Comparison of intraoperative radiation therapy-containing multimodality treatment with historical treatment modalities for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Combination of phytochemicals, including ginsenoside and curcumin, shows a synergistic effect on the recovery of radiation-induced toxicity

Radiotherapy is commonly used to treat solid cancers located in the pelvis. A considerable number of patients experience proctitis of varying severity, even for a considerable period after radiotherapy. These side effects are often long-lasting or progressively worsen despite multiple therapeutic efforts and are a primary cause of an unexpectedly low quality of life, even after successful cancer treatment. Therefore, this study evaluated the individual and combined efficacy of ginsenoside, curcumin, butyric acid, and sucralfate compounds in treating radiation-induced proctitis. While the candidate compounds did not affect the proliferation and migration of cancer cells, they promoted the recovery of cell activity, including motility. They exhibited anti-inflammatory effects on human dermal fibroblasts or human umbilical vein endothelial cells within in vitro disease models. When each compound was tested, curcumin and ginsenoside were the most effective in cell recovery and promoted the migration of human dermal fibroblasts and cell restoration of human umbilical vein endothelial cells. The combination of ginsenoside and curcumin resulted in cell migration recovery of approximately 54%. In addition, there was a significant improvement in the length of the endothelial tube, with an increase of approximately 25%, suggesting that the ginsenoside-curcumin-containing combination was the most effective against radiation-induced damage. Furthermore, studies evaluating the effects of combined treatments on activated macrophages indicated that the compounds effectively reduced the secretion of inflammatory cytokines, including chemokines, and alleviated radiation-induced inflammation. In conclusion, our study provides valuable insights into using curcumin and ginsenoside as potential compounds for the effective treatment of radiation-induced injuries and highlights the promising therapeutic benefits of combining these two compounds.

Oncological outcomes of multimodality treatment for patients undergoing surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are several strategies in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with the optimum treatment yet to be established. This systematic review aims to compare oncological outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for LRRC who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant CRT, surgery only or surgery and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT).

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed for studies that reported data on oncological outcomes for the different treatment modalities in patients with LRRC from January 1990 to January 2022. Weighted means were calculated for the following outcomes: postoperative resection status, local control, and overall survival at 3 and 5 years.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies of 974 patients were included and they received the following treatment: 346 neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 279 neoadjuvant CRT, 136 adjuvant CRT, 189 surgery only, and 24 surgery and IORT. The highest proportion of R0 resection was found in the neoadjuvant CRT group followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant CRT groups (64.07% vs 52.46% vs 47.0% respectively). The neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean 5-year local control rate (49.50%) followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (22.0%). Regarding the 5-year overall survival rate, the neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean of 34.92%, followed by surgery only (29.74%), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (28.94%) and adjuvant CRT (20.67%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review suggest that neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery can lead to improved resection status, long-term disease control and survival in the management of LRRC. However, treatment strategies in LRRC are complex and further comparisons, particularly taking into account previous treatments for the primary rectal cancer, are required.

The role of intraoperative radiotherapy in advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

Patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC/LRRC) experience higher rates of local recurrence (LR) and poorer overall survival than patients with primary rectal cancer restricted to the mesorectum despite improved neoadjuvant treatment regimens and radical surgical procedures. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been suggested as an adjunctive tool in the surgical management of these challenging cases. However, clear evidence regarding the oncological benefit of IORT is sparse. The aim of this review was to update this evidence in the era of standardized neoadjuvant radiotherapy administration.

METHOD

A systematic review of patients who received IORT as part of multimodal treatment for advanced rectal cancer from 2000 to 2020 and an analysis of IORT and surgery/external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) groups was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of LR between the two groups.

RESULTS

Seven papers met the predefined criteria. LR was reduced by the addition of IORT when compared with the surgery/EBRT alone group (14.7% vs. 21.4%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27-1.14; p = 0.11). There was no increase in reported genitourinary morbidity, wound issues, pelvic collections or anastomotic leak in those patients who received IORT. Notably, there was no survival difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of IORT to current treatment strategies in the management of patients with LARC/LRRC is associated with a lower rate of locoregional recurrence without increased morbidity. However, this marks a highly selective group of patients, with heterogeneity regarding indications, prior neoadjuvant treatments and/or IORT dosing.

