Rob Glynne-Jones

Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term analysis of 566 ypCR patients.

PURPOSE In the literature, a favorable prognosis was observed for complete pathologic response after preoperative therapy (ypCR) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study is to verify whether ypCR predicts a favorable outcome in a large series of patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Gastro-Intestinal Working Group of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology collected clinical data for 566 patients with ypCR (ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant therapy. Eligibility criteria included locally advanced rectal cancer with no evidence of metastases at the time of diagnosis, evidence of ypCR after preoperative radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy (CT). RESULTS Median radiation dose was 50 Gy. A total of 527 patients (93%) received one of 12 different neoadjuvant CT schedules. Sphincter preservation, anteroposterior resection, and endoscopic surgery were performed in 73%, 22%, and 5% of patients, respectively. Adjuvant CT was administered to 22% of patients. Median follow-up was 46.4 months. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 7 patients (1.6%). Distant metastases occurred in 49 patients (8.9%). Overall, 5-year rates of disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival were 85%, 90%, and 94%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, only age and clinical stage statistically correlated with survival outcome. Adjuvant CT was still of borderline significance (worse for adjuvant CT). No relation was found between survival and neoadjuvant CT schedules. CONCLUSION A ypCR after neoadjuvant therapy identified a favorable group of patients, even in this large series of 566 patients collected in 61 centers. Locoregional recurrence occurred only in 1.6% patients.

Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil; Docetaxel and Cisplatin; and Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil As Systemic Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE This randomized phase II trial evaluated two docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to overall response rate (ORR) for comparison in a phase III trial with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil (ECF) as first-line advanced gastric cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric carcinoma, a performance status <or= 1, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function randomly received <or= eight 3-weekly cycles of ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil [FU] 200 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 21), TC (docetaxel initially 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 [later reduced to 75 mg/m(2) as a result of toxicity] and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1), or TCF (TC plus FU 300 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 14). Study objectives included response (primary), survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 13% to 41%) for ECF, 18.5% (95% CI, 9% to 34%) for TC, and 36.6% (95% CI, 23% to 53%) for TCF (n = 119). Median overall survival times were 8.3, 11.0, and 10.4 months for ECF, TC, and TCF, respectively. Toxicity was acceptable, with one toxic death (TC arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in more treatment cycles with docetaxel (TC, 49%; TCF, 57%; ECF, 34%). Global health status/QOL substantially improved with ECF and remained similar to baseline with both docetaxel regimens. CONCLUSION Time to response and ORR favor TCF over TC for further evaluation, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting. A trend towards increased myelosuppression and infectious complications with TCF versus TC or ECF was observed.

Critical appraisal of the ‘wait and see’ approach in rectal cancer for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation

Some 10–20 per cent of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) at surgery following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT). Some demonstrate a sustained clinical complete response (cCR), defined as absence of clinically detectable residual tumour after CRT, and do not undergo resection. The aim of this review was to evaluate non‐operative treatment of rectal cancer after CRT, and the outcome of patients observed without radical surgery.

Adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery for patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND The role of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data to compare adjuvant chemotherapy with observation for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, and conference abstracts to identify European randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials comparing observation with adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery for patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. The primary endpoint of interest was overall survival. FINDINGS We analysed data from four eligible trials, including data from 1196 patients with (y)pTNM stage II or III disease, who had an R0 resection, had a low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection, and had a tumour located within 15 cm of the anal verge. We found no significant differences in overall survival between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.17; p=0.775); there were no significant differences in overall survival in subgroup analyses. Overall, adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve disease-free survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.07; p=0.230) or distant recurrences (0.94, 0.78-1.14; p=0.523) compared with observation. However, in subgroup analyses, patients with a tumour 10-15 cm from the anal verge had improved disease-free survival (0.59, 0.40-0.85; p=0.005, p(interaction)=0.107) and fewer distant recurrences (0.61, 0.40-0.94; p=0.025, p(interaction)=0.126) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with patients undergoing observation. INTERPRETATION Overall, adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy did not improve overall survival, disease-free survival, or distant recurrences. However, adjuvant chemotherapy might benefit patients with a tumour 10-15 cm from the anal verge in terms of disease-free survival and distant recurrence. Further studies of preoperative and postoperative treatment for this subgroup of patients are warranted. FUNDING None.

