Interval between surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: does delayed surgery have an impact on outcome?

Overview of radiation therapy for treating rectal cancer

A major outcome of importance for rectal cancer is local control. Parallel to improvements in surgical technique, adjuvant therapy regimens have been tested in clinical trials in an effort to reduce the local recurrence rate. Nowadays, the local recurrence rate has been reduced because of both good surgical techniques and the addition of radiotherapy. Based on recent reports in the literature, preoperative chemoradiotherapy is now considered the standard of care for patients with stages II and III rectal cancer. Also, short-course radiotherapy appears to provide effective local control and the same overall survival as more long-course chemoradiotherapy schedules and, therefore, may be an appropriate choice in some situations. Capecitabine is an acceptable alternative to infusion fluorouracil in those patients who are able to manage the responsibilities inherent in self-administered, oral chemotherapy. However, concurrent administration of oxaliplatin and radiotherapy is not recommended at this time. Radiation therapy has long been considered an important adjunct in the treatment of rectal cancer. Although no prospective data exist for several issues, we hope that in the near future, patients with rectal cancer can be treated by using the best combination of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy in near future.

Impact of interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer on surgical and oncologic outcome

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a longer interval between long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery on surgical and oncologic outcome.

METHODS

A total of 233 consecutive patients with clinical stage II and III rectal cancer were divided into 2 groups according to the neoadjuvant-surgery interval: short-interval group (≤ 7 weeks, n = 111), and long-interval group (>7 weeks, n = 122). Data on neoadjuvant-surgery interval, operative time, perioperative complications, final pathology, disease recurrence, and mortality were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Operative time and perioperative complications were not influenced by a longer interval. Patients in the long-interval group had a significantly higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate (27.1% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.029), and a decreased rate of circumferential resection margin involvement (1.6% vs. 8.1%, P = 0.020). After a median follow-up of 42 months (range 6-90 months), the 3-year local recurrence rate was 12.9% in the short-interval group versus 4.8% in the long-interval group (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

A neoadjuvant-surgery interval >7 weeks is safe and is associated with a higher rate of pCR and R0 resection, and decreased local recurrence.

Interval to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer

The current standard treatment of low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer consists of chemoradiation followed by radical surgery. The interval between chemoradiation and surgery varied for many years until the 1999 Lyon R90-01 trial which compared the effects of a short (2-wk) and long (6-wk) interval. Results showed a better clinical tumor response (71.7% vs 53.1%) and higher rate of positive and pathologic tumor regression (26% vs 10.3%) after the longer interval. Accordingly, a 6-wk interval between chemoradiation and surgery was set to balance the oncological results with the surgical complexity. However, several recent retrospective studies reported that prolonging the interval beyond 8 or even 12 wk may lead to significantly higher rates of tumor downstaging and pathologic complete response. This in turn, according to some reports, may improve overall and disease-free survival, without increasing the surgical difficulty or complications. This work reviews the data on the effect of different intervals, derived mostly from retrospective analyses using a wide variation of treatment protocols. Prospective randomized trials are currently ongoing.

Future directions in surgery for colorectal cancer: the evolving role of transanal endoscopic surgery

SUMMARY 

The morbidity associated with radical surgery for rectal cancer has launched a revolution in increasingly less-invasive methods of resection, including a recent resurgence in transanal endoscopic surgical approaches. The next evolution in transanal surgery for rectal cancer is natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). To date, 14 series of transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer have been published (n = 76). Overall, the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 8 and 28%, respectively, compare favorably to those expected from laparoscopic and open TME. Short-term follow-up after NOTES TME has yielded no cancer recurrence in average-risk patients. High-risk patients have cancer recurrence rates similar to those after laparoscopic TME. Overall, these early data support transanal NOTES TME as a safe and viable alternative to conventional TME. Advances in instrumentation, surgical expertise and neoadjuvant treatment may expand current indications for NOTES even further.

Evolving role of neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Management of locally advanced rectal cancer is complex because curative treatment routinely involves administration of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Optimal treatment delivery sequencing and timing are challenging, and moreover, there is considerable heterogeneity in risk based on rectal tumor location, extent, and nodal involvement. The goal in rectal cancer treatment is to optimize disease-free and overall survival while minimizing the risk of local recurrence and toxicity from both radiation and systemic therapy. Currently, the standard approach to management of locally advanced (T3 or T2) rectal cancer involves careful staging with a pelvic MRI and proctoscopic evaluation by a surgeon experienced in total mesorectal excision. MRI can help to distinguish between patients in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories. Low-risk tumors have no evidence of either extramural spread or nodal involvement and proximal location in the rectum. For such patients, R0 resection is almost always possible and immediate surgery often is reasonable. In the minority of cases where unanticipated lymph node involvement is detected at surgical pathology, postoperative radiation can be administered. Patients who opt for up-front rectal surgery need to understand that although there is a chance that radiation can be avoided, if it is necessary, it is less well tolerated when administered postoperatively. Initial surgical treatment should be reserved for low-risk patients for whom imaging indicates and multidisciplinary team members feel is able to undergo an R0 resection with low chance for regional spread of disease. For patients with high-risk disease based on distal tumor location requiring an APR, threatened radial margins, or T4 tumors, preoperative chemoradiation is essential. Indeed, this approach increases the likelihood of complete surgical resection with negative margins. For some high-risk patients, for example those with T4 or bulky nodal disease, preoperative systemic therapy followed by preoperative chemoradiation and then surgery may be optimal. The feasibility of this approach is well established based on nonrandomized trials, but it has not been evaluated in a randomized study. Preoperative administration of systemic therapy can achieve clinical downstaging, optimize rates of sphincter preservation, and establish tumor responsiveness, which may be valuable for incorporation into future treatment decisions. For patients with intermediate-risk T3 rectal cancers, for example, a cT3N1 tumor 7 cm from the anal verge with two to three regional lymph nodes in the 7-mm range, we encourage participation in the PROSPECT randomized trial, which is now open and accruing at numerous centers in North America, and shortly in Europe and South America as well. This study will determine in the era of optimal imaging, surgical technique, and better systemic chemotherapy, whether pelvic radiation remains an essential component of curative treatment. The PROSPECT study uses chemoradiation selectively rather than automatically and customizes subsequent treatment based on response to neoadjuvant FOLFOX. Clinical trials with interventions that tailor treatment to more precisely defined clinical subgroups based on both initial features and tumor responsiveness are expected to become the norm. Although this trend is likely to make clinical trial design more complex, customized treatment strategies are likely to achieve the optimal balance between under- and overtreatment and will address the heterogeneity of both tumor biology and disease presentation. For now, treatment for a patient with clinical T3N1 tumor in the mid rectum consists of the following components: ·Neoadjvuant chemoradiation with either 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine as sensitizing therapy. ·Low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Typically a temporary diverting ostomy is required. ·Postoperative administration of adjuvant systemic therapy, 8 cycles of FOLFOX is appropriate, although oxaliplatin should be omitted for early signs of peripheral neuropathy or on the basis of age/comorbidity. Although this is the current care standard, there is concern that such extensive treatment is not necessary for all patients to prevent local recurrence and to optimize cure. To determine if therapy can be streamlined, participation in PROSPECT or other clinical trials asking compelling clinical questions is a priority.

Paradigm-shifting new evidence for treatment of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of rectal cancer has dramatically evolved during the last three decades shifting toward a tailored approach based on preoperative staging and response to neoadjuvant combined modality therapy (CMT).

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed/Medline electronic databases.

RESULTS

Selected patients with T1 N0 rectal cancer are best treated with local excision by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Satisfactory results have been reported after CMT and TEM for the treatment of highly selected T2 N0 rectal cancers. CMT followed by rectal resection and total mesorectal excision is considered the standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. However, a subset of stage II and III patients may not require neoadjuvant radiation treatment. Finally, there are mounting data supporting a "watch and wait" approach or local excision in patients with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant CMT.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows that selected T1 N0 rectal cancers can be managed by TEM alone, while locally advanced cancers should be treated by CMT followed by radical surgery. Studies are underway to identify patients that do not benefit from neoadjuvant radiation therapy. A non-operative approach in case of complete clinical response must be validated by large prospective studies.

T4 rectal cancer: do we always need an exenteration?

The management of rectal cancer has changed dramatically over the last few decades. Due to improvements in the multimodality treatment and the introduction of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, previously irresectable tumours can nowadays be cured by extensive multivisceral resections. These highly complex operations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to optimization of chemoradiotherapy, the introduction of IORT, increasing knowledge of tumour pathology and patterns of recurrence the need for extensive surgery diminishes. The question arises which patients with T4 rectal cancer really need extensive surgery and who can safely be considered for an organ preserving approach.

Long-term survival without surgery following a complete response to pre-operative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: A case series

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer yields a complete tumor response in 10-30% of patients. There is an argument for omitting surgery in these patients, but this remains highly controversial and the supporting evidence based on long-term follow-up is lacking. The present study analyzed the long-term outcomes of five patients with cT3 or cT4 rectal cancer who showed a clinical complete response (ycCR) following pre-operative CRT and underwent no surgery. The ycCR status was determined 7-12 weeks after the completion of CRT using clinical, endoscopic and radiological studies, including magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. The follow-up period was 54-101 months. Three patients had no tumor recurrence and were alive with no evidence of disease at 101, 100 and 93 months, respectively. One patient developed local recurrence at 59 months and another developed lung metastasis at 32 months. The two patients with tumor recurrence remained disease-free 42 and 22 months after salvage pelvic and thoracic surgery, respectively. Despite being a small series, the long-term survival outcomes of the present study indicate that a non-operative approach may be feasible for a proportion of rectal cancer patients who reveal a ycCR following pre-operative CRT.

MRI predictive factors for tumor response in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy--implications for induction chemotherapy?

PURPOSE

Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics at baseline and following chemoradiation therapy (CRT) most strongly associated with histopathologic response were investigated and survival outcomes evaluated in accordance with imaging and pathological response.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Responders were defined as mrT3c/d-4 downstaged to ypT0-2 on pathology or low at risk mrT2 downstaged to ypT1 or T0. Multivariate logistic regression of baseline and posttreatment MRI: T, N, extramural venous invasion (EMVI), circumferential resection margin, craniocaudal length <5 cm, and MRI tumor height ≤5 cm were used to identify independent predictor(s) for response. An association between induction chemotherapy and EMVI status was analyzed. Survival outcomes for pathologic and MRI responders and nonresponders were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-one patients were eligible; 114 (41%) patients were pathology responders. Baseline MRI negative EMVI (odds ratio 2.94, P=.007), tumor height ≤5 cm (OR 1.96, P=.02), and mrEMVI status change (positive to negative) following CRT (OR 3.09, P<.001) were the only predictors for response. There was a strong association detected between induction chemotherapy and ymrEMVI status change after CRT (OR 9.0, P<.003). ymrT0-2 gave a positive predictive value of 80% and OR of 9.1 for ypT0-2. ymrN stage accuracy of ypN stage was 75%. Three-year disease-free survival for pathology and MRI responders were similar at 80% and 79% and significantly better than poor responders.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor height and mrEMVI status are more important than baseline size and stage of the tumor as predictors of response to CRT. Both MRI- and pathologic-defined responders have significantly improved survival. "Good response" to CRT in locally advanced rectal cancer with ypT0-2 carries significantly better 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival. Use of induction chemotherapy for improving mrEMVI status and knowledge of MRI predictive factors could be taken into account in the pursuit of individualized neoadjuvant treatments for patients with rectal cancer.