Clinical selection strategy for and evaluation of intra-operative brachytherapy in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A radical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) or recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) can be challenging. In case of increased risk of an R1 resection, intra-operative brachytherapy (IOBT) can be applied. We evaluated the clinical selection strategy for IOBT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2007 and May 2018, 132 LARC/RRC patients who were scheduled for surgery with IOBT standby, were evaluated. By intra-operative inspection of the resection margin and MR imaging, it was determined whether a resection was presumed to be radical. Frozen sections were taken on indication. In case of a suspected R1 resection, IOBT (1 × 10 Gy) was applied. Histopathologic evaluation, treatment and toxicity data were collected from medical records.

RESULTS

Tumour was resected in 122 patients. IOBT was given in 42 patients of whom 54.8% (n = 23) had a histopathologically proven R1 resection. Of the 76 IOBT-omitted R0 resected patients, 17.1% (n = 13) had a histopathologically proven R1 resection. In 4 IOBT-omitted patients, a clinical R1/2 resection was seen. In total, correct clinical judgement occurred in 72.6% (n = 88) of patients. In LARC, 58.3% (n = 14) of patients were overtreated (R0, with IOBT) and 10.9% (n = 5) were undertreated (R1, without IOBT). In RRC, 26.5% (n = 9) of patients were undertreated.

CONCLUSION

In total, correct clinical judgement occurred in 72.6% (n = 88). However, in 26.5% (n = 9) RRC patients, IOBT was unjustifiedly omitted. IOBT is accompanied by comparable and acceptable toxicity. Therefore, we recommend IOBT to all RRC patients at risk of an R1 resection as their salvage treatment.

Image-guided high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for recurrent rectal cancer after salvage surgery: a case report

Treatment options for patients with recurrent rectal cancer in pelvis represent a significant challenge because the balance of efficiency and toxicity needs to be pursued. This case report illustrates a treatment effect of image-guided high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR-ISBT) for locally relapsed rectal cancer after salvage surgery. A 61-year-old male who underwent laparoscopic high anterior resection (LAP-HAR) with D3 lymph node dissection as a primary treatment for rectal cancer (pT3N0M0, well-differentiated adenocarcinoma) had relapsed locally 8 months after initial surgery, for which he underwent salvage abdominal perineal resection (APR), followed by adjuvant 8 cycles of XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy. He developed pelvic recurrence 1 year after the second surgery. Image-guided HDR-ISBT was performed (30 Gy/5 fractions/3 days) followed by external beam radiation therapy with 39.6 Gy in 22 fractions. There were no severe complications related to salvage radiotherapy. CEA was decreased from 24.5 ng/ml to 0.7 ng/ml, 4 months after the salvage radiotherapy. Complete response was noted on follow-up MRIs done on 2, 5, 8, and 14 months after the treatment. Hence, HDR-ISBT appears to be effective for locally recurrent rectal cancer even after salvage surgery.

Intraoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer and recurrent intra-abdominal sarcomas

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy (HDR-IORT) in a multimodality treatment on the local control (LC) and the overall survival (OS) rate in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) and recurrent intra-abdominal sarcomas (RS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 27 patients who were treated with radical resection and HDR-IORT between April 2007 and January 2017. Patient, tumor and surgical characteristics were analyzed and the perioperative (<30 days) and long-term complications (>30 days) were assessed and graded.

RESULTS

None of the patients with LARC (n = 4) developed a local recurrence and all patients were still alive at the end of the follow-up. The LC rates of LRRC (n = 17) after one and three years were respectively 48% and 40% and the one, three and five years OS were respectively 93%, 62% and 44%. For RS (n = 6), the LC rates after one and three years were both 33% and the one and three years OS rate were respectively 83% and 46%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study show that HDR-IORT could be a valuable asset in the multimodality management of LARC, LRRC and RS.

Standard fractionation external beam radiotherapy with and without intraoperative radiotherapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer: the role of local therapy in patients with a high competing risk of death from distant disease

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of utilizing radiotherapy (RT) with standard fractionation, with or without intraoperative RT (IORT), to treat locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

METHODS

Retrospective review of 25 patients with LRRC treated with standard fractionation RT from 2005 to 2011. 15 patients (60%) had prior pelvic RT and 10 (40%) had synchronous metastases. The median equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions was 30 and 49.6 Gy in patients with and without prior RT, respectively. 23 patients (92%) received concurrent chemotherapy and 16 (64%) underwent surgical resection. Eight patients (33.3%, four with and four without prior RT) received IORT. A competing risks model was developed to estimate the cumulative incidence of local failure with death treated as a competing event.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 36.9 months after the date of local recurrence. 3-year rates of overall survival (OS), local control (LC) and death with LC were 51.6%, 73.3% and 69.2%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, surgical resection was significantly predictive of improved OS (p < 0.05). If surgical resection were removed from the multivariable model, given the collinearity between IORT delivery and surgical resection, then IORT also became a significant predictor of OS (p < 0.05). Systemic disease at the time of local recurrence was not associated with either LC or OS. No patient had grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity.