Chemoradiation for the treatment of epidermoid anal cancer: 13-year follow-up of the first randomised UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I)

Background:The first UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (1996) demonstrated the benefit of chemoradiation over radiotherapy (RT) alone for treating epidermoid anal cancer, and it became the standard treatment. Patients in this trial have now been followed up for a median of 13 years.Methods:A total of 577 patients were randomised to receive RT alone or combined modality therapy using 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C. All patients were scheduled to receive 45 Gy by external beam irradiation. Patients who responded to treatment were recommended to have boost RT, with either an iridium implant or external beam irradiation. Data on relapse and deaths were obtained until October 2007.Results:Twelve years after treatment, for every 100 patients treated with chemoradiation, there are an expected 25.3 fewer patients with locoregional relapse (95% confidence interval (CI): 17.5–32.0 fewer) and 12.5 fewer anal cancer deaths (95% CI: 4.3–19.7 fewer), compared with 100 patients given RT alone. There was a 9.1% increase in non-anal cancer deaths in the first 5 years of chemoradiation (95% CI +3.6 to +14.6), which disappeared by 10 years.Conclusions:The clear benefit of chemoradiation outweighs an early excess risk of non-anal cancer deaths, and can still be seen 12 years after treatment. Only 11 patients suffered a locoregional relapse as a first event after 5 years, which may influence the choice of end points in future studies.

Does adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy provide a benefit for patients with resected rectal cancer who have already received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy? A systematic review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND The results of the recently published large European randomised study in rectal cancer (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 22921 trial) do not support current guidelines recommending postoperative chemotherapy for patients who have previously undergone preoperative radiochemotherapy or radiotherapy [radio(chemo)therapy]. To evaluate this discrepancy further, a systematic review of relevant randomised trials was undertaken. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature search was carried out in order to identify randomised studies exploring adjuvant chemotherapy against observation in patients with rectal cancer previously treated with preoperative radio(chemo)therapy. RESULTS A statistically significant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was not found in any of the four relevant randomised trials. Non-protocolised subgroup analysis of one study indicated a beneficial effect of adjuvant chemotherapy for high rectal tumours and for patients downstaged to ypT0-2N0 but no effect for low-lying rectal tumours. However, the body of evidence indicates that patients downstaged after radio(chemo)therapy to ypT0-2N0 disease are not candidates for testing adjuvant chemotherapy in future trials due to the considerable over-treatment anticipated by this manoeuvre. CONCLUSIONS To resolve the issue in question, a meta-analysis of relevant studies is required, and new trials should be launched to explore new drug combinations against observation. Currently, delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients undergoing preoperative radio(chemo)therapy is not evidence based.

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. ESGE guidelines represent a consensus of best practice based on the available evidence at the time of preparation. They may not apply in all situations and should be interpreted in the light of specific clinical situations and resource availability. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of these statements, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations. ESGE guidelines are intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. They are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment

Complete Clinical Response After Preoperative Chemoradiation in Rectal Cancer: Is a “Wait and See” Policy Justified?

PurposeA proportion of patients, who receive preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced (T3, T4, NX) rectal cancer achieve a complete clinical response and a pathologic complete response in the region of 15 to 30 percent. Support is growing in the United Kingdom for the concept of “waiting to see” and not proceeding to radical surgery when a complete clinical response is observed. The purpose of this review was to use a literature search to assess how often complete clinical response is achieved after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the concordance of this finding with pathologic complete response, and to determine whether it is feasible to observe patients who achieve complete clinical response rather than proceed to surgery.ResultsIn total, 218 Phase I/II or retrospective studies and 28 Phase III trials of preoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiation were identified: 96 percent of trials documented the pathologic complete response, but only 38 trials presented data on the achievement of a complete clinical response/partial clinical response. Only five studies were found in which patients with clinically staged T2/T3 tumors were treated with radiotherapy/chemoradiation and did not routinely proceed to surgery and also reported on the long-term outcome of a “wait and see” policy.DiscussionIt remains uncertain whether the degree of response to chemoradiation in terms of complete clinical response or pathologic complete response is a useful clinical end point. Studies that include T3 rectal cancer are associated with high local recurrence rates after nonsurgical treatment. Few studies report long-term outcome after achievement of a complete clinical response.ConclusionsThe end point of complete clinical response is inconsistently defined and seems insufficiently robust with only partial concordance with pathologic complete response. The rationale of a “wait and see” policy when complete clinical response status is achieved relies on retrospective observations, which are currently insufficient to support this policy except in patients who are recognized to be unfit for or refuse radical surgery.