Performance of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for staging rectal cancer nodes: can the initial promising results be reproduced?

OBJECTIVES

A previous study showed promising results for gadofosveset-trisodium as a lymph node magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to prospectively confirm the diagnostic performance of gadofosveset MRI for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer in a second patient cohort.

METHODS

Seventy-one rectal cancer patients were prospectively included, of whom 13 (group I) underwent a primary staging gadofosveset MRI (1.5-T) followed by surgery (± preoperative 5 × 5 Gy) and 58 (group II) underwent both primary staging and restaging gadofosveset MRI after a long course of chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Nodal status was scored as (y)cN0 or (y)cN+ by two independent readers (R1, R2) with different experience levels. Results were correlated with histology on a node-by-node basis.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were 94%, 79% and 0.89 for the more experienced R1 and 50%, 83% and 0.74 for the non-experienced R2. R2's performance improved considerably after a learning curve, to an AUC of 0.83. Misinterpretations mainly occurred in nodes located in the superior mesorectum, nodes located in between vessels and nodes containing micrometastases.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study confirms the good diagnostic performance of gadofosveset MRI for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer.

KEY POINTS

• Gadofosveset-enhanced MRI shows high performance for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer. • Gadofosveset MRI may facilitate better selection of patients for personalised treatment. • Results can be reproduced by non-expert readers. • Experience of 50-60 cases is required to achieve required expertise level. • Main pitfalls are nodes located between vessels and nodes containing micrometastases.

Future directions in combined modality therapy for rectal cancer: reevaluating the role of total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy

Most patients who develop rectal cancer present with locoregionally advanced (T3 or node-positive) disease. The standard management of locoregionally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), followed by radical resection (low-anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection with total mesorectal excision). Approximately 15% of patients can have a pathologic complete response (pCR) at the time of surgery, indicating that some patients can have no detectable residual disease after nCRT. The actual benefit of surgery in this group of patients is unclear. It is possible that omission of surgery in these patients, termed selective nonoperative management, can limit the toxicities associated with standard, multimodal combined modality therapy without compromising disease control. In this review, we discuss the clinical experiences to date using selective nonoperative management and various attempts at escalation of nCRT to improve the number of patients who have a pCR. We also explore several clinical, laboratory, imaging, histopathologic, and genetic biomarkers that have been tested as tools to predict which patients are most likely to have a pCR after nCRT.

Non-operative management for locally advanced rectal cancer: critical review and future perspective

SUMMARY Over the last few decades we have observed important advances in diagnostic imaging, surgery, pathology and multimodal treatments for rectal cancer, as well as increased efforts to reduce treatment-related toxicities and preserve quality of life for curatively treated patients. Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision remain widely accepted as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, a carefully selected group of patients achieving a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be spared the effects of surgery and achieve satisfactory oncologic outcomes with a ‘wait-and-see’ strategy. Although supported by the results of previous studies, this intriguing paradigm shift needs prospective evaluation within a clinical trial setting and a more accurate prediction and assessment of response by means of tumor biomarkers and diagnostic imaging.

Less than 12 nodes in the surgical specimen after total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: it means more than you think!

BACKGROUND

A minimum of 12 examined lymph nodes (LN) is recommended to ensure adequate staging and oncologic resection of patients undergoing proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma. However, a decreased number of LN is not unusual in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that a decreased number of LN in the proctectomy specimen of these patients may be an indicator of tumor response and be associated with improved prognosis.

METHODS

A single-center colorectal cancer database was queried for c-stage II-III rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by proctectomy between 1997 and 2007. Patients were categorized into two groups according to the number of LN retrieved from the proctectomy specimen: <12 LN versus ≥12 LN. Groups were compared with respect to demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and the following oncologic outcomes: overall-survival (OS), cancer-specific-mortality (CSM), cancer-free-survival (CFS), distant (DR), and local recurrences (LR).

RESULTS

The query returned 237 patients. There were 173 (73 %) males, and the median age was 57 years [interquartile range (IQR) 49-66 years]. The median number of LN retrieved was 15 (IQR 10-23) and 70 (30 %) patients had less than 12 nodes examined. The <12 nodes group was older [60 (IQR 51-71 years) vs. 55 (IQR 48-65 years), p = 0.009] and had more pathologic complete responders (36 vs. 19 %, p = 0.01). No <12 nodes patient experienced a LR, whereas the 5-year LR rate was 11 % in the ≥12 nodes group (p = 0.004). Other oncologic outcomes were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrieval of less than 12 nodes in the proctectomy specimen of rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation does not affect OS, CSM, CFS, or DR and may be a marker of higher tumor response and, consequently, decreased LR rate.

Optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The optimal time between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery for rectal cancer has been debated. This study evaluated the influence of this interval on oncological outcomes.

METHODS

We compared postoperative complications, pathological downstaging, disease recurrence, and survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection <8 weeks (group A, n = 105) to those who had surgery ≥8 weeks (group B, n = 48) after neoadjuvant CRT.

RESULTS

Of 153 patients, 117 (76.5%) were male and 36 (23.5%) were female. Mean age was 57.8 years (range, 28 to 79 years). There was no difference in the rate of sphincter preserving surgery between the two groups (group A, 82.7% vs. group B, 77.6%; P = 0.509). The longer interval group had decreased postoperative complications, although statistical significance was not reached (group A, 28.8% vs. group B, 14.3%; P = 0.068). A total of 111 (group A, 75 [71.4%] and group B, 36 [75%]) patients were downstaged and 26 (group A, 17 [16.2%] and group B, 9 [18%]) achieved pathological complete response (pCR). There was no significant difference in the pCR rate (P = 0.817). The longer interval group experienced significant improvement in the nodal (N) downstaging rate (group A, 46.7% vs. group B, 66.7%; P = 0.024). The local recurrence (P = 0.279), distant recurrence (P = 0.427), disease-free survival (P = 0.967), and overall survival (P = 0.825) rates were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

It is worth delaying surgical resection for 8 weeks or more after completion of CRT as it is safe and is associated with higher nodal downstaging rates.

