30-day and long-term outcome following salvage surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus

Management of Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Anal Canal and Anal Margin After Failure of Chemoradiotherapy Treatment: A Narrative Review

Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is a rare malignancy with an increasing incidence despite advancements in treatment. The primary treatment for localized ASCC is radiochemotherapy (RCT), which achieves high rates of tumor regression in most cases, but up to 30% of patients experience recurrence or persistent disease. Salvage surgery, such as an abdominoperineal resection (APR), is often used for recurrent disease but is associated with significant morbidity and limited oncological outcomes. Patients with small T1 tumors may also benefit from primary local excision. For patients with metastatic or unresectable recurrent ASCC, chemotherapy, particularly carboplatin and paclitaxel, remains the standard treatment. New therapeutic strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors like pembrolizumab, are showing promise, particularly in PD-L1-positive tumors. Clinical trials have suggested that immunotherapy offers a potential alternative for patients for whom conventional treatments have failed, though the overall response rates remain modest. Re-radiation and intraoperative radiotherapy combined with salvage surgery may improve the outcomes for select patients, though the data are still limited. The management of recurrent or persistent ASCC requires a personalized approach, incorporating both established and emerging therapies to optimize patient outcomes. Further research is needed to refine these treatment strategies.

A systematic review on the role of interventional radiotherapy for treatment of anal squamous cell cancer: multimodal and multidisciplinary therapeutic approach

BACKGROUND

Aim was to compare the efficacy of interventional radiotherapy (IRT) boost vs. external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost after chemoradiation (CCRT) in patients with anal cancer (AC).

METHODS

The P.I.C.O. framework was: in patients with AC [P], is IRT boost [I] superior to EBRT boost [C] in terms of local control (LC), cancer specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), distant meta-static free Survival (DMFS), colostomy free survival (CFS) and toxicity [O]?

RESULTS

651 patients were analyzed. The median 5-year locoregional control rates was 87.8% in the IRT boost group versus 72.8% in the EBRT boost group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 91% in the IRT boost group versus 78% in the EBRT boost group. 5-years overall survival was 74.6% in IRT boost versus 67.7% in the EBRT boost. 5-years disease metastasis-free survival rate was 92.9% in IRT boost group vs. 85.6% for the EBRT boost group. Cancer-free survival rate was 76.8% in the IRT group vs. 63.1% in the EBRT boost group. Acute toxicity above grade 2 was less common in the IRT boost group while chronic toxicity was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

IRT boost after CCRT could lead to better outcomes than EBRT boost in treating AC.

Risk factors and outcome following salvage surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus

BACKGROUND

Chemoradiotherapy is the primary treatment for anal cancer. 15-33% of patients will have persistent or recurrent disease after treatment requiring salvage surgery. Relapse after surgery, postoperative complications, and mortality as well as possible risk factors are not fully understood due to the rareness of the disease. The aim of the study was to report outcomes after salvage surgery as well as evaluate risk factors for postoperative complications, cancer relapse and survival.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from electronical patients charts and pathology reports from all patients undergoing salvage surgery from July 1st, 2011 to July 1st, 2021 at the Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were included in the study. The 5-year overall survival was 61.8%. Relapse after surgery occurred in 36.7% of patients and was significantly associated with R1-resection (HR = 4.4) and preoperative nodal metastases (HR = 4.5). Negative prognostic factors for survival were found to be R1-resection (HR = 3.2), preoperative nodal metastases (HR = 2.9), and male gender (HR = 0.5). There was no association found between complications and survival (HR 1.2). None of the possible risk factors were associated with major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

An acceptable overall survival after surgery was found. Survival and relapse-free survival was negatively associated with R1 resections and positive preoperative lymph nodes. Complications did not influence long-term survival.

Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Does Not Improve Overall Survival in Anal Cancer Nodal Disease

BACKGROUND

Anal SCC is a rare disease mainly treated with chemoradiation. Abdominoperineal resection (APR), once the mainstay of treatment for anal cancer, now serves a role as salvage therapy for persistent or recurrent disease after chemoradiation. In addition, clinically positive nodes are currently treated by extending the radiation field to the groin. The role of inguinal lymph node dissection in recurrent or persistent anal SCC is unclear. The aim of the study is to determine the role of inguinal lymph node dissection in the management of inguinal lymph node metastasis for anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with anal SCC in the National Cancer Database with positive inguinal nodes undergoing salvage APR between 2004 and 2014 was performed. A comparison of overall survival between patients who underwent APR with lymph node dissection versus APR only was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier plot.

RESULTS

A total of 3424 patients underwent salvage APR, with 274 (8%) having clinically positive nodes. Within the subgroup that had clinically positive nodes, 195 (71%) underwent APR, whereas 79 (29%) underwent both APR and node dissection. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates no difference in overall survival in the two groups (P = 0.99). Five-year survival for both groups was similar (36% versus 42%; P = 0.987). No significant difference was found when adjusted for age, gender, and Tumor Node Metastasis staging.

CONCLUSIONS

Inguinal lymph node dissection does not appear to improve overall survival in patients with advanced-stage anal cancer requiring salvage APR. Proper patient selection for node dissection is essential to spare patients from additional morbid procedures.

A systematic review of outcomes after salvage abdominoperineal resection for persistent or recurrent anal squamous cell cancer

AIM

Up to 30% of patients with squamous cell cancer of the anus (SCCA) will require a salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR) for either persistent or recurrent disease. The objective of this study was to assess cancer-related outcomes in patients with (i) persistent or (ii) recurrent SCCA.

METHOD

Embase and MEDLINE were searched. Publications were included if they assessed overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and locoregional recurrence or metastatic disease after salvage APR for persistent or recurrent SCCA.

RESULTS

A total of 28 retrospective case series (study size ranged from nine to 111) met our inclusion criteria. The median time to salvage APR was 2.6 months [interquartile range (IQR) 2.6-5.0 months, six studies] for persistent disease and 27.6 months (IQR 15.0-32.7 months, five studies) for recurrent disease. The median 5-year OS from the time of salvage APR was 45.0% (IQR 32.0%-52.3%, 10 studies) for persistent disease and 51.0% (IQR 36.0%-60.9%, 11 studies) for recurrent disease. The median 5-year DFS following salvage APR was 44.0% (IQR 29.5%-53.0%, 10 studies) for all patients. Following salvage APR, the median locoregional recurrence rate was 23.5% (IQR 15.8%- 46.9%, 19 studies) and 9.0% (IQR 6.4%-13.3%, 16 studies) of patients developed metastatic disease after salvage APR.

CONCLUSION

Our review characterizes the best evidence for outcomes following salvage APR for patients with persistent or recurrent SCCA. The evidence is limited by the quality of included studies, as many were single centre case series.