Challenges in the neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer: balancing the risk of recurrence and quality of life

ALLIANCE A022104/NRG-GI010: The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial: a randomized phase II/III trial testing the efficacy of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy regarding clinical complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and patient groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation, improve quality of life for patients and improve survival outcomes.

Methods

In this NCI-sponsored multi-group randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N+) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 3-4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Patients will undergo assessment 8-12 (+/- 4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 296 evaluable patients (148 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect an 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha=0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between treatment arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse effects. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, plasma and buffy coat in EDTA tubes, and serial rectal MRIs will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and has a current accrual of 312. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

Discussion

Building off of data from modern day rectal cancer trials and patient input from national advocacy groups, we have designed the current trial studying chemotherapy intensification via a consolidation chemotherapy approach with the intent to enhance cCR and DFS rates, increase organ preservation rates, and improve quality of life for patients with rectal cancer.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163 ; Support includes U10CA180868 (NRG) and U10CA180888 (SWOG).

Survey of rectal cancer MRI technique and reporting tumour descriptors in the UK: a multi-centre British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR) audit

AIM

To evaluate variation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and reporting of rectal cancer staging examinations across the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, multi-centre audit was undertaken of imaging protocols and information documented within consecutive MRI rectal cancer reports between March 2020 and August 2021, which were compared against American and European guidelines. Inclusion criteria included histologically proven rectal adenocarcinoma and baseline staging MRI rectum only.

RESULTS

Fully anonymised data from 924 MRI reports by 78 radiologists at 24 centres were evaluated. Thirty-two per cent of radiologists used template reporting, but these reports offered superior documentation of 13 out of 18 key tumour features compared to free-text reports including T-stage, relation to peritoneal reflection and mesorectal fascia (MRF), nodal status, and presence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI; p<0.027 in each). There was no significant differences in the remaining five features. Across all tumour locations, the tumour relationship to the MRF, the presence of EMVI, and the presence of tumour deposits were reported in 79.5%, 85.6%, and 44% of cases, respectively, and tumour, nodal, and distant metastatic stage documented in 94.4%, 97.7%, and 78.3%. In low rectal tumours, the relationship to the anal sphincter complex was reported in only 54.6%.

CONCLUSION

Considerable variation exists in rectal cancer MRI acquisition and reporting in this sample of UK centres. Inclusion of key radiological features in reports must be improved for risk stratification and treatment decisions. Template reporting is superior to free-text reporting. Routine adoption of standardised radiology practices should now be considered to improve standards to facilitate personalised precision treatment for patients to improve outcomes.

Current trends in nonoperative management for rectal adenocarcinoma: An unequal playing field?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing evidence suggests patient-oriented benefits of nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer. However, vigilant surveillance requires excellent access to care. We sought to examine patient, socioeconomic, and facility-level factors associated with NOM over time.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (2006-2017), we examined patients with Stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma, who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and received NOM versus surgery. Factors associated with NOM were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection.

RESULTS

There were 59,196 surgical and 8520 NOM patients identified. NOM use increased from 12.9% to 15.9% between 2006 and 2017. Patients who were Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-1.47), treated at community cancer centers (aOR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.12-1.30), without insurance (aOR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.68-2.09), and with less education (aOR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.42-1.65) exhibited higher odds of NOM. Patients treated at high-volume centers (aOR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.74-0.84) and those who traveled >25.6 miles for care (aOR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.55-0.64) had lower odds of NOM.

CONCLUSIONS

Vulnerable groups who traditionally have difficulty accessing comprehensive cancer care were more likely to receive NOM, suggesting that healthcare disparities may be driving utilization. More research is needed to understand NOM decision-making in rectal cancer treatment.