Modern rectal cancer multidisciplinary treatment: the role of radiation and surgery

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of rectal cancer has evolved during the last few decades due to more in-depth knowledge of rectal cancer biology and major advances in the field of preoperative staging, medical management and surgical techniques. Consequently, treatment strategies are shifting moving towards a more personalized approach based on the response to treatment. Currently topics of controversy are centered around the indication for neoadjuvant radiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer and the role of surgery in patients with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant combined modality therapy. This manuscript aims to critically evaluate the evolution of treatment of rectal cancer during the last three decades and future directions.

METHODS

A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases.

RESULTS

Treatment modalities are moving towards a tailored approach to rectal cancer patients based on the response to chemoradiation. A "wait-and-see" approach and local excision by Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) are strategies recently proposed in case of complete clinical response.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of care still requires that locally advanced rectal cancer should be treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by total mesorectal excision, including patients with a clinical complete response. Further evidence is needed to endorse a "wait-and-see" strategy and to define the role of TEM.

Treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: Controversies and questions

Rectal cancers extending through the rectal wall, or involving locoregional lymph nodes (T3/4 or N1/2), have been more difficult to cure. The confines of the bony pelvis and the necessity of preserving the autonomic nerves makes surgical extirpation challenging, which accounts for the high rates of local and distant relapse in this setting. Combined multimodality treatment for rectal cancer stage II and III was recommended from National Institute of Health consensus. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation using fluoropyrimidine-based regimen prior to surgical resection has emerged as the standard of care in the United States. Optimal time of surgery after neoadjuvant treatment remained unclear and prospective randomized controlled trial is ongoing. Traditionally, 6-8 wk waiting period was commonly used. The accuracy of studies attempting to determine tumor complete response remains problematic. Currently, surgery remains the standard of care for rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas observational management is still investigational. In this article, we outline trends and controversies associated with optimal pre-treatment staging, neoadjuvant therapies, surgery, and adjuvant therapy.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by interstitial prostate brachytherapy for synchronous prostate and rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To describe outcomes with the use of neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation followed by prostate interstitial brachytherapy for the treatment of synchronous prostate and rectal cancers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An Internal Review Board approved retrospective review was undertaken of 4 patients with synchronous prostate and rectal cancer treated between 2006 and 2008. Patients underwent pelvic chemoradiation followed by prostate brachytherapy, then low anterior resection of the rectum with diverting loop ileostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Follow-up evaluation included imaging and laboratory analysis of cancer markers in addition to routine interval history and physical examination.

RESULTS

At 38-62 months postdiagnosis (24-53 months post-treatment), 6 of 8 cancers remained without evidence of relapse. One patient had rising carcinoembryonic antigen levels but no clinically evident rectal cancer relapse; another developed bony metastasis of his high-risk prostate cancer. Three patients experienced grade 1-2 treatment-related toxicity; one patient had grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity from radiation and surgery, which precluded his receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and ileostomy reversal.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemoradiation followed by prostate brachytherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy may be utilized to manage patients with synchronous prostate and rectal cancers.

ACR appropriateness criteria® resectable rectal cancer

The management of resectable rectal cancer continues to be guided by clinical trials and advances in technique. Although surgical advances including total mesorectal excision continue to decrease rates of local recurrence, the management of locally advanced disease (T3-T4 or N+) benefits from a multimodality approach including neoadjuvant concomitant chemotherapy and radiation. Circumferential resection margin, which can be determined preoperatively via MRI, is prognostic. Toxicity associated with radiation therapy is decreased by placing the patient in the prone position on a belly board, however for patients who cannot tolerate prone positioning, IMRT decreases the volume of normal tissue irradiated. The use of IMRT requires knowledge of the patterns of spreads and anatomy. Clinical trials demonstrate high variability in target delineation without specific guidance demonstrating the need for peer review and the use of a consensus atlas. Concomitant with radiation, fluorouracil based chemotherapy remains the standard, and although toxicity is decreased with continuous infusion fluorouracil, oral capecitabine is non-inferior to the continuous infusion regimen. Additional chemotherapeutic agents, including oxaliplatin, continue to be investigated, however currently should only be utilized on clinical trials as increased toxicity and no definitive benefit has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Delayed surgery for rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a promising method in its infancy

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used to downstage locally advanced rectal cancer before surgery. Accumulating data suggest that tumor response to nCRT is time dependent. A delay between nCRT and surgery may increase the proportion of patients that achieve a favorable response. However, delayed surgery beyond 6-8 weeks may increase the technical difficulty, and the risks of surgical complications and recurrence or metastasis. This article briefly reviews the relevant literature to evaluate the efficiency and safety of delayed surgery.

METHODS

Two non-cohort studies and 10 cohort studies were reviewed. The results were analyzed and the limitations discussed.

RESULTS

Although debatable, the findings of the included studies are promising. Delayed surgery may increase the proportion of favorable tumor response without compromising prognosis. However, most of the studies were retrospective, which introduces bias into the evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Delayed surgery is potentially useful, but this needs to be verified by further well-designed prospective trials.

Toward the non-surgical management of locally advanced rectal cancer

Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiation (CRT) reduce local recurrence rates when compared to surgery alone and remain widely accepted as standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, surgery is not without complications and a non-surgical approach in carefully selected patients warrants evaluation. A pathological complete response to CRT is associated with a significant improvement in survival and it has been suggested that a longer time interval between the completion of CRT and surgery increases tumor downstaging. Intensification of neoadjuvant treatment regimens to increase tumor downstaging has been evaluated in a number of clinical trials and more recently the introduction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to CRT has demonstrated high rates of radiological tumor regression. Careful selection of patients using high-resolution MRI may allow a non-surgical approach in a subgroup of patients achieving a complete response to neoadjuvant therapies after an adequate time period. Clearly this needs prospective evaluation within a clinical trial setting, incorporating modern imaging techniques, and tissue biomarkers to allow accurate prediction and assessment of response.

