The relationship of histological tumor regression grade (TRG) and two different time intervals to surgery following radiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Predictive biomarkers in radioresistant rectal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer often consists of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. However, approximately 15% of patients show no response to this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This systematic review aimed to identify biomarkers of innate radioresistant rectal cancer.

METHOD

Through a systematic literature search, 125 papers were included and analyzed using ROBINS-I, a Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies of interventions. Both statistically significant and nonsignificant biomarkers were identified. Biomarkers mentioned more than once in the results or biomarkers with a low or moderate risk of bias were included as the final results.

RESULTS

Thirteen unique biomarkers, three genetic signatures, one specific pathway, and two combinations of two or four biomarkers were identified. In particular, the connection between HMGCS2, COASY, and PI3K-pathway seems promising. Future scientific research should focus on further validating these genetic resistance markers.

Optimal fractionation of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer (Stockholm III): a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in rectal cancer. However, the optimal radiotherapy fractionation and interval between radiotherapy and surgery is still under debate. We aimed to study recurrence in patients randomised between three different radiotherapy regimens with respect to fractionation and time to surgery.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial (Stockholm III), all patients with a biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum, without signs of non-resectability or distant metastases, without severe cardiovascular comorbidity, and planned for an abdominal resection from 18 Swedish hospitals were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned with permuted blocks, stratified by participating centre, to receive either 5 × 5 Gy radiation dose with surgery within 1 week (short-course radiotherapy) or after 4-8 weeks (short-course radiotherapy with delay) or 25 × 2 Gy radiation dose with surgery after 4-8 weeks (long-course radiotherapy with delay). After a protocol amendment, randomisation could include all three treatments or just the two short-course radiotherapy treatments, per hospital preference. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence calculated from the date of randomisation to the date of local recurrence. Comparisons between treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a double-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1·7. Patients were analysed according to intention to treat for all endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00904813.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 5, 1998, and Jan 31, 2013, 840 patients were recruited and randomised; 385 patients in the three-arm randomisation, of whom 129 patients were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy, 128 to short-course radiotherapy with delay, and 128 to long-course radiotherapy with delay, and 455 patients in the two-arm randomisation, of whom 228 were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy and 227 to short-course radiotherapy with delay. In patients with any local recurrence, median time from date of randomisation to local recurrence in the pooled short-course radiotherapy comparison was 33·4 months (range 18·2-62·2) in the short-course radiotherapy group and 19·3 months (8·5-39·5) in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group. Median time to local recurrence in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group was 33·3 months (range 17·8-114·3). Cumulative incidence of local recurrence in the whole trial was eight of 357 patients who received short-course radiotherapy, ten of 355 who received short-course radiotherapy with delay, and seven of 128 who received long-course radiotherapy (HR vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 1·44 [95% CI 0·41-5·11]; long-course radiotherapy with delay 2·24 [0·71-7·10]; p=0·48; both deemed non-inferior). Acute radiation-induced toxicity was recorded in one patient (<1%) of 357 after short-course radiotherapy, 23 (7%) of 355 after short-course radiotherapy with delay, and six (5%) of 128 patients after long-course radiotherapy with delay. Frequency of postoperative complications was similar between all arms when the three-arm randomisation was analysed (65 [50%] of 129 patients in the short-course radiotherapy group; 48 [38%] of 128 patients in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group; 50 [39%] of 128 patients in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group; odds ratio [OR] vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 0·59 [95% CI 0·36-0·97], long-course radiotherapy with delay 0·63 [0·38-1·04], p=0·075). However, in a pooled analysis of the two short-course radiotherapy regimens, the risk of postoperative complications was significantly lower after short-course radiotherapy with delay than after short-course radiotherapy (144 [53%] of 355 vs 188 [41%] of 357; OR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83] p=0·001).