Rectal Carcinoma: MRI with Histologic Correlation Before and After Chemoradiation Therapy

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to use MRI to compare the morphologic features of rectal cancer before and 6 weeks after chemotherapy and radiation treatment to correlate the posttreatment MRI appearances with the histologic findings in resected tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS High-resolution T2-weighted MRI was performed before and immediately after a standardized 5-week course of chemoradiation therapy in the care of 30 patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Changes in morphologic features were evaluated with respect to primary tumor and nodal downstaging. The MRI findings after chemoradiation therapy were compared with the histologic findings in the resected specimens with respect to prediction of tumor stage and showing the relation between the tumor and the circumferential margin of resection. RESULTS Tumor shrinkage > 30% was found in 19 (63%; 95% CI, 46-81%) of 30 patients, but changes in MRI T stage occurred in only five (17%; 95% CI, 3-30%) of 30 patients. Tumor regression from the circumferential resection margin was found in five patients, all findings confirmed at histologic examination. Nodal downstaging was observed in 13 (68%; 95% CI, 48-89%) of 19 patients; 11 patients were node free on the basis of both MRI findings and subsequent histologic results. Overall prediction of distance between tumor and circumferential resection margin was good, with a mean difference of -0.2 mm and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.74. MRI was not useful for gauging disease activity of persistent abnormalities in mucinous tumors that often represented inactive mucin lakes. CONCLUSION Decreases in tumor size and nodal downstaging can be seen on MRI after chemoradiation therapy in approximately two thirds of patients. The surgically more relevant parameter--distance between tumor and circumferential resection margin--can be accurately predicted. Errors were caused by the presence of considerable tumor, rectal wall fibrosis, and mucinous tumors.

Chronicle: results of a randomised phase III trial in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation randomising postoperative adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus control

BACKGROUND In stage III colon cancer, oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In rectal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT), we examined the benefit of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned following fluoropyrimidine-based CRT and curative resection to observation or six cycles of XELOX. The primary end point was DFS; secondary end points were acute toxicity and OS. 390 patients were required in each arm, to detect an improvement in 3-year DFS from 40% to 50.5%, with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS The study closed prematurely in 2008 because of poor accrual. Only 113 patients were randomly assigned to either observation (n = 59) or XELOX (n = 54). Compliance was poor, 93% allocated chemotherapy started and 48% completed six cycles. Protocolised dose reductions in XELOX were 39%, and levels of G3/G4 toxicity 40%. After a median follow-up of 44.8 months, 16 patients (27%) in the observation arm had relapsed or died compared with 12 patients (22%) in XELOX. The 3-year DFS rate was 78% with XELOX and 71% with observation [hazard ratio (HR) for DFS = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-1.69; P = 0.56]. The 3-year OS for XELOX and observation were 89% and 88%, respectively (HR for OS = 1.18; 95% CI 0.43-3.26; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS The observed improvement in DFS for adjuvant XELOX and similar OS were not statistically significant, as expected given the small number of patients and consequent low power. Our findings support the need for trials that test the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER NCT00427713.BACKGROUND In stage III colon cancer, oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In rectal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT), we examined the benefit of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned following fluoropyrimidine-based CRT and curative resection to observation or six cycles of XELOX. The primary end point was DFS; secondary end points were acute toxicity and OS. 390 patients were required in each arm, to detect an improvement in 3-year DFS from 40% to 50.5%, with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS The study closed prematurely in 2008 because of poor accrual. Only 113 patients were randomly assigned to either observation (n = 59) or XELOX (n = 54). Compliance was poor, 93% allocated chemotherapy started and 48% completed six cycles. Protocolised dose reductions in XELOX were 39%, and levels of G3/G4 toxicity 40%. After a median follow-up of 44.8 months, 16 patients (27%) in the observation arm had relapsed or died compared with 12 patients (22%) in XELOX. The 3-year DFS rate was 78% with XELOX and 71% with observation [hazard ratio (HR) for DFS = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-1.69; P = 0.56]. The 3-year OS for XELOX and observation were 89% and 88%, respectively (HR for OS = 1.18; 95% CI 0.43-3.26; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS The observed improvement in DFS for adjuvant XELOX and similar OS were not statistically significant, as expected given the small number of patients and consequent low power. Our findings support the need for trials that test the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT00427713.