A phase III randomized trial evaluating chemotherapy followed by pelvic reirradiation versus chemotherapy alone as preoperative treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer - GRECCAR 15 trial protocol

Reirradiation in the Management of Locally Recurrent Rectal Adenocarcinoma

Rectal cancer recurrence after prior radiation therapy presents a difficult treatment challenge. Salvage treatment can be curative; however, it often requires multimodality therapy which can come with significant treatment-related morbidity. Reirradiation is a common part of treatment considerations in this setting and presents challenges in balancing appropriately aggressive therapy to improve disease control and cure rates with the addition of excess toxicity. Surgery remains the mainstay of curative salvage therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after prior radiation. Preoperative reirradiation improves R0 resection rates and local control and is associated with improved disease control outcomes. Altered fractionation and intraoperative radiation therapy are often used to improve the therapeutic ratio in the setting of reirradiation for LRRC. Herein, we discuss the evidence supporting multimodality salvage therapy for LRRC, including the importance of surgical salvage, the benefits of reirradiation, various approaches for reirradiation, and treatment-associated toxicities. Finally, we provide our recommendations for how to approach reirradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Outcome of intraoperative brachytherapy as a salvage treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) requires a multimodal approach. Intraoperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) may reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, the optimal therapeutic regimen remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective monocentric study was to evaluate the toxicity of HDR-BT after resection of RRC.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2022, 17 patients with RRC received resection and HDR-BT. HDR-BT was delivered alone or as an anticipated boost with a median dose of 13 Gy (range 10-13 Gy) using an 192iridium microSelectron HDR remote afterloader (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). All participants were followed for assessment of acute and late adverse events using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 and the modified Late Effects in Normal Tissues criteria (subjective, objective, management, and analytic; LENT-SOMA) at 3‑ to 6‑month intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients were treated by HDR-BT with median dose of 13 Gy (range 10-13 Gy). Most patients (47%) had an RRC tumor stage of cT3‑4 N0. At the time of RRC diagnosis, 7 patients (41.2%) had visceral metastases (hepatic, pulmonary, or peritoneal) in the sense of oligometastatic disease. The median interval between primary tumor resection and diagnosis of RRC was 17 months (range 1-65 months). In addition to HDR-BT, 2 patients received long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT; up to 50.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) and 2 patients received short-course CRT up to 36 Gy in 2‑Gy fractions. For concomitant CRT, all patients received 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine. Median follow-up was 13 months (range 1-54). The most common acute grade 1-2 toxicities were pain in 7 patients (41.2%), wound healing disorder in 3 patients (17.6%), and lymphedema in 2 patients (11.8%). Chronic toxicities were similar: grade 1-2 pain in 7 patients (41.2%), wound healing disorder in 3 patients (17.6%), and incontinence in 2 patients (11.8%). No patient experienced a grