Complications from the primary tumour are not related with survival in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy without primary tumour resection

Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stents as a Bridge to Surgery for Obstructive and Symptomatic Primary Tumors of Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Score Analysis

Background: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) was introduced for the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC) a few decades ago. However, its long-term outcomes remain controversial, especially for stage IV CRC. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcomes of SEMS as a "bridge to surgery" (BTS) for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in stage IV CRC by one-to-one propensity-score matching. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center from January 2007 to December 2017. Patients with obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors of stage IV CRC underwent primary resection (PR) or placement of a SEMS as a BTS. They were divided into SEMS and PR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared. Results: In total, 52 patients were reviewed (SEMS group, 21; PR group, 31). Sixteen patients in both groups were matched using propensity scores. Patients in the SEMS group more frequently underwent laparoscopic surgery than those in the PR group (75% versus 19%, P = .004). The two groups showed no significant differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes. The 5-year overall survival was not significantly different between groups (29% versus 20%, P = .53). Conclusions: As a BTS, the use of SEMS for obstructive and symptomatic primary tumors in CRC stage IV can be a comparable option to PR in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, and would be less invasive with respect to surgical procedures.

Primary Tumor-Related Complications and Salvage Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Rectal Cancer and an Untreated Primary Tumor

BACKGROUND

For rectal cancer with unresectable metastases, current practice favors omitting interventions directed at the primary tumor in asymptomatic patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with primary tumor-related complications, characterize salvage outcomes, and measure survival in patients with metastatic rectal cancer who did not undergo upfront intervention for their primary tumor.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Patients who presented between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015, with synchronous stage IV rectal cancer, an unresected primary tumor, and no prior primary tumor-directed intervention were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measured was the rate of primary tumor-related complications in the cohort that did not receive any primary tumor-directed intervention. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to determine whether complications are associated with survival.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 358 patients with a median age of 56 years (22-92). Median follow-up was 26 months (range, 1-93 months). Among the 168 patients (46.9%) who eventually underwent elective resection of the primary tumor, the surgery was performed with curative intent in 66 patients (18.4%) and preemptive intent in 102 patients (28.5%). Of the 190 patients who did not undergo an upfront or elective intervention for the primary tumor, 68 (35.8%) experienced complications. Nonsurgical intervention for complications was attempted in 34 patients with an overall success rate of 61.8% (21/34). Surgical intervention was performed in 47 patients (including 13 patients for whom nonsurgical intervention failed): diversion in 26 patients and resection in 21 patients. Of those 47 patients, 42 (89.4%) ended up with a colostomy or ileostomy.

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with metastatic rectal cancer and untreated primary tumor experience primary tumor-related complications. These patients should be followed closely, and preemptive intervention (resection, diversion, or radiation) should be considered if the primary tumor progresses despite systemic therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B400. COMPLICACIONES RELACIONADAS CON EL TUMOR PRIMARIO Y RESULTADOS DE RESCATE EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER DE RECTO METASTÁSICO Y UN TUMOR PRIMARIO NO TRATADO: Para el cáncer de recto con metástasis no resecables, la práctica actual favorece la omisión de las intervenciones dirigidas al tumor primario en pacientes asintomáticos.Determinar la proporción de pacientes con complicaciones relacionadas con el tumor primario, caracterizar los resultados de rescate y medir la supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer rectal metastásico que no se sometieron a una intervención inicial para su tumor primario.Análisis retrospectivo.Centro oncológico integral.Pacientes que se presentaron entre el 1 de enero de 2008 y el 31 de diciembre de 2015 con cáncer de recto en estadio IV sincrónico, un tumor primario no resecado y sin intervención previa dirigida al tumor primario.Tasa de complicaciones relacionadas con el tumor primario en la cohorte que no recibió ninguna intervención dirigida al tumor primario. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier y el análisis de regresión de Cox para determinar si las complicaciones están asociadas con la supervivencia.La cohorte estuvo compuesta por 358 pacientes con una mediana de edad de 56 años (22-92). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 26 meses (rango, 1 a 93 meses). Entre los 168 pacientes (46,9%) que finalmente se sometieron a resección electiva del tumor primario, la cirugía se realizó con intención curativa en 66 pacientes (18,4%) y con intención preventiva en 102 pacientes (28,5%). De los 190 pacientes que no se sometieron a una intervención inicial o electiva para el tumor primario, 68 (35,8%) experimentaron complicaciones. Se intentó una intervención no quirúrgica para las complicaciones en 34 pacientes con una tasa de éxito global del 61,8% (21 de 34). La intervención quirúrgica se realizó en 47 pacientes (incluidos 13 pacientes en los que falló la intervención no quirúrgica): derivación en 26 pacientes y resección en 21 pacientes. De esos 47 pacientes, 42 (89,4%) terminaron con una colostomía o ileostomía.Único centro.Una proporción significativa de pacientes con cáncer de recto metastásico y primario no tratado experimentan complicaciones relacionadas con el tumor primario. Se debe hacer un seguimiento estrecho de estos pacientes y considerar la posibilidad de una intervención preventiva (resección, derivación o radiación) si el tumor primario progresa a pesar de la terapia sistémica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B400.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

The impact of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer with an intact primary tumor: Results from a large prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Debate continues regarding the benefits versus risks of initial resection of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with an asymptomatic primary tumor. Although the benefit of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent bevacizumab alongside first-line chemotherapy in mCRC is established, the impact of bevacizumab on the intact primary tumor (IPT) is less well understood.

METHODS

Data from an Australian mCRC registry were used to assess the impact of bevacizumab-based regimens in the presence of an IPT, to see if this differs from effects in resected primary tumor (RPT) patients and to understand the safety profile of bevacizumab in patients with IPT. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety endpoints were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 1204 mCRC patients, 826 (69%) were eligible for inclusion. Bevacizumab use was similar in both arms (IPT (64%) versus RPT (70%)); compared with chemotherapy alone, bevacizumab use was associated with significantly longer PFS (IPT: 8.5 months vs 4.7 months, P = 0.017; RPT: 10.8 months vs 5.8 months, P < 0.001) and OS (IPT: 20 months vs 14.8 months, P = 0.005; RPT: 24.4 months vs 17.3 months, P = 0.004)).1 Bevacizumab use in an IPT was associated with more GI perforations (4.5% vs 1.8%, P = 0.210) but less frequent bleeding (1.5% vs 5.3%, P = 0.050) and thrombosis (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = 0.470), versus chemotherapy alone. Median survival was equivalent between patients that did or did not experience bevacizumab-related adverse events - 20.0 months versus 19.9 months, hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.623.1 CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes in mCRC with an IPT. The occurrence of bevacizumab-related adverse events did not significantly impact survival outcomes.