CONCLUSION

RT with standard fractionation is safe and effective in the treatment of patients with LRRC, even in patients with significant risk of systemic disease and/or history of prior RT. Advances in knowledge: The utility of RT with standard fractionation, generally with chemotherapy, in the treatment of LRRC is demonstrated. In this high-risk cohort of patients with a 40% incidence of synchronous metastatic disease, surgical resection of the recurrence was the major predictor of OS, though a benefit to IORT was also suggested. No patients had grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity, though 40% had undergone prior RT, underscoring the tolerability of standard fractionation RT in this setting.

Results of a pooled analysis of IOERT containing multimodality treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: Results of 565 patients of two major treatment centres

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study is analysing the pooled results of Intra-Operative Electron beam Radiotherapy (IOERT) containing multimodality treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) of two major treatment centres.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Five hundred sixty five patients with LRRC who underwent multimodality-treatment up to 2010 were studied. The preferred treatment was preoperative chemo-radiotherapy, surgery and IOERT. In uni- and multivariate analyses risk factors for local re-recurrence, distant metastasis free survival, relapse free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were studied.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty one patients (44%) underwent a radical (R0) resection. In patients who had no preoperative treatment the R0 resection rate was 26%, and this was 43% and 50% for patients who respectively received preoperative re-(chemo)-irradiation or full-course radiotherapy (p < 0.0001). After uni- and multivariate analysis it was found that all oncologic parameters were influenced by preoperative treatment and radicality of the resection. Patients who were re-irradiated had a similar outcome compared to patients, who were radiotherapy naive and could undergo full-course treatment, except the chance of local re-recurrence was higher for re-irradiated patients. Waiting-time between preoperative radiotherapy and IOERT was inversely correlated with the chance of local re-recurrence, and positively correlated with the chance of a R0 resection.

CONCLUSIONS

R0 resection is the most important factor influencing oncologic parameters in treatment of LRRC. Preoperative (chemo)-radiotherapy increases the chance of achieving radical resections and improves oncologic outcomes. Short waiting-times between preoperative treatment and IOERT improves the effectiveness of IOERT to reduce the chance of a local re-recurrence.

Intraoperative radiotherapy for locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer: Does it work at all?

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been given for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer for 30 years. Still, its effect is not clear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE search for papers after 1989 on surgical treatment and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer, with and without IORT. From each center the most recent paper was generally selected. Survival and local recurrence at five years was tabulated for the total groups and separate R-stages. Also, the technique for IORT, use of EBRT and chemotherapy as well as surgical approach was registered.

RESULTS

In primary cancer 18 papers from 14 centers were tabulated, including one randomized and five internally comparing studies, as well as seven studies without IORT. In locally recurrent cancer 18 papers from 13 centers were tabulated, including four internally comparing studies and also five without IORT. Overall survival (OS) and local recurrence rate (LRR) were higher for primary cancer compared to recurrent cancer. Patients with R0 resections had better outcome than patients with R1 or R2 resections. For primary cancer OS and LR rate of the total groups and R0 stages was not influenced by IORT. An effect on R1/R2 stages cannot be excluded. The only randomized study (primary cancer) did not show any effect of IORT.

CONCLUSION

IORT does not convincingly improve OS and LR rate for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer. If there is an effect of IORT, it is small and cannot be shown outside randomized studies analyzing the separate R stages.

Multidisciplinary therapy for patients with locally oligo-recurrent pelvic malignancies

PURPOSE

To analyze prognostic factors and long-term outcomes in patients with locally recurrent pelvic cancer (LRPC) treated with a multidisciplinary approach.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From January 1995 to December 2011, 81 patients [rectal (47 %); gynecologic (39 %); retroperitoneal sarcoma (14 %)] underwent extended surgery [multiorgan (58 %), bone (35 %), vascular (9 %), soft tissue (63 %)] and intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) to treat recurrent tumors in the pelvic region. Thirty-five patients (43 %) received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 39 months (6-189 months); the 1- 3- and 5-year rates of locoregional control (LRC) were 83, 53, and 41 %, respectively. Univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed worse LRC in patients who did not receive integrated EBRT as rescue treatment of pelvic recurrence (p = 0.003) or underwent non-radical resection (p = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis EBRT, non-radical resection, and tumor fragmentation retained significance (p = 0.002, p = 0.004, and p = 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Radical resection, absence of tumor fragmentation and addition of EBRT for rescue are associated with improved LRC in patients with LRPC. Our results suggest that this group can benefit from EBRT combined with extended surgical resection and IOERT.