INTERPRETATION

Delaying surgery after short-course radiotherapy gives similar oncological results compared with short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery. Long-course radiotherapy with delay is similar to both short-course radiotherapy regimens, but prolongs the treatment time substantially. Although radiation-induced toxicity was seen after short-course radiotherapy with delay, postoperative complications were significantly reduced compared with short-course radiotherapy. Based on these findings, we suggest that short-course radiotherapy with delay to surgery is a useful alternative to conventional short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery.

FUNDING

Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Stockholm Cancer Society, and the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research in Stockholm.

Tailored selection of the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: analysis based on the pathologic stage or chemoradiation response

BACKGROUND

The optimal interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery has yet to be established. Additionally, it is unknown whether patients with different pathologic stages or chemoradiation responses should undergo different intervals between CRT and surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate whether this interval has a differential effect on the oncologic outcome of patients with different chemoradiation responses or pathologic stages.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 291 rectal cancer patients who were treated with preoperative chemoradiation and surgery between March 2004 and November 2012. All patients were separated into two groups according to a 7-week treatment interval. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between patients undergoing intervals that were shorter and longer than 7 weeks in the entire group and in subgroups of ypT0-2N0, ypT3-4N0 and ypT0-4N+. The recurrence patterns were also analysed in all of the subgroups. Multivariate analysis was performed to explore the clinical factors that were significantly associated with DFS, local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and distant metastasis-free survival among patients exhibiting ypT3-4N0 and ypT0-4N+.

RESULTS

For the ypT0-2N0 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS and the rates of local and distant recurrence were similar between the short and long interval groups. For the patients exhibiting ypT3-4N0, although no significant difference was found in OS or DFS between the short and long interval groups, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the long interval group, which was further confirmed by multivariate analysis. In the patients exhibiting ypT0-4N+, both OS and DFS were lower in the long interval group than in the short interval group. Furthermore, multivariate analysis indicated that the interval was significantly associated with DFS, especially LRFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval between CRT and surgery may exert a differential effect on the prognosis of patients exhibiting different pathologic stages or chemoradiation responses. Therefore, we strongly suggest tailoring the interval between CRT and surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer.

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.

Optimal Time Intervals between Pre-Operative Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Rectal Cancer?

BACKGROUND

In rectal cancer therapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (RT/CRT) is extensively used pre-operatively to (i) decrease local recurrence risks, (ii) allow radical surgery in non-resectable tumors, and (iii) increase the chances of sphincter-saving surgery or (iv) organ-preservation. There is a growing interest among clinicians and scientists to prolong the interval from the RT/CRT to surgery to achieve maximal tumor regression and to diminish complications during surgery.

METHODS

The pros and cons of delaying surgery depending upon the aim of the pre-operative RT/CRT are critically evaluated.

RESULTS

Depending upon the clinical situation, the need for a time interval prior to surgery to allow tumor regression varies. In the first and most common situation (i), no regression is needed and any delay beyond what is needed for the acute radiation reaction in surrounding tissues to wash out can potentially only be deleterious. After short-course RT (5Gyx5) with immediate surgery, the ideal time between the last radiation fraction is 2-5 days, since a slightly longer interval appears to increase surgical complications. A delay beyond 4 weeks appears safe; it results in tumor regression including pathologic complete responses, but is not yet fully evaluated concerning oncologic outcome. Surgical complications do not appear to be influenced by the CRT-surgery interval within reasonable limits (about 4-12 weeks), but this has not been sufficiently explored. Maximum tumor regression may not be seen in rectal adenocarcinomas until after several months; thus, a longer than usual delay may be of benefit in well responding tumors if limited or no surgery is planned, as in (iii) or (iv), otherwise not.

CONCLUSION

A longer time interval after CRT is undoubtedly of benefit in some clinical situations but may be counterproductive in most situations. After short-course RT, long-term results from the clinical trials are not yet available to routinely recommend an interval longer than 2-5 days, unless the tumor is non-resectable at diagnosis.

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.