French experience with contact X-ray endocavitary radiation for early rectal cancer

Nonoperative Management for T2 Low Rectal Cancer: A Western Approach

The possibility of organ preservation in early rectal cancer has gained popularity during recent years. Patients with early tumor stage and low risk for local recurrence do not usually require neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncological reasons. However, these patients may be considered for chemoradiation exclusively for the purpose of achieving a complete clinical response and avoid total mesorectal excision. In addition, cT2 tumors may be more likely to develop complete response to neoadjuvant therapy and may constitute ideal candidates for organ-preserving strategies. In the setting where the use of chemoradiation is exclusively used to avoid major surgery, one should consider maximizing tumor response. In this article, we will focus on the rationale, indications, and outcomes of patients with early rectal cancer being treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation to achieve organ preservation by avoiding total mesorectal excision.

Organ Preservation in cT2N0 Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy: The Impact of Radiation Therapy Dose-escalation and Consolidation Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the difference in organ-preservation rates and avoidance of definitive surgery among cT2N0 rectal cancer patients undergoing 2 different chemoradiation (CRT) regimens.

BACKGROUND

Patients with cT2N0 rectal cancer are more likely to develop complete response to neoadjuvant CRT. Organ preservation has been considered an alternative treatment strategy for selected patients. Radiation dose-escalation and consolidation chemotherapy have been associated with increased rates of response and may improve chances of organ preservation among these patients.

METHODS

Patients with distal and nonmetastatic cT2N0 rectal cancer managed by neoadjuvant CRT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing standard CRT (50.4 Gy and 2 cycles of 5-FU-based chemotherapy) were compared with those undergoing extended CRT (54 Gy and 6 cycles of 5-FU-based chemotherapy). Patients were assessed for tumor response at 8 to 10 weeks. Patients with complete clinical response (cCR) underwent organ-preservation strategy ("Watch and Wait"). Patients were referred to salvage surgery in the event of local recurrence during follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients underwent standard and 46 patients extended CRT. Patients undergoing extended CRT were more likely to undergo organ preservation and avoid definitive surgical resection at 5years (67% vs 30%; P = 0.001). After development of a cCR, surgery-free survival is similar between extended and standard CRT groups at 5 years (78% vs 56%; P = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-escalation and consolidation chemotherapy leads to increased long-term organ-preservation rates among cT2N0 rectal cancer. After achievement of a cCR, the risk for local recurrence and need for salvage surgery is similar, irrespective of the CRT regimen.

Decision-Making Strategy for Rectal Cancer Management Using Radiation Therapy for Elderly or Comorbid Patients

Rectal cancer predominantly affects patients older than 70 years, with peak incidence at age 80 to 85 years. However, the standard treatment paradigm for rectal cancer oftentimes cannot be feasibly applied to these patients owing to frailty or comorbid conditions. There are currently little information and no treatment guidelines to help direct therapy for patients who are elderly and/or have significant comorbidities, because most are not included or specifically studied in clinical trials. More recently various alternative treatment options have been brought to light that may potentially be utilized in this group of patients. This critical review examines the available literature on alternative therapies for rectal cancer and proposes a treatment algorithm to help guide clinicians in treatment decision making for elderly and comorbid patients.

Watch-and-Wait as a Therapeutic Strategy in Rectal Cancer

Purpose of Review

Pathological complete response is seen in approximately one fifth of rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Since these patients have excellent oncological outcomes, there has been a rapidly growing interest in organ preservation for those who develop a clinical complete response. We review the watch-and-wait strategy and focus on all aspects of this hot topic, including who should be considered for this approach, how should we identify treatment response and what are the expected outcomes.

Recent Findings

The major challenges in interpreting the data on watch-and-wait are the significant heterogeneity of patients selected for this approach and of methods employed to identify them. The evidence available comes mostly from retrospective cohort studies, but has shown good oncological outcomes, including the rate of successful salvage surgery, locoregional control and overall survival.

Summary

There is currently not enough and not robust enough evidence to support watch-and-wait as a standard approach, outside a clinical trial, for patients achieving clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes. However, the results we have so far are promising, and there is therefore an urgent need for randomised control studies such as the TRIGGER trial to confirm the safety of this strategy.