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.

Intraoperative Electron Radiation Therapy (IOERT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate disease control, overall survival and prognostic factors in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer after IOERT-containing multimodal therapy.

METHODS

Between 1991 and 2006, 97 patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer have been treated with surgery and IOERT. IOERT was preceded or followed by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in 54 previously untreated patients (median dose 41.4 Gy) usually combined with 5-Fluouracil-based chemotherapy (89%). IOERT was delivered via cylindric cones with doses of 10-20 Gy. Adjuvant CHT was given only in a minority of patients (34%). Median follow-up was 51 months.

RESULTS

Margin status was R0 in 37%, R1 in 33% and R2 in 30% of the patients. Neoadjuvant EBRT resulted in significantly increased rates of free margins (52% vs. 24%). Median overall survival was 39 months. Estimated 5-year rates for central control (inside the IOERT area), local control (inside the pelvis), distant control and overall survival were 54%, 41%, 40% and 30%. Resection margin was the strongest prognostic factor for overall survival (3-year OS of 80% (R0), 37% (R1), 35% (R2)) and LC (3-year LC 82% (R0), 41% (R1), 18% (R2)) in the multivariate model. OS was further significantly affected by clinical stage at first diagnosis and achievement of local control after treatment in the univariate model. Distant failures were found in 46 patients, predominantly in the lung. 90-day postoperative mortality was 3.1%.

CONCLUSION

Long term OS and LC can be achieved in a substantial proportion of patients with recurrent rectal cancer using a multimodality IOERT-containing approach, especially in case of clear margins. LC and OS remain limited in patients with incomplete resection. Preoperative re-irradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy may be considered to improve outcome.

Multivisceral resection for T4 or recurrent colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of patients with colorectal cancer have locally advanced disease with peritoneal involvement (T4a) or invasion of adjacent organs (T4b) at the time of diagnosis. Of patients who undergo resection with curative intent, between 7 and 33% develop isolated locoregional recurrences. R0 surgical excision is potentially curative.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature relating to multivisceral resection for T4 or recurrent colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Comprehensive staging to identify the local and systemic extent of disease is essential to determine resectability and patient suitability for a curative approach. PET scans and pelvic MRI (rectal) staging and a coordinated multispecialty input to neoadjuvant treatment, multivisceral surgical resection, reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy are essential. Intraoperative radiotherapy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may have a role in selected patients. R0 resection can achieve 5-year local control rates for primary locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer of up to 89 and 38%, respectively, and overall 5-year survival up to 66 and 25%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An aggressive surgical strategy as part of a multimodal strategy in the treatment of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer in the absence of incurable metastatic disease affords the best prospect for long-term survival in selected patients.

[Multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer]

In the last 10 years, a number of important European randomized published studies investigated the optimal management of rectal cancer. In order to define an evidence-based approach of the clinical practice based, an international consensus conference was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). The aim of this article is to present highlights of multidisciplinary rectal cancer management and to compare the conclusions of the international conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) with the new National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

Locally recurrent colorectal cancer: results of surgical therapy

PURPOSE

Up to 20 % of colorectal cancer patients develop recurrent disease despite standardized surgical techniques and multimodal treatment strategies. Radical resection is the central component of curative therapy in these cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment results in patients with locoregionally recurrent colorectal cancer.

METHODS

From January 1995 to December 2007, surgery was performed for recurrent colorectal cancer in 82 patients who had undergone curative (R0) resection of their primary tumor. Assessment included patient, tumor and treatment characteristics, postoperative complications, and time without re-recurrence; recurrence-free and overall survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Resection was performed in 60 of the 82 patients (73 %), repeat R0 resection in 52 % (31/60). Patients had a postoperative morbidity of 39 % (31/82), a relaparotomy rate of 13 % (11/82), and a lethality of 7 % (6/82). Forty-eight percent of all surgically-treated patients received a permanent stoma. Re-recurrence was seen in 52 % (16/31). R0 resection was associated with a 5-year survival rate of 35 % (11/31).

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive reinterventions often enable repeat R0 resection. Despite relevant morbidity, the lethality appears to be acceptable. Decisive for the prognosis is re-recurrence.

Surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer

Developments in chemotherapeutic strategies and surgical technique have led to improved loco regional control of rectal cancer and a decrease in recurrence rates over time. However, locally recurrent rectal cancer continues to present considerable technical challenges and results in significant morbidity and mortality. Surgery remains the only therapy with curative potential. Despite a hostile intra-operative environment, with meticulous pre-operative planning and judicious patient selection, safe surgery is feasible. The potential benefit of new techniques such as intra-operative radiotherapy and high intensity focussed ultrasonography has yet to be thoroughly investigated. The future lies in identification of predictors of recurrence, development of schematic clinical algorithms to allow standardised surgical technique and further research into genotyping platforms to allow individualisation of therapy. This review highlights important aspects of pre-operative planning, intra-operative tips and future strategies, focussing on a multimodal multidisciplinary approach.

Management of local rectal cancer: evidence, controversies and future perspectives in radiotherapy

SUMMARY Rectal cancer comprises approximately 25% of all primary colorectal cancers. The optimal diagnostic and treatment approach for this heterogeneous malignancy is still contentious, and improvements in general multidisciplinary management are required. During recent years a number of randomized studies led by European investigators have shown optimization in preoperative staging, improvements in surgical technique and the histopathological assessment of the resected specimen, and the benefit of combined modality treatment. The main recommendations and the trends in research on radiotherapy and integrated treatments will be summarized with an overview on some relevant points about imaging and pathological staging.

Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer in the era of total mesorectal excision: is there still a chance for cure?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the perioperative outcome and long-term survival of patients who underwent surgical resection for recurrent rectal cancer within a multimodal approach in the era of total mesorectal excision (TME).

BACKGROUND

Introduction of TME has reduced local recurrence and improved oncological outcome of patients with rectal cancer. Local recurrence after TME still occurs in 2% to 8% of patients and presents a challenge to surgical and medical oncologists. However, there has been very limited data on the perioperative and long-term outcome of patients who are operated for local recurrence in the era of TME.

METHODS

A total of 107 patients who were identified from a prospective rectal cancer database underwent surgical exploration for recurrent rectal cancer after previous TME between October 2001 and April 2009. Risk factors of perioperative morbidity were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Independent predictors of disease-specific survival were identified by a Cox proportional hazards regression model, as were those of local recurrence and disease recurrence at any site.

RESULTS

Surgical resection was performed in 92 patients and negative resection margins were achieved in 54 (58.7%) of these. Recurrent disease was located intraluminally and extraluminally in 35 (38.0%) patients and 57 (62.0%) patients, respectively. A total of 19 (20.6%) patients had metastatic extrapelvic disease at the time of surgery. Perioperative surgical morbidity and in-hospital mortality accounted for 42.4% and 3.3%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, partial sacrectomy was associated with surgical morbidity (P = 0.004). Three- and 5-year disease-specific survival rates were 61% and 47%. Three-year survival rate of patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent R0 resection was 42%. On multivariate analysis, surgical morbidity (P = 0.001), presence of extrapelvic disease (P = 0.006), and noncurative (R1; R2) resection (P < 0.0001) were identified as independent adverse predictors of disease-specific survival, whereas a transabdominal resection (as opposed to an abdominoperineal resection/pelvic exenteration) was associated with a more favorable prognosis (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical resection of local recurrence from rectal cancer in the era TME can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and curative resection rates. Curative resection remains the major prognostic factor and may enable long-term survival even in patients with extrapelvic disease.

Multidisciplinary approach to recurrent/unresectable rectal cancer: how to prepare for the extent of resection

Local recurrence from rectal cancer is a complex problem that should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Pelvic re-irradiation and intraoperative radiation should be considered in the management of these patients. Long-term survival can be achieved in patients who undergo radical surgery with negative margins of resections. The morbidity of these procedures is high and at times may compromise quality of life. Palliative surgical procedures can be considered; however, in some cases, palliative resections may not be better than nonsurgical palliation.

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.

Rectal cancer radiotherapy: towards European consensus

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

During the first decade of the 21st century several important European randomized studies in rectal cancer have been published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized. This article summarizes the consensus about imaging and radiotherapy of rectal cancer and gives an update until May 2010.

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 three (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%. Considerable progress has been made in staging and treatment, including radiation treatment of rectal cancer.

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.

Clinical algorithms for the surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Advances in surgical practice have helped expand the options for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer through improvements in reconstructive options, management of operative complications, addition of intraoperative adjuvant therapies, and postoperative care. This review outlines the presentation and management of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, and it describes easy-to-apply clinical algorithms to aid management.