Shifting concepts in rectal cancer management: a review of contemporary primary rectal cancer treatment strategies

The management of rectal cancer has transformed over the last 3 decades and continues to evolve. Some of these changes parallel progress made with other cancers: refinement of surgical technique to improve organ preservation, selective use of neoadjuvant (and adjuvant) therapy, and emergence of criteria suggesting a role for individually tailored therapy. Other changes are driven by fairly unique issues including functional considerations, rectal anatomic features, and surgical technical issues. Further complexity is due to the variety of staging modalities (each with its own limitations), neoadjuvant treatment alternatives, and competing strategies for sequencing multimodal treatment even for nonmetastatic disease. Importantly, observations of tumor response made in the era of neoadjuvant therapy are reshaping some traditionally held concepts about tumor behavior. Frameworks for prioritizing and integrating complex data can help to formulate treatment plans for patients.

A single-centre experience of chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: is there potential for nonoperative management?

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the outcome of patients who received chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer, specifically those with complete clinical response (CCR) and who were then managed nonoperatively with a 'Watch and Wait' follow-up protocol.

METHOD

A retrospective study was carried out of patients undergoing preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, conducted in a district general hospital managing rectal cancer through the multidisciplinary team process.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients received preoperative CRT over a 5-year period (2004-2009). Twelve (24%) were considered potentially to have had a complete response on MRI. Of these, six subsequently had clinical evidence of residual disease, leading to surgery (mean time to surgery, 24 weeks; range, 12-36 weeks). The remaining six had CCR, avoiding surgery (mean follow up, 26 months; range, 12-45 months), with all six patients disease free to date. A further six patients had complete pathological response (CPR) following surgery after comprehensive histopathological assessment of the specimen.

CONCLUSION

In this consecutive series of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with CRT, 12% demonstrated a CCR and have been actively managed conservatively, thereby avoiding surgery. With further improvements in diagnostic assessment of response to CRT, this figure may rise.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

A systematic computerized search identified 30 publications (9 series, 650 patients) evaluating a non-operative approach after CRT. Original data were extracted and tabulated, and study quality evaluated. The primary outcome measure was cCR. Secondary outcome measures included locoregional failure rate, disease-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

The most recent Habr-Gama series reported a low locoregional failure rate of 4·6 per cent, with 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates of 96 and 72 per cent respectively. These findings were supported by a small prospective Dutch study. However, other retrospective series have described higher recurrence rates. All studies were heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, study design and rigour of follow-up after CRT, which might explain the different outcomes. The definition of cCR was inconsistent, with only partial concordance with pCR. The results suggested that patients who are observed, but subsequently fail to sustain a cCR, may fare worse than those who undergo immediate tumour resection.

CONCLUSION

The rationale of a 'wait and see' policy relies mainly on retrospective observations from a single series. Proof of principle in small low rectal cancers, where clinical assessment is easy, should not be extrapolated uncritically to more advanced cancers where nodal involvement is common. Long-term prospective observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria are required to evaluate the risk versus benefit.

Impact of interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and TME for locally advanced rectal cancer on pathologic response and oncologic outcome

BACKGROUND

The interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer has arbitrarily been set at 6-8 weeks. However, tumor regression is variable. This study aimed to evaluate whether the interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery had an impact on pathologic response and on surgical and oncologic outcome.

METHODS

A total of 356 consecutive patients with clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma were identified. Median age was 63 years, and 65 % were men. All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy) with a continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil. Data on neoadjuvant-surgery interval, type of surgery, pathology, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence, and survival were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery: ≤ 7 weeks (short interval, n = 201) and >7 weeks (long interval, n = 155).

RESULTS

The complete pathologic response rate was 21 %. It was significantly higher after a longer interval (28 %) than after a shorter interval (16 %, p = 0.006). A longer interval did not affect morbidity or length of hospital stay. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 83 % in the short-interval group versus 91 % in the long-interval group (p = 0.046), and the free-from-recurrence rate was 73 versus 83 %, respectively (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, there seems to be an association between a longer interval after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and complete pathologic response without affecting postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay, and with no detrimental effect on oncologic outcome.

Avoiding radical surgery after pre-operative chemoradiotherapy: a possible therapeutic option in rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

In this modern era of multi-modality treatment there is increasing interest in the possibility of avoiding radical surgery in complete responders after neo-adjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCPRT). In this article, we present a systematic review of such treatments and discuss their therapeutic applicability for the future.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed online libraries to identify studies that reported on the long-term surgical and pathological outcomes after local excision together with those that explored the possibility of clinical observation only in patients achieving a complete clinical response after LCPRT.

RESULTS

Several retrospective (n = 10), one single-arm prospective, and one small randomised series have reported on the use of local excision after LCPRT and demonstrated acceptably low levels of local recurrence with survival comparable to patients progressing to conventional surgery. One prospective series allocated patients to observation or radical surgery based on histological parameters after local excision (ypT0 and ypT1) and showed no differences in outcomes. Two retrospective series from the same group on a Brazilian cohort of patients reported excellent long-term outcomes after "wait and watch" in complete clinical responders. However, other reports have shown no direct correlation between clinical and pathological response.

CONCLUSION

Local excision may be an appropriate option for selected patients developing good clinical response after LCPRT. In our opinion, a policy of clinical observation in complete clinical responders after LCPRT may not be a safe strategy, unless we had robust predictive models for accurate identification of pathological complete response. In order to identify patients that may be potentially appropriate for such an approach we propose a clinical algorithm incorporating important clinical, radiological, and pathological parameters. The proposed model will require validation in a prospective study. Finally, we need randomised data for demonstrating the non-inferiority of clinical observation compared to conventional surgery before this can be considered as standard possible therapeutic option.