Age Is Not a Limiting Factor in Interventional Radiotherapy (Brachytherapy) for Patients with Localized Cancer

This review examines the role of interventional radiotherapy (IRT otherwise known as brachytherapy) in cancer treatment for elderly patients. Despite their advanced age and associated comorbidities, elderly patients should receive definitive cancer therapies, including surgery and radiotherapy (RT). In fact, RT becomes first-line option for patients who are not eligible for surgery (due to comorbidities, anticoagulant drugs, and risk of disfigurement) or those who refuse it. It emerged from this review of the literature as effective, simple, safe, and comfortable and was associated with good local control, low toxicity rates, and excellent cosmesis and provided a cost benefit. IRT may be used as sole treatment for small cancers or as a useful adjunct to surgery or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in more advanced (or lymph node positive) cases, especially when the aim is local control with adequate preservation of normal tissue function. As palliative treatment, IRT preserves quality of life and/or improves survival. It is to be hoped that this review will serve as a helpful guide for members of multidisciplinary teams that are involved in treating elderly patients with cancer.

Endorectal Brachytherapy Boost After External Beam Radiation Therapy in Elderly or Medically Inoperable Patients With Rectal Cancer: Primary Outcomes of the Phase 1 HERBERT Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by high-dose-rate endorectal brachytherapy (HDREBT) boost in elderly and medically inoperable patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A phase 1 dose-escalation study was performed. Treatment consisted of EBRT (13 × 3 Gy) followed by 3 weekly brachytherapy applications 6 weeks later. The HDREBT dose started at 5 Gy per fraction, increasing with 1 Gy per fraction if dose-limiting toxicity (DLT, defined as grade ≥3 proctitis <6 weeks after HDREBT) occurred in ≤2 patients per dose level. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose, defined as 1 dose level below the dose at which 3 patients experienced DLT. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, clinical tumor response, freedom from local progression, and local progression-free and overall survival (L-PFS and OS).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients with a median age of 83 years were included in the study. Thirty-two were evaluable for DLT and late toxicity and 33 for response evaluation. Maximum delivered dose was 8 Gy per fraction, resulting in a recommended dose of 7 Gy per fraction. Response occurred in 29 of 33 patients (87.9%), with 60.6% complete response (CR). The L-PFS and OS rates were 42% and 63%, respectively, at 2 years. Patients with CR showed a significantly improved L-PFS (60% at 2 years, P=.006) and a trend in improved OS (80% at 2 years, P=.11). Severe late toxicity occurred in 10 of 32 patients.

CONCLUSION

We found that HDREBT after EBRT results in a high overall response rate, with improved L-PFS for patients with a CR. The high observed rate of severe late toxicity requires further evaluation of the risks and benefits of an HDREBT boost.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose-Rate Endorectal Brachytherapy as a Boost to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Distal Rectal Cancer: A Phase-II Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Despite advances in rectal cancer treatment over the last decade, local control and risk of late side effects due to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) remain as concerns. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and the safety of low-dose-rate endorectal brachytherapy (LDRBT) as a boost to neoadjuvant chemoradiation for use in treating locally advanced distal rectal adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

This phase-II clinical trial included 34 patients (as the study arm) with newly diagnosed, locally advanced (clinical T3-T4 and/or N1/N2, M0) lower rectal cancer. For comparative analysis, 102 matched patients (as the historical control arm) with rectal cancer were also selected. All the patients were treated with LDRBT (15 Gy in 3 fractions) and concurrent chemoradiation (45-50.4 Gy). Concurrent chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily during LDRBT and EBRT.

RESULTS

The study results revealed a significant differences between the study arm and the control arm in terms in the pathologic tumor size (2.1 cm vs. 3.6 cm, P = 0.001), the pathologic tumor stage (35% T3-4 vs. 65% T3-4, P = 0.003), and the pathologic complete response (29.4% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.028). Moreover, a significantly higher dose of EBRT (P = 0.041) was found in the control arm, and a longer time to surgery was observed in the study arm (P < 0.001). The higher rate of treatment-related toxicities, such as mild proctitis and anemia, in the study arm was tolerable and easily manageable.