METHODS

The electronic literature was searched for studies reporting outcomes for locally recurrent rectal cancer limited to the English language.

RESULTS

Prospective and retrospective case series and single-center experiences were identified. A total of 106 articles were selected for full-text review of which 82 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No randomized studies were identified. We found that multimodality treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer can improve 5-year survival from 0% to over 40%, and selected patients may survive up to 10 years. A mixture of imaging modalities is used in patient selection for surgery. An R0 resection is consistently a favorable prognostic factor. R1 resection and surgery in the setting of oligometastases compare favorably with nonoperative palliation. Although mortality figures remain low, morbidity is significant and mostly wound related.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in radiological imaging modalities and technical improvements in surgical and reconstructive options have facilitated more accurate staging, better selection of patients for surgery, reduced morbidity and mortality, and higher R0 resections. Optimal management is in specialist units with a multidisciplinary approach with the use of multimodal therapy.

Reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer

Recurrence of colorectal carcinoma represents a significant challenge. As the majority of recurrences involve more than just the anastomosis, surgical resection is ordinarily a major undertaking. Curative resection may require resection of other organs and structures, resulting in complex reconstructive procedures and substantial morbidity. In addition, carefully selected patients with distant metastases to sites such as the liver and lungs may also undergo potentially curative resection. Long-term survival following curative surgery for recurrence, however, ranges from only 15 to 40%. In addition to resection for curative intent, some patients may benefit from palliative procedures designed to relieve symptoms. Surgery alone is not usually sufficient therapy in these patients. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy play a vital adjunctive role in the management of recurrent disease. This article strives to review the risk factors and patterns of recurrence, selection of individuals for resection of recurrent disease, and outcomes of surgical procedures.

Management of recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Here we present a concise review on the evaluation and management of locally recurrent rectal cancer, which despite marked reductions in the rate of recurrent rectal cancer remains an important problem.

METHODS

This educational review discusses the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of recurrent rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Despite improvements in both the neoadjuvant and surgical management of rectal cancer, local recurrence is still an important problem, with documented recurrence rates of 4% to 8%. The local management of recurrence requires a team of specialist. Accurate detection and diagnosis followed by chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection may result in 5-year survival rates of up to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Locally recurrent rectal cancer can be successfully managed with multimodal therapy leading to successful palliation and often cure.

[Therapy of locally recurrent rectal carcinoma]

During the last decade no gastrointestinal tumor underwent such profound modifications in diagnostics and therapy as rectal cancer (total mesorectal excision, multimodal therapy). Despite all efforts and continuous improvements in the results of oncological treatment, local recurrence of rectal carcinoma is still a considerable problem. Optimized surgery methods and multimodal therapies allow a local recurrence rate lowered to about 6%. Without surgical intervention the 5-year survival rate after local recurrence is approximately 4%, and the median survival time in a palliative situation is about 13 months and often associated with considerable restriction of quality of life. Morbidity after complex pelvic surgery is still high, but its mortality rate in highly professional surgical centers has reached an acceptable level of about 6%. Surgical oncology today has the ability for remarkable improvement in the prognosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer. After R0 resection the 5-year survival rate is nearly 30%.

Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management: 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

During the first decade of the 21st century a number of important European randomized studies were published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence from the literature, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO).

METHODS

Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. The document was available to all Committee members as a web-based document customized for the consensus process. 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 a topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each member commented and voted, sentence by sentence thrice. Sentences upon which an agreement was not reached after voting round # 2 were openly debated during a Consensus Conference in Perugia (Italy) from 11 December to 13 December 2008. A hand-held televoting system collected the opinions of both the Committee members and the audience after each debate. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", and "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 the 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.

The role of intraoperative radiotherapy in solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Combined multimodality therapy is becoming standard treatment for many solid tumors, but the role of intraoperative radiotherapy in the management of solid tumors remains uncertain. The aim is to review the indication, application, and outcomes of intraoperative radiotherapy in the management of nongynecological solid tumors.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane database for studies between 1965 and 2008 assessing intraoperative radiotherapy, using the keywords "intraoperative radiotherapy," "colorectal cancer," "breast cancer," "gastric cancer," "pancreatic cancer," "soft tissue tumor," and "surgery." Only publications in English with available abstracts and regarding adult humans were included, and the evidence was critically evaluated.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 864 publications. After exclusion of nonclinical papers, duplicated papers and exclusion of brachytherapy papers, 77 papers were suitable to assess the current role of intraoperative radiotherapy. The clinical application and evidence base of intraoperative radiotherapy for each cancer is presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies in all common cancers show an additional benefit in local recurrence rates when intraoperative radiotherapy is included in the multimodal treatment. However, intraoperative radiotherapy may not improve overall survival and has significant morbidity depending on the site of the tumor. Intraoperative radiotherapy does have a role in the multidisciplinary management of solid tumors, but further studies are required to more precisely determine the extent of benefit.