Criteria for three-dimensional anorectal ultrasound assessment of response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify criteria for three-dimensional anorectal ultrasonography (3D-AUS) to assess the response of rectal cancer to chemoradiotherapy; the 3D-AUS results were compared with the histopathological findings of the resected specimen.

METHOD

Thirty-five patients underwent 3D-AUS and were grouped according to the presence (GI; n = 19) or absence (GII; n = 16) of anal canal invasion. All patients received chemoradiotherapy, then underwent a second 3D-AUS. The response (complete, partial or insignificant and lymph node metastasis) was evaluated. Tumour length (cm) and volume (cm(3) ), length and volume regression percentage (%), distal length regression, and distance between the distal tumour edge and the proximal border of the internal anal sphincter were measured before and after chemoradiotherapy. All patients underwent surgery, and the 3D-AUS image was compared with the histopathological findings.

RESULTS

Before chemoradiotherapy, the average tumour length was similar in G1 and GII, but the volume differed significantly (P = 0.0408). The response was insignificant in seven (37%) patients, partial in 10 (53%) patients and complete in two (10%) patients in GI. The corresponding figures for GII were one (6%) patient, 12 (75%) patients and three (19%) patients (P = 0.0318). The agreement between pathological and post-chemoratherapy 3D-AUS findings was almost identical for the identification of residual tumour or complete response (κ = 1.0) and substantial for lymph node metastases (κ = 0.74). The mean distance to the internal anal sphincter was greater in GII. A sphincter-saving resection was performed in 2/19 patients in GI and in 14/16 patients in GII (P < 0.0001). The histopathological examination revealed a free distal margin.

CONCLUSION

3D-AUS was shown to evaluate accurately the response to chemoradiotherapy, helping in the selection of patients for a sphincter-saving resection. The distance between the tumour and the internal anal sphincter was the most important parameter in this respect.

Timing of surgery following preoperative therapy in rectal cancer: the need for a prospective randomized trial?

BACKGROUND

In rectal cancer, the standard of care after the completion of radiotherapy is surgery at 6 to 8 weeks. However, there is variation regarding the timing of surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This investigation aimed to audit the timing of surgery following radiotherapy and to compare perioperative morbidity and tumor downstaging in patients operated on, before and after the 6- to 8-week window.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of rectal cancers treated preoperatively in our cancer network over a 27-month period. The effect of "time till surgery" of 6 to 8 weeks, <6 weeks, and >8 weeks on T downstaging and nodal downstaging was calculated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

SETTING

This study was conducted in an oncology tertiary referral center in the Southwest London Cancer Network.

PATIENTS

Patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy for primary locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing subsequent surgical resection were eligible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measurement was time to surgery following the completion of (chemo) radiotherapy. Thirty-day perioperative morbidity and mortality and tumor and nodal downstaging were examined according to the timing of surgery.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its nonrandomized retrospective design and the lack of standardization of preoperative chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Thirty-two (34%) patients underwent surgery at 6 to 8 weeks, 45 (47%) at >8 weeks, and 18 (19%) at <6 weeks after radiotherapy. Delay was attributed to scheduling in 87% of cases and to comorbidities in the remainder. T downstaging occurred in 6 (33.3%) patients in the <6 weeks group, in 12 (37.5%) in the 6 to 8 weeks group, and in 28 (62.2%) in >8 weeks group with no significant differences in perioperative morbidity. On multivariate analysis, T downstaging was significantly greater for the >8 weeks group (OR, 3.79; 95% CI: 1.11-12.99; P = .03). More patients were staged ypT0-T2, 19 of 45 (42%) in the >8 weeks group vs other groups, 14 of 50 (28%, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Following radiotherapy, surgery frequently occurs at >8 weeks and is associated with increased downstaging. The consequences on survival and perioperative morbidity warrant further investigation.

Perspectives on current tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging of cancers of the colon and rectum

Improvements in classifications of cancers based on discovery and validation of important histopathological parameters and new molecular markers continue unabated. Though still not perfect, recent updates of classification schemes in gastrointestinal oncology by the American Joint Commission on Cancer (tumor-node-metastasis [TNM] staging) and the World Health Organization further stratify patients and guide optimization of treatment strategies and better predict patient outcomes. These updates recognize the heterogeneity of patient populations with significant subgrouping of each tumor stage and use of tumor deposits to significantly "up-stage" some cancers; change staging parameters for subsets of IIIB and IIIC cancers; and introduce of several new subtypes of colon carcinomas. By the nature of the process, recent discoveries that are important to improving even routine standards of patient care, especially new advances in molecular medicine, are not incorporated into these systems. Nonetheless, these classifications significantly advance clinical standards and are welcome enhancements to our current methods of cancer reporting.

Optimal timing of surgery after chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter, nonrandomized phase II prospective trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether extending the interval between chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery, and administering additional chemotherapy during the waiting period has an impact on tumor response, CRT-related toxicity and surgical complications in patients with advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal cancer is usually treated with preoperative CRT followed by surgery approximately 6 weeks later. The Timing of Rectal Cancer Response to Chemoradiation Consortium designed a prospective, multicenter, Phase II clinical trial to investigate extending the interval between CRT and surgery, and administering additional chemotherapy during the waiting period. Here, we present preliminary results of this trial, reporting the tumor response, CRT-related toxicity and surgical complications.

