surgery patients underwent R0 resections (P = .5137). Patients undergoing less than an R0 resection had an ominous prognosis; 32% of patients with R0 resections were alive and free of disease at 5 years, only 5% of patients undergoing an R1 resection survived for longer than 5 years. The median survival rates for patients with R1, R2, or no resections were not significantly different. While, as initially reported, there was no difference in overall survival for patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy compared with the surgery only group, patients with objective tumor regression after preoperative chemotherapy had improved survival. CONCLUSION For patients with localized esophageal cancer, whether or not preoperative chemotherapy is administered, only an R0 resection results in substantial long-term survival. Even microscopically positive margins are an ominous prognostic factor. After a R1 resection, postoperative chemoradiotherapy therapy offers the possibility of long-term disease-free survival to a small percentage of patients.