Evidence and research in rectal cancer

The main evidences of epidemiology, diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and follow-up are reviewed to optimize the routine treatment of rectal cancer according to a multidisciplinary approach. This paper reports on the knowledge shared between different specialists involved in the design and management of the multidisciplinary ESTRO Teaching Course on Rectal Cancer. The scenario of ongoing research is also addressed. In this time of changing treatments, it clearly appears that a common standard for large heterogeneous patient groups have to be substituted by more individualised therapies based on clinical-pathological features and very soon on molecular and genetic markers. Only trained multidisciplinary teams can face this new challenge and tailor the treatments according to the best scientific evidence for each patient.

Radical resection after IORT-containing multimodality treatment is the most important determinant for outcome in patients treated for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Background

The optimal treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is still a matter of debate. This study assessed the outcome of LRRC patients treated with multimodality treatment, consisting of neoadjuvant radio (chemo-) therapy, extended resection, and intraoperative radiotherapy.

Methods

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients with LRRC who underwent treatment between 1994 and 2006 were studied. The prognostic values of patient-, tumor- and treatment-related characteristics were tested with uni- and multivariate analysis.

Results

Median overall survival was 28 months (range 0-146 months). Five-year overall, disease-free, and metastasis-free survival and local control (OS, DFS, MFS, and LC respectively) were 31.5%, 34.1%, 49.5% and 54.1% respectively. Radical resection (R0) was obtained in 84 patients (57.2%), microscopically irradical resection (R1) in 34 patients (23.1%), and macroscopically irradical resection (R2) in 29 patients (19.7%). For patients with a radical resection median OS was 59 months and the 5-year OS, DFS, MFS, and LC were 48.4%, 52.3%, 65.5% and 68.9%, respectively. Radical resection was significantly correlated with improved OS, DFS, and LC (P < 0.001). Patients who received re-irradiation or full-course radiotherapy survived significantly longer (P = 0.043) and longer without local recurrence (P = 0.038) or metastasis (P < 0.001) compared to patients who were not re-irradiated.

Conclusions

Radical resection is the most significant predictor of improved survival in patients with LRRC. Neoadjuvant radio (chemo-) therapy is the best option in order to realize a radical resection. Re-irradiation is feasible in patients who already received irradiation as part of the primary rectal cancer treatment.

Extended radical resection: the choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Surgery for recurrent rectal cancer is the only therapy with curative potential. This study was designed to assess factors that affect survival after surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

Prospective databases of patients undergoing surgical resection for recurrent rectal cancer at three tertiary centers between 1990 and 2006 were combined and analyzed. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to assess factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients (96 males) underwent surgery (median age, 63 (range, 27-93) years). Ninety-five patients (59 percent) received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Sixty-three patients (39 percent) underwent radical resection and 90 (56 percent) underwent extended radical resection. Seven patients (5 percent) were irresectable. There was one death and 27 percent had major postoperative complications, independent of extent of resection. Negative resection margins were obtained in 98 patients (R0 61 percent). Median cancer-specific and overall survival was 48 months (41.5 percent 5-year survival) and 43 months (36.6 percent 5-year survival), respectively. Margin involvement was a significant predictor of cancer-specific (P<0.001) and overall survival (P<0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection for recurrent rectal cancer results in good survival with acceptable morbidity, unaffected by the extent of resection. Extended radical resection to obtain clear resection margins is the appropriate management of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

[Surgical treatment of recurrent locoregional rectal cancer]

Local recurrence (LR) after curative surgery for rectal cancer occurs in 4 to 33% of cases especially if surgery is sub-optimal (without total excision of the mesorectum). In many cases, diagnosis of LR is made at a late stage because of the high rate of asymptomatic patients, 56% in the experience of the Mayo Clinic. MRI and PETscan are most effective for assessing local and general extension, with a high diagnostic accuracy. Surgical treatment alone or with radiation (preoperative and/or intraoperative) is the only curative treatment of LR with R0 resectability rates of 30% to 45%. Morbidity and mortality rates are high, especially for total exenteration and abdomino-sacral resection. After curative surgery, 5-year global survival is between 30% and 40%. Palliative resection of macroscopic residues is not recommended. Careful patient selection for curative surgery is the best way to optimize treatment in these cases.