METHODS

Stage II and III rectal cancer patients were treated concurrently with 5-Fluorouracil (FU) and radiation for 5 to 6 weeks. Patients in study group (SG) 1 underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) 6 weeks later. Patients in SG2 with evidence of a clinical response 4 weeks after CRT received 2 cycles of modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6) followed by TME 3 to 5 weeks later. Tumor response, CRT-related toxicity and surgical complications were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four patients were accrued. One hundred and thirty-six (66, SG1; 70, SG2) were evaluated for CRT-related toxicity. One hundred and twenty-seven (60, SG1; 67, SG2) were assessed for tumor response and surgical complications. A similar proportion of patients completed CRT per protocol in both SGs, but the cumulative dose of sensitizing 5-FU and radiation was higher in SG2. CRT-related toxicity was comparable between SGs. Average time from CRT-to-surgery was 6 (SG1) and 11 weeks (SG2). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was 18% (SG1) and 25% (SG2). Postoperative complications were similar between SGs.

CONCLUSIONS

Intense neoadjuvant therapy consisting of CRT followed by additional chemotherapy (mFOLFOX-6), and delaying surgery may result in a modest increase in pCR rate without increasing complications in patients undergoing TME for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Predictive factors of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates factors associated with a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Approximately 20% of rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation achieve pCR, which has been associated with decreased local recurrence and improved recurrence-free survival. Means of predicting pCR remain incompletely defined.

METHODS

A total of 306 consecutive patients with stage II or stage III rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation then surgery between 1997 and 2007 were identified from a single-institution. Sixty-four patients with concurrent inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary colorectal cancer, other malignancy, urgent surgery, incomplete chemoradiation, or insufficient data were excluded. All patients received neoadjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy and external beam radiation. Histologic response was categorized as pCR or not-pCR, which defined the 2 study cohorts. Variables were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis with pCR as the dependent variable. Fisher exact test, chi2, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and logistic regression were used for analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the total patients, 242 were studied, including 58 (24%) that achieved pCR. The 2 groups were statistically similar in terms of age, gender, body mass index, tumor differentiation, radiation dose, and pretreatment stage. On multivariate analysis, an interval ≥ 8 weeks between treatment completion and surgical resection was significantly associated with a higher rate of pCR, which correlated with decreased local recurrence and improved overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Despite traditional beliefs that certain patient and tumor factors influence pCR, an extended interval between completion of neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was the single most important determinant in achieving a pCR.

PET-based treatment response evaluation in rectal cancer: prediction and validation

PURPOSE

To develop a positron emission tomography (PET)-based response prediction model to differentiate pathological responders from nonresponders. The predictive strength of the model was validated in a second patient group, treated and imaged identical to the patients on which the predictive model was based.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-one rectal cancer patients were prospectively included in this study. All patients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-computed tomography (CT) imaging both before the start of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and after 2 weeks of treatment. Preoperative treatment with CRT was followed by a total mesorectal excision. From the resected specimen, the tumor regression grade (TRG) was scored according to the Mandard criteria. From one patient group (n = 30), the metabolic treatment response was correlated with the pathological treatment response, resulting in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve based cutoff value for the reduction of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) within the tumor to differentiate pathological responders (TRG 1-2) from nonresponders (TRG 3-5). The applicability of the selected cutoff value for new patients was validated in a second patient group (n = 21).

RESULTS

When correlating the metabolic and pathological treatment response for the first patient group using ROC curve analysis (area under the curve = 0.98), a cutoff value of 48% SUV(max) reduction was selected to differentiate pathological responders from nonresponders (specificity of 100%, sensitivity of 64%). Applying this cutoff value to the second patient group resulted in a specificity and sensitivity of, respectively, 93% and 83%, with only one of the pathological nonresponders being false positively predicted as pathological responding.

CONCLUSIONS

For rectal cancer, an accurate PET-based prediction of the pathological treatment response is feasible already after 2 weeks of CRT. The presented predictive model could be used to select patients to be considered for less invasive surgical interventions or even a "wait and see" policy. Also, based on the predicted response, early modifications of the treatment protocol are possible, which might result in an improved clinical outcome.

Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: the impact of longer interval between chemoradiation and surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a longer interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery on perioperative morbidity and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A colorectal cancer database was queried for clinical stage II and III rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by proctectomy between 1997 and 2007. The neoadjuvant regimen consisted of long course external beam radiation and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary cancer, extracolonic malignancy, urgent surgery, or non-validated treatment dates were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups according to the interval between chemoradiation and surgery (<8 and ≥ 8 weeks). Perioperative complications and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-seven patients were included. Groups were comparable with respect to demographics, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Perioperative complications were not affected by the interval between chemoradiation and surgery. Patients undergoing surgery ≥ 8 weeks after chemoradiation experienced a significant improvement in pathologic complete response rate (30.8% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.03) and had decreased 3-year local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.04). A Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the compounding effect of a complete pathologic response on oncologic outcome. A longer interval correlated with less local recurrence, although statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

An interval between chemoradiation and surgery ≥ 8 weeks is safe and is associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response and decreased local recurrence.

Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for distal rectal cancer

Multimodality treatment of rectal cancer, with the combination of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery has become the preferred approach to locally advanced rectal cancer. The use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) has resulted in reduced toxicity rates, significant tumor downsizing and downstaging, better chance of sphincter preservation, and improved functional results. A proportion of patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT may ultimately develop complete clinical response. Management of these patients with complete clinical response remains controversial and approaches including radical resection, transanal local excision, and observation alone without immediate surgery have been proposed. The use of strict selection criteria of patients after neoadjuvant CRT has resulted in excellent long-term results with no oncological compromise after observation alone in patients with complete clinical response. Recurrences are detectable by clinical assessment and frequently amenable to salvage procedures.

Rectum-conserving surgery in the era of chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

A complete pathological response occurs in 10-30 per cent of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The standard of care has been radical surgery with high morbidity risks and the challenges of stomata despite the favourable prognosis. This review assessed minimalist approaches (transanal excision or observation alone) to tumours with a response to CRT.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords included: 'rectal', 'cancer', 'transanal', 'conservative', 'complete pathological response', 'radiotherapy' and 'neoadjuvant'. Original articles from all relevant listings were sourced. These were hand searched for further articles of relevance. Main outcome measures assessed were rates of local recurrence and overall survival, and equivalence to radical surgery.