CONCLUSION

A boost of LDRBT can optimize the pathologic complete response, with acceptable toxicities, in patients with distal rectal cancer.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: current status and future perspectives

With the introduction of population screening initiatives, more patients may be amenable to local, transanal excision (LE) of early-stage rectal cancer. The most important drawback of LE is the risk of understaging node-positive disease. The most powerful predictors of node-positive disease are lymphatic invasion, submucosal invasion depth and width, tumor budding and poor differentiation. Therefore, LE should be reserved for low-risk T1 tumors in those reluctant or unable to undergo major surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by LE for T2 tumors allows adequate local control, and is currently being compared with anterior resection alone in randomized trials. A mere watchful waiting approach has been proposed in clinical complete responders to chemoradiation. However, given the very poor accuracy of current imaging modalities to predict a true pathological complete response, this strategy should not be offered outside of well-controlled trials.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: have all questions been answered?

Improved treatment strategies have eliminated local control as the major problem in rectal cancer. With increasing awareness of long-term toxic effects in survivors of rectal cancer, organ-preservation strategies are becoming more popular. After chemoradiotherapy, both watchful waiting and local excision are used as possible alternatives for radical surgery. Although these seem attractive strategies, many issues about the safety of organ preservation remain. Additionally, radiotherapy strategies are mainly aimed at intermediate and high-risk rectal tumours, and adaptation of this standard practice for a completely new treatment indication has yet to start. This Review will discuss the options and problems of organ preservation, and address the research questions that need to be answered in the coming years, with a specific focus on radiotherapy.

Ablative therapies for colorectal polyps and malignancy

Endoscopic techniques are gaining popularity in the management of colorectal polyps and occasionally superficial cancers. While their use is in many times palliative, they have proven to be curative in carefully selected patients with polyps or malignancies, with less morbidity than radical resection. However, one should note that data supporting local and ablative therapies for colorectal cancer is scarce and may be subject to publication bias. Therefore, for curative intent, these techniques should only be considered in highly select cases as higher rates of local recurrences have also been reported. The aim of this review is to explain the different modalities of local and ablative therapies specific to colorectal neoplasia and explain the indications and circumstances where they have been most successful.

Definitive radical external beam radiotherapy for rectal cancer: evaluation of local effectiveness and risk of late small bowel damage

AIM

To present a retrospective analysis of results of definitive radiotherapy for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-one consecutive patients with rectal cancer (32% primary, 61% pelvic recurrence and 7% after R2 resection) who could not be treated with surgery underwent external beam radiotherapy. A median tumour dose of 64 Gy was given with 1.8-2.5 Gy per fraction using 2D or 3D technique. In 46% of patients, concurrent 5-Fu-based chemotherapy was given. The median follow-up was 54 months.

RESULTS

Clinical complete response was achieved in 39% of patients. Five-year cumulative incidence of local failure, overall survival and cancer specific survival were 76%, 26% and 30%, respectively. Of 11 patients with local control, in five cases the tumour was larger than 5 cm and in the other five the tumour was fixed. Two patients, regarded as locally controlled had non-progressive tumour without local symptoms at the last follow-up of 54 and 118 months post-radiotherapy. Late toxicity occurred in 22% of patients, all with acceptable severity. There was no bowel obstruction requiring surgery despite that in 18 patients the small bowel dose was >60 Gy to a mean volume of 51 cm(3).

CONCLUSION

Definitive radio(chemo)therapy provides a chance for local control even in patients with large fixed or recurrent rectal cancer.

Shifting concepts in rectal cancer management: a review of contemporary primary rectal cancer treatment strategies

The management of rectal cancer has transformed over the last 3 decades and continues to evolve. Some of these changes parallel progress made with other cancers: refinement of surgical technique to improve organ preservation, selective use of neoadjuvant (and adjuvant) therapy, and emergence of criteria suggesting a role for individually tailored therapy. Other changes are driven by fairly unique issues including functional considerations, rectal anatomic features, and surgical technical issues. Further complexity is due to the variety of staging modalities (each with its own limitations), neoadjuvant treatment alternatives, and competing strategies for sequencing multimodal treatment even for nonmetastatic disease. Importantly, observations of tumor response made in the era of neoadjuvant therapy are reshaping some traditionally held concepts about tumor behavior. Frameworks for prioritizing and integrating complex data can help to formulate treatment plans for patients.