Extended resections for advanced rectal cancer

Specialist teamwork required

Surgery for local recurrence of rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Despite improvement in management of primary rectal cancer, 2.6-32% of patients develop local recurrence. A proportion of these patients can be amenable to salvage surgery. The present article reviews the evidence for and against the surgical management for local recurrence of rectal cancer, the role of adjuvant and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT), and evaluates short and long-term outcomes.

METHOD

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Ovid and Cochrane database for studies between 1980 and 2005 assessing surgical management of local recurrence of rectal cancer and the evidence was critically evaluated.

RESULTS

Nearly 50% of rectal cancer recurrences are local and are therefore potentially amenable to curative resection. Preoperative imaging is important for appropriate selection of patients for surgery and preoperative adjuvant therapy is essential. Five-year survival following resection ranges from 18% to 58% with 5-year survival following complete resection of over 35% though morbidity ranges from 21% to 82%. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is beneficial and IORT may have a contributory role in treatment. Aggressive surgical treatment favourably affects quality of life and is cost effective. Surgery for local recurrence can result in significant long-term survival with acceptable morbidity and improved quality of life in appropriately selected patients. Assessment in a specialist centre familiar with these techniques is essential.

intraoperative radiation therapy part 2. Clinical results

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been used for over 30 years in Asia, Europe and America as a supplementary activity in the treatment of cancer patients with promising results. Modern IORT is carried out with electron beams (IOERT) produced by a linear accelerator generally used for external beam irradiation (EBRT) or a specialized mobile electron accelerator. HDR brachytherapy (HDR-IORT) has also been applied on selected locations. Retrospective analysis of clinical experiences in cancer sites such as operable pancreatic tumour, locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer, head and neck carcinomas, sarcomas and cervical cancer are consistent with local tumour control promotion compared to similar clinical experiences without IORT. New emerging indications such as the treatment of breast cancer are presented. The IORT component of the therapeutical approach allows intensification of the total radiation dose without additional exposure of healthy tissues and improves dose-deposit homogeneity and precision. Results of the application of IORT on selected disease sites are presented with an analysis on future possibilities. To improve the methodology, clinical trials are required with multivariate analysis including patient, tumour and treatment characteristics, prospective evaluation of early and late toxicity, patterns of tumour recurrence and overall patient outcome.

Assessment of quality of life outcomes in the treatment of advanced colorectal malignancies

QOL assessment in oncology has made great strides in recent years. There was a difficult time initially, during which QOL tools were "thrown in" to many clinical trials as an afterthought, without a pre-specified scientific question. As expected from such a scattershot approach, the results were underwhelming and disappointing. The disappointing results from this period led many practitioners to question the value added by QOL assessment in oncology clinical trials. This healthy skepticism has led to a renaissance period, in which situation-specific and disease-specific QOL assessments have been developed and have contributed substantial information to the cause of the disease, the effects of treatments, and the experiences of cancer patients. Today, there is a dawning recognition that asking the patient directly about their QOL using the same scientific rigor required of other clinical outcomes can provide valuable data for prognosis, treatment, symptom management, and supportive care. With time and further successful experiences like those cited in this article, QOL assessment may eventually become as routinely collected and integrated into oncology clinical practice as pain and blood pressure assessments are today.

Outcome after the introduction of a multimodality treatment program for locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

This prospective study reports the results of a multimodality treatment protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and assesses outcome after curative vs non-curative surgery and in relation to primary advanced vs locally recurrent cancer.

METHODS

Between 1991 and 2002, 122 patients completed the protocol. Fifty-eight had primary advanced and sixty-four had locally recurrent rectal cancer. Median follow up was 82 months (5-143).

RESULTS

A potentially curative resection was achieved in 59% of the patients with primary advanced and in 34% of patients with locally recurrent cancer. After curative resection, 53 and 59%, respectively, were free from recurrence during the observation time (median 82 months) and the overall 5-year survival was 34 and 40%. Overall 5-year survival in all patients with primary advanced cancer was 29 and 16% in all patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Multimodality treatment may cure at least a third of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer provided a radical resection is performed. As the post-operative morbidity is high, an optimised patient selection for neo-adjuvant treatment and surgery is essential. However, palliative surgery may benefit the patient if local control is achieved. Future studies should focus on the problem of distant metastasis.