RESULTS

Purely conservative 'watch and wait' strategies after CRT are still controversial. Originally used for elderly patients or those who refused surgery, the data support transanal excision of rectal tumours showing a good response to CRT. A complete pathological response in the T stage (ypT0) indicates < 5 per cent risk of nodal metastases.

CONCLUSION

Rectal tumours showing an excellent response to CRT may be suitable for local excision, with equivalent outcomes to radical surgery. This approach should be the subject of prospective clinical trials in specialist centres.

Evidence and research perspectives for surgeons in the European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)

PURPOSE

Although surgery remains the most important treatment of rectal cancer, the management of this disease has evolved to become more multidisciplinary to offer the best clinical outcome. The International Conference on Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) had the duty to identify the degree of consensus that could be achieved across a wide range of topics relating to the management of rectal cancer helping shape future programs, investigational protocols and guidelines for staging and treatment throughout Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each committee member commented and voted, sentence by sentence three times. Sentences which did not reach agreement after voting round #2 were openly debated during the Conference in Perugia (Italy) December 2008. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", "minimum consensus".

RESULTS

The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe. In spite of substantial progress, many research challenges remain.

Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: characterization of clinical and endoscopic findings for standardization

BACKGROUND

Complete tumor regression may develop after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer. Studies have suggested that selected patients with complete clinical response may avoid radical surgery and close surveillance may provide good outcomes with no oncologic compromise. However, definition of complete clinical response is often imprecise and may vary between different studies. The aim of this study is to provide a clear definition for a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with distal rectal cancer in addition to actual endoscopic videos from patients managed nonoperatively.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, including 50.4 Gy and concomitant 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, were assessed for tumor response at least 8 weeks after chemoradiation therapy completion. Complete and incomplete clinical responses were defined based on clinical and endoscopic findings. Patients with complete clinical response were not immediately operated on and were closely followed. Early and late endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

Definition of a complete clinical response should be based on very strict clinical and endoscopic criteria. The finding of any residual superficial ulceration, irregularity, or nodule should prompt surgical attention, including transanal full-thickness excision or even a radical resection with total mesorectal excision. Standard or incisional biopsies should be avoided in this setting. Complete clinical responders should harbor no more than whitening of the mucosa, teleangiectasia with mucosal integrity to be considered for a nonoperative approach. In the presence of these findings, regularly scheduled reassessments may provide a safe alternative to these patients with early detection of recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Strict definition of the clinical and endoscopic findings of patients experiencing complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy may provide a useful tool for the understanding of outcomes of patients managed with no immediate surgery allowing standardization of classifications and comparison between the experiences of different institutions.

Radiation, chemotherapy and biological therapy in the curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To review the published evidence relating to the use of radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy and biological therapy as adjuncts to surgery in the curative treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Searches were carried out of the MEDLINE and CANCERLIT databases together with conference abstracts from key meetings including the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium and the ECCO/ESMO Multidisciplinary Congress.

RESULTS

RT reduces local pelvic recurrence when used as an adjunct to surgery, even when this is performed optimally by total mesorectal excision (TME). RT is usually given as short-course preoperative radiotherapy (SCPRT) followed by immediate surgery which produces no or very little downstaging or long-course concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) followed by a 6-8 week gap prior to surgery which produces significant downstaging. The prognostic importance of achieving a clear histological circumferential resection margin is now well recognised and pathological assessment of the quality of surgery can predict long-term outcomes. Internationally there is considerable heterogeneity in the staging modalities and criteria used in deciding which approach might be used, in the reporting of histological results and in RT parameters (time/dose/fractionation/volume). Attempts to increase the potency of CRT have included the addition of concurrent chemotherapeutic and biological agents to the standard fluoropyrimidine although there is little randomised data and none with regard to long-term survival outcomes. Neither SCPRT nor downstaging CRT have been shown to reduce the rate of subsequent distant metastatic relapse which remains a significant clinical problem. The potential additional benefit of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to SCPRT or long-course CRT remains ill-defined. Late morbidity can include bowel and sexual dysfunction, pelvic fractures and second malignancies with considerably more being known in relation to SCPRT than long-course CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in imaging, pathology and surgical technique combined with multimodality treatment using RT and chemotherapy are leading to continuing improvements in the long term outcome for patients with rectal cancer although much remains to be learnt regarding the optimum strategy for use of these in different clinical contexts and their relationship to long-term morbidity.

Complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: opinions of British and Irish specialists

INTRODUCTION

Advances in neoadjuvant treatment have highlighted the phenomenon of complete clinical response (CCR) in a proportion of patients with rectal cancer. Radical surgery may be associated with a poor functional outcome and quality of life and has a small but significant risk of mortality. This study aimed to assess opinion of colorectal surgeons on issues surrounding the question of nonoperative management in patients who demonstrate complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.

METHOD

A questionnaire was sent to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland regarding investigations, clinical management, pathological assessment and oncological outcome in rectal cancer patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 122 consultants responded (26% response rate). Most surgeons (58%) would not consider conservative management of patients with a complete response and even more (69%) expressed that they would never discuss nonoperative management in patients with rectal cancer who are fit for curative surgery. Over 70 different combinations of investigations and imaging modalities were suggested to define a CCR. Eighty-six per cent of consultants felt that a pathology report stating no evidence of residual adenocarcinoma did not rule out the presence of tumour cells and all respondents estimated the percentage of patients with pathological complete response as < 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

No consensus exists as to what defines a complete response and at present there is resistance to offering nonoperative management in selected patients. With improvements in neoadjuvant treatment modalities, it will be increasingly important to consider nonoperative management in the future.