[Rectal Cancer: Organ preservation and neoadjuvant treatment escalation]

Standard treatment consisting of chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery with total mesorectal excision, results in good oncologic local control but high morbidity and poor functional results. Since chemoradiotherapy results in 15% pathological complete response, even reaching up to 30% in case of association with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radical surgery has been recently debated for good responders. Therefore, a de-escalation strategy, by omitting radical surgery in good responders, has recently been developed with two different options: a watch and wait strategy, requiring an accurate clinical and radiological definition of complete response and a local excision strategy including patients with sub-complete response. Ongoing trials focus on response optimization by chemotherapy intensification or radiotherapy dose escalation. However, many questions are still to be answered regarding definition of complete response, follow-up strategy, morbidity of salvage surgery in case of recurrence as well as long-term oncological and functionnal results.

Unintended consequences of treating early rectal cancers for complete clinical response with chemoradiotherapy

The aim was to examine the current trend in rectal cancer, which is to extend ’watch-and-wait’ to earlier-stage tumors, not normally treated with chemoradiotherapy, to define the up-side and down-side regarding quality of life (QOL) and anorectal/sexual/urinary function from this approach. We reviewed the literature regarding a ‘watch-and-wait’ strategy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome measure was complete clinical response. Secondary measures included colostomy rate, functional outcomes and QOL. There is a trend to use chemoradiotherapy in earlier tumors using dose-escalation of radiation and/or additional chemotherapy, resulting in high rates of complete clinical response, which may impact adversely on QOL if radical surgery is subsequently required. Focusing on organ-preservation as the primary goal of treatment rather than overall functional outcomes and QOL for the whole population, may not provide patients with sufficient information for optimal decision-making.

Assessment of a Staging System for Sigmoid Colon Cancer Based on Tumor Deposits and Extramural Venous Invasion on Computed Tomography

IMPORTANCE

Preoperative TNM stratification of colon cancer on computed tomography (CT) does not identify patients who are at high risk of recurrence that could be selected for preoperative treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utility of CT findings for prognosis of sigmoid colon cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prognostic study used retrospective data from patients who underwent bowel resection for sigmoid colon cancer between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2015, at a tertiary care center receiving international and national referrals for colorectal cancer. Statistical analysis was performed in April 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to investigate CT findings associated with disease recurrence. Kaplan-Meier survival plots were calculated for disease-free survival using CT staging systems.

RESULTS

Of the 414 patients who had sigmoid colon cancer (248 [60.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [12.7] years), with median follow-up of 61 months (interquartile range, 40-87 months), 122 patients (29.5%) developed disease recurrence. On multivariate analysis, nodal disease was not associated with disease recurrence; only tumor deposits (hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% CI, 1.21-2.98; P = .006) and extramural venous invasion (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.06; P = .003) on CT were associated with disease recurrence. Significant differences in disease-free survival were found using CT-T3 substage classification (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.32-2.68) but not CT-TNM (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.94-2.55). The presence of tumor deposits or extramural venous invasion on CT (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.68-3.56) had the strongest association with poor outcome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, T3 substaging and detection of tumor deposits or extramural venous invasion on preoperative CT scans of sigmoid colon cancer were prognostic factors for disease-free survival, whereas TNM and nodal staging on CT had no prognostic value. T3 substaging and detection of tumor deposits or extramural venous invasion of sigmoid colon cancer was superior to TNM on CT and could be used to preoperatively identify patients at high risk of recurrence.

Grey areas and evidence gaps in the management of rectal cancer as revealed by comparing recommendations from clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines.

METHODS

Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ² statistic test.

RESULTS

Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ² = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence.

Clinical and molecular diagnosis of pathologic complete response in rectal cancer: an update

INTRODUCTION

The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer includes neoadjuvant chemoradiation with subsequent total mesorectal excision. This approach has shown various degrees of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (ranging from complete response to further tumor growth), which have substantial prognostic and therapeutic implications. A total regression of the tumor is a predictor of superior oncologic outcomes compared with partial responders and non-responders. Further, this concept has opened the possibility of nonoperative strategies for complete responders and explains the widespread research interest in finding clinical, radiographic, pathologic, and biochemical parameters that allow for identification of these patients. Areas covered: The present review evaluates the most recent efforts in the literature to identify predictors of patients likely to achieve a complete response following neoadjuvant treatment for the management of rectal cancer. This includes clinical predictors of pathologic complete response such as tumor location, size, and stage, molecular predictors such as tumor biology and microRNA, serum biomarkers such as carcinoembryogenic antigen and nomograms. Expert commentary: There has been significant progress in our ability to predict pathological complete response. However, more high-quality research is still needed to use this concept to confidently dictate clinical management.

How Should Imaging Direct/Orient Management of Rectal Cancer?

Modern rectal cancer management is dependent on preoperative staging, and radiological assessment is a crucial part of this process. Imaging must provide sufficient information to guide preoperative decision-making that is reliable and reproducible. Different methods have been used for local staging; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown to be the most reliable tool for this purpose. MRI offers prognostic information about the patients and guides the decision between neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision alone. Also, not only the initial staging but also restaging by MRI can provide significant information regarding tumor response that is essential when considering alternative approaches.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer and impact on outcomes - A population-based study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT) for rectal cancer is, in Norway, restricted to patients with cT4-stage or threatened circumferential resection margin. This nationwide population-based study assessed the use of preoperative (C)RT in Norway and its impact on treatment outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were used to identify all stage I-III rectal cancers treated with major resection (1997-2011: n=9193). Cumulative risk of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and relative survival was estimated for patients in 2007-2011 (n=3179). Multivariate regression-models were used to compare outcomes following preoperative (C)RT and surgery versus surgery alone.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients given preoperative (C)RT increased from 5% to 49% during 1997-2011. Preoperative (C)RT was associated with reduced risk of local recurrence (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% CI=0.29-1.04) and a tendency of improved survival (excess HR=0.75; 95% CI=0.52-1.08) with significant effects in patients aged ≥70years (local recurrence: HR=0.35; 95% CI=0.13-0.91; survival: excess HR=0.58; 95% CI=0.35-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that when use of preoperative (C)RT is restricted to selected high-risk rectal cancers, preoperative (C)RT is associated with improved local recurrence, and possibly improved survival, when studied on a population-based level.

Protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial evaluating early Surgery Alone In LOw Rectal cancer (SAILOR)

INTRODUCTION

There are 11 500 rectal cancers diagnosed annually in the UK. Although surgery remains the primary treatment, there is evidence that preoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves local recurrence rates. High-quality surgery in rectal cancer is equally important in minimising local recurrence. Advances in MRI-guided prediction of resection margin status and improvements in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) technique supports a reassessment of the contribution of preoperative RT. A more selective approach to RT may be appropriate given the associated toxicity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial will explore the feasibility of a definitive trial evaluating the omission of RT in resectable low rectal cancer requiring APER. It will test the feasibility of randomising patients to (1) standard care (neoadjuvant long course RT±chemotherapy and APER, or (2) APER surgery alone for cT2/T3ab N0/1 low rectal cancer with clear predicted resection margins on MRI. RT schedule will be 45 Gy over 5 weeks as current standard, with restaging and surgery after 8-12 weeks. Recruitment will be for 24 months with a minimum 12-month follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

Objectives include testing the ability to recruit, consent and retain patients, to quantify the number of patients eligible for a definitive trial and to test feasibility of outcomes measures. These include locoregional recurrence rates, distance to circumferential resection margin, toxicity and surgical complications including perineal wound healing, quality of life and economic analysis. The quality of MRI staging, RT delivery and surgical specimen quality will be closely monitored.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial is approved by the Regional Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (HRA) or equivalent. Written informed consent will be obtained. Serious adverse events will be reported to Swansea Trials Unit (STU), the ethics committee and trial sites. Trial results will be submitted for peer review publication and to trial participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN02406823.

Timing of Therapies in the Multidisciplinary Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Available Evidence and Implications for Routine Practice

A multimodality disciplinary approach is paramount for the management of locally advanced rectal cancer. Over the last decade, (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery plus or minus adjuvant chemotherapy has represented the mainstay of treatment for this disease. Nevertheless, robust evidence suggesting the optimal timing and sequence of therapies in this setting has been overall limited. A number of questions are still unsolved including the length of the interval between neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery or the timing of systemic chemotherapy. Interestingly, emerging data support the contention that altering sequence or timing or both of the components of this multimodality approach may provide an opportunity to implement treatment strategies that far better address the risk and expectations of individual patients. In this article, we review the available evidence on timing of therapies in the multidisciplinary treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer and discuss the potential implications for routine practice that may derive from a change of the currently accepted treatment paradigm.

Differential effects of patient-related factors on the outcome of radiation therapy for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether cancer specific survival in rectal cancer patients is affected by patient-related factors, conditional on radiation treatment.

METHODS

359 invasive rectal cancer patients who consented and provided questionnaire data for a population-based case-control study of colorectal cancer in Metropolitan Detroit were included in this study. Their vital status was ascertained through to the population-based cancer registry. Hazard ratios (HR) for cancer specific and other deaths and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated according to selected patients' characteristics, stratified by radiation status, using joint Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were found to be deceased after the median follow-up of 9.2 years, and 70% of them were considered to be cancer specific. Smoking and a history of diabetes were associated with an increased probability of deaths from other causes (HR 3.20, 95% CI 1.72-5.97 and HR 2.02, 95% CI 0.98-4.16, respectively), while regular use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was inversely correlated with cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.81). Furthermore, the associations of smoking and NSAIDs with the two different types of deaths (cancer vs others) significantly varied with radiation status (P-values for the interactions= 0.014 for both). In addition, we observed a marginally significantly reduced risk of cancer specific deaths in the patients who had the relative ketogenic diet overall (HR=0.49, 95% 0.23-1.02).

CONCLUSION

Further research is warranted to confirm these results in order to develop new interventions to improve outcome from radiation treatment.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a phase II randomized controlled trial evaluating 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation plus induction or consolidation chemotherapy, and total mesorectal excision or nonoperative management

Background

Treatment of patients with non-metastatic, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) includes pre-operative chemoradiation, total mesorectal excision (TME) and post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy. This trimodality treatment provides local tumor control in most patients; but almost one-third ultimately die from distant metastasis. Most survivors experience significant impairment in quality of life (QoL), due primarily to removal of the rectum. A current challenge lies in identifying patients who could safely undergo rectal preservation without sacrificing survival benefit and QoL.

Methods/Design

This multi-institutional, phase II study investigates the efficacy of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and selective non-operative management (NOM) in LARC. Patients with MRI-staged Stage II or III rectal cancer amenable to TME will be randomized to receive FOLFOX/CAPEOX: a) before induction neoadjuvant chemotherapy (INCT); or b) after consolidation neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CNCT), with 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemoradiation. Patients in both arms will be re-staged after completing all neoadjuvant therapy. Those with residual tumor at the primary site will undergo TME. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) will receive non-operative management (NOM). NOM patients will be followed every 3 months for 2 years, and every 6 months thereafter. TME patients will be followed according to NCCN guidelines. All will be followed for at least 5 years from the date of surgery or—in patients treated with NOM—the last day of treatment.

Discussion

The studies published thus far on the safety of NOM in LARC have compared survival between select groups of patients with a cCR after NOM, to patients with a pathologic complete response (pCR) after TME. The current study compares 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in an entire population of patients with LARC, including those with cCR and those with pCR. We will compare the two arms of the study with respect to organ preservation at 3 years, treatment compliance, adverse events and surgical complications. We will measure QoL in both groups. We will analyze molecular indications that may lead to more individually tailored treatments in the future. This will be the first NOM trial utilizing a regression schema for response assessment in a prospective fashion.

Trial registration

NCT02008656

[Organ preserving strategies for rectal cancer treatment]

For rectal cancers, the current standard of care consists of chemoradiation followed by radical surgery with total mesorectal excision. Oncologic results are good, especially regarding local recurrence rates, but at the cost of high morbidity rates and poor anorectal, urinary and sexual function results. Since chemoradiation yields 15 to 25% pathological complete response, the role of radical surgery is questioned for patients presenting with good response after chemoradiation and two organ preservation strategies have been offered: watch and wait strategy and local excision strategy. The aim of this review is to give the results of organ preservation after chemoradiotherapy series and to highlight different questions regarding initial patient's selection, complete clinical response definition, risk of mesorectal nodal involvement, follow-up modalities as well as oncologic and functional results.

Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer

Dramatic improvements in the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer have occurred over the past 30 years. Advances in surgical pathology, refinements in surgical techniques and instrumentation, new imaging modalities, and the widespread use of neoadjuvant therapy have all contributed to these improvements. Several questions emerge as we learn of the benefits or lack thereof for components of the current multimodality treatment in subgroups of patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). What is the optimal surgical technique for distal rectal cancers? Do all patients need postoperative chemotherapy? Do all patients need radiation? Do all patients need surgery, or is a nonoperative, organ-preserving approach warranted in selected patients? Answering these questions will lead to more precise treatment regimens, based on patient and tumor characteristics, that will improve outcomes while preserving quality of life. However, the idea of shifting the treatment paradigm (chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant therapy) currently applied to all patients with LARC to a more individually tailored approach is controversial. The paradigm shift toward organ preservation in highly selected patients whose tumors demonstrate clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment is also controversial. Herein, we highlight many of the advances and resultant controversies that are likely to dominate the research agenda for LARC in the modern era.

Short- and Long-Term Quality of Life and Bowel Function in Patients With MRI-Defined, High-Risk, Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Treated With an Intensified Neoadjuvant Strategy in the Randomized Phase 2 EXPERT-C Trial

OBJECTIVE

Intensified preoperative treatments have been increasingly investigated in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), but limited data are available for the impact of these regimens on quality of life (QoL) and bowel function (BF). We assessed these outcome measures in EXPERT-C, a randomized phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), followed by chemoradiation therapy (CRT), total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant CAPOX with or without cetuximab in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, high-risk LARC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. Bowel incontinence was assessed using the modified Fecal Incontinence Severity Index questionnaire.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, QoL scores during preoperative treatment were better for symptoms associated with the primary tumor in the rectum (blood and mucus in stool, constipation, diarrhea, stool frequency, buttock pain) but worse for global health status, role functioning, and symptoms related to the specific safety profile of each treatment modality. During follow-up, improved emotional functioning and lessened anxiety and insomnia were observed, but deterioration of body image, increased urinary incontinence, less sexual interest (men), and increased impotence and dyspareunia were observed. Cetuximab was associated with a deterioration of global health status during neoadjuvant chemotherapy but did not have any long-term detrimental effect. An improvement in bowel continence was observed after preoperative treatment and 3 years after sphincter-sparing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensifying neoadjuvant treatment by administering induction systemic chemotherapy before chemoradiation therapy improves tumor-related symptoms and does not appear to have a significantly detrimental effect on QoL and BF, in both the short and the long term.

[Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: experience from one centre]

PURPOSE

In recent decades, the management of rectal cancer has been significantly improved by optimizing the surgical treatment with the total mesorectal excision and the development of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. In this study, we investigated the impact of changes in practice over a period of 15 years in an expert centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A monocentric study was conducted retrospectively on cT3-resectable T4 patients who received chemoradiotherapy for a locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma between 1993 and 2008. We studied sphincter preservation, pathological complete response (ypT0), survival, and toxicities by different concomitant chemotherapy and treatment period.

RESULTS

Among the 179 patients who had a chemoradiotherapy, 56.4% were received concomitant 5-fluoro-uracil-leucovorin, 28.5% with concomitant capecitabine, and 15.1% with concomitant oxaliplatin and capecitabine. The average dose of radiotherapy was 45 Gy (25×1.8 Gy). Five-year disease-free survival was 74.3% and overall survival 68.8%. The rate of local recurrence and distant metastases were 6.1 and 23.6%. In multivariate analysis, concomitant chemotherapy oxaliplatin and capecitabine improved the pathological complete response rate (ypT0; capecitabine: 6%, 5-fluoro-uracil-leucovorin: 10.3%, capecitabine-oxaliplatin: 22.2%), but not significantly (P=0.12) and with more toxicities, and treatment interruptions. Sphincter preservation rate was not improved significantly during the study period (1993-2004 vs. 2005-2008), but disease-free survival improved from 72.2% up to 87.5% (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our results are consistent with those published in the literature. Concomitant chemotherapy with 5-fluoro-uracil or capecitabine remains the standard scheme. Upfront chemotherapy, before chemoradiotherapy, should be investigated with regard to the predominance of metastasis.

What is being researched in rectal cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Clinical evidence has a more significant role in medical specialties than in surgery. Rectal cancer (CR) is no exception. This paper explores what CR-related subjects are being investigated at the present time in a quantitative and qualitative way and analyzes this information to know what possible answers clinical research could give us in the future.

METHODS

The data collection was carried out in April 2014 and was based on 3 sources: 2 institutional clinical trials registries -American (clinicaltrials.gov) and European (EU Clinical Trials Register)- and a survey given to members of the Asociación Española de Coloproctología (AECP). The obtained studies were exported to a database designed especially for this review, which included a number of descriptive elements that would allow the cataloging of the different studies. The AECP survey results were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

There are currently 216 clinical trials ongoing related to CR. Two-thirds are primarily conducted by oncologists. Nearly a third are surgical. The research focuses on improving preoperative treatment: new drugs, new schemes of chemo-radiotherapy (usually induction or consolidation schemes) or optimization of radiotherapy and its effects. Surgical clinical trials are related to robotics, laparoscopy, stoma, low colorectal anastomosis, distal CR and local treatment.

CONCLUSION

Most of the current clinical trials ongoing on CR are analyzing aspects of chemo-radiotherapy and its effects. A third focus on purely surgical issues.

A practical review of the performance and interpretation of staging magnetic resonance imaging for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to outline key technical considerations in performing rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) along with a practical, systematic approach to the interpretation of rectal MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Following validation by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Rectal Cancer European Equivalence Study group, rectal MRI is mandatory for the local staging of rectal cancer in many countries. The systematic interpretation of high-quality, high-resolution T2-weighted images should form the basis for discussing the management of patients with rectal cancer, including aiding surgical planning and enabling the appropriate use of neoadjuvant therapy. In this article, we discuss the methods for obtaining high-quality rectal magnetic resonance images and a systematic approach for the accurate interpretation of these images.

Outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer with highly selective preoperative chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

This study compared outcomes after surgery alone for stage II/ III rectal cancer in a tertiary cancer unit versus highly selective use of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients receiving potentially curative surgery for stage II and III primary rectal cancer. CRT was given only for magnetic resonance imaging-predicted circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and nodal disease (at least N2). Primary endpoints were CRM involvement and local recurrence rates. Secondary endpoints were systemic recurrence and overall survival. Data were analysed by log rank test, and univariable and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2012, 363 patients were treated for rectal cancer. After applying exclusion criteria, 266 patients with stage II/III mid or low rectal cancer were analysed. Of these, 103 received neoadjuvant CRT and 163 proceeded directly to surgery, seven of whom required postoperative radiotherapy; the latter patients were included in the neoadjuvant CRT group for analysis. There was a significant difference in local recurrence between the CRT and surgery-alone groups (6·5 versus 0 per cent at 5 years; P = 0·040), but not in CRM involvement (7·2 versus 5·1 per cent; P = 0·470), 5-year systemic recurrence (37·2 versus 43·0 per cent; P = 0·560) and overall survival (64·2 versus 64·6 per cent; P = 0·628) rates. Metastatic disease developed more frequently in low rectal cancers (odds ratio 0·14; P < 0·001), regardless of whether neoadjuvant treatment was delivered.

CONCLUSION

Locally advanced rectal cancer does not necessarily require neoadjuvant CRT.