Patterns of care of radiation therapy in patients with stage IV rectal cancer: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results analysis of patients from 2004 to 2009

Pelvic Radiotherapy in Rectal Cancer Patients With Synchronous Potentially Treatable Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

The optimal management strategy for Stage IV rectal cancer with potentially treatable liver metastases remains controversial, particularly regarding the role of pelvic radiotherapy (RT).

AIMS

We intend to investigate the impact of pelvic RT on oncological outcomes of rectal cancer with potentially treatable liver metastasis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study included 83 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases from June 2012 to January 2022. All patients underwent radical surgery for rectal cancer and treatment of synchronous liver metastases, as determined by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). We divided the 83 patients into two treatment groups: chemoradiotherapy and surgery (CRT + S) and chemotherapy and surgery (C + S). The CRT + S group (n = 40) received pelvic RT, systemic therapy, and liver metastasis treatment. The C + S group (n = 43) received systemic therapy and liver metastasis treatment only. A total of 83 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 45 months (range 12-127 months). In the CRT + S group, 48.2% (40/83) of patients underwent chemoradiotherapy, while the C + S group comprised 51.8% (43/83) of patients who received chemotherapy only. The CRT + S group demonstrated significantly longer local recurrence-free survival compared to the C + S group (median 37.5 vs. 34 months; p = 0.011). In addition, patients in the CRT + S group had a longer median overall survival (OS) compared to the C + S group (46.50 vs. 44.0 months; p = 0.0497). Notably, achieving no evidence of disease (NED) status after definitive treatment for both primary and liver metastases was associated with improved OS (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the addition of pelvic RT to multimodality therapy for patients with rectal cancer and potentially treatable liver metastases may improve local control and long-term survival. The findings support the consideration of RT in the clinical management of this patient population.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Neoadjuvant Pelvic Radiotherapy in the Management of Rectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: Is It Worth It?

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant pelvic radiotherapy was a major advance in oncologic care for locally advanced rectal cancer in the twentieth century. The extrapolation of the care of locally advanced rectal cancer to the management of rectal cancer with treatable liver metastases is controversial. The aim of this review is to examine the available data on the role of pelvic radiotherapy and chemoradiation in the setting of treatable metastatic liver disease.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was performed to report the landmark randomized controlled trials between 1993 and 2021.

RESULTS

Attaining liver clearance and total mesorectal excision with R0 margin remains the mainstay of cure. There is uncertainty regarding the sequencing of treatment. The literature lacks randomized clinical trials comparing the rectal first, liver first, interval strategy, and simultaneous surgical approaches. A multidisciplinary discussion regarding the utility of radiotherapy is emphasized to achieve the goals of treatment. Short-course radiotherapy has proved comparable disease-control outcomes to long-course chemoradiation with a significantly improved cost-performance. The implementation of short-course radiotherapy in the interval strategy and simultaneous surgical approach is promising. Neoadjuvant pelvic radiotherapy can be omitted in patients with metastatic rectal cancer if adequate margin clearance is achievable.

CONCLUSION

The use of radiotherapy in metastatic rectal cancer is popular but is based on limited data. Treatment should be tailored to the local extent of rectal cancer and priority of liver metastasis management. The optimal treatment strategy in patients with rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastatic disease needs to be studied in randomized trials.

Is There a Role for Perioperative Pelvic Radiotherapy in Surgically Resected Stage IV Rectal Cancer?: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether perioperative pelvic radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes in stage IV rectal cancer patients treated with primary surgical resection and systemic chemotherapy and to identify predictive factors for selection of patients for these approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 with stage IV rectal cancer, but without brain or bone metastases. After applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 26,132 patients were included in the analysis; propensity score matching was used to balance their individual characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 3283 (12.6%) patients received perioperative RT; the 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 43.6% in the surgery group and 50.5% in the surgery with RT group (P<0.001). The survival benefit of RT was maintained after propensity score matching and multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.81; P<0.001). Interaction testing of the prognostic variables showed a significant interaction between RT and the presence of lung metastasis (P<0.001): the benefit of RT was observed only in patients without lung metastases (3 y OS 52.1% vs. 44.1%, P<0.001), but it was observed regardless of liver metastases. In addition, we developed a web-based calculator (http://bit.do/mRC_surv) to provide individualized estimates of OS benefit based on the receipt of perioperative pelvic RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative pelvic RT significantly improved OS rates, especially in patients without lung metastases. We successfully developed a nomogram and web-based calculator that could predict survival benefit with the addition of RT for these patients.

Analysis of Nonsurgical Treatment Options for Metastatic Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Using a large national registry, we investigated patterns of care and overall survival (OS) for metastatic rectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy (RT), or with a multimodal approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult patients with metastatic rectal cancer who did not undergo resection diagnosed from 2004 to 2014 were included. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 2385 patients. Of these, 1020 patients (43%) received chemotherapy alone, 228 (10%) received RT alone, 850 (36%) received chemotherapy and RT, and 287 (12%) received no treatment. Receipt of chemotherapy alone increased over the study period, and receipt of chemoradiotherapy decreased (P < .01). The only factor predictive of receiving any RT on multivariate analysis was clinical stage T3 disease. Factors predictive of OS on multivariate analysis included receipt of chemotherapy, Hispanic race, income greater than $46,000, and presence of lung metastasis. The OS for patients treated with chemotherapy and RT was not significantly different than chemotherapy alone. Five-year OS with chemotherapy alone, RT alone, chemoradiotherapy, and no treatment were, respectively, 84%, 56%, 79%, and 46%.

CONCLUSION

Metastatic rectal cancer patients with T3 tumors were more likely to receive RT. Local RT does not improve survival for patients with metastatic rectal cancer who do not also undergo surgery. The use of chemotherapy alone for metastatic rectal cancer is increasing, and chemotherapy is associated with higher OS compared to no treatment and RT alone. This remained true even in patients older than 80 years.

Is metastasectomy a worthy option?-the role of surgery in metastatic colon cancer to liver and lungs

Background

The role of surgery and metastasectomy is controversial in the treatment of stage IV colon cancer (CC). The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between primary tumor resection (PTR) with metastasectomy and survival in patients diagnosed with metastatic CC.

Methods

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was retrospectively queried for patients diagnosed with colon adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2013. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and short-term outcomes were collected. Groups were generated based on if surgery was performed and, if so, was metastasectomy involved. Associations between groups were evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis and Pearson Chi-square tests. Overall survival (OS) was summarized using standard Kaplan-Meier methods. The association between surgical group and OS was evaluated using the log-rank test.

Results

Of 31,172 patients, 13,214 (42.4%) had surgery while 17,958 (57.6%) did not. Among these, 81.3% of patients had liver metastases only, while 18.7% of patients had both liver and lung metastases. Median OS was 15.1 months (95% CI: 14.8 to 15.5 months) for the entire cohort. However, median OS was significantly better for those who had surgery (either PTR alone or PTR with metastasectomy) compared to those who did not (21.8 vs. 7.5 months, P<0.001). Patients who received PTR with metastasectomy had worse median OS (20.5 vs. 21.8 months, P=0.035) compared to those who only received PTR (P=0.211).

Conclusions

PTR in select patients diagnosed with metastatic CC provides a remarkable improvement to survival rate. The role of metastasectomy remains controversial as no difference in survival outcomes exists between patients who received it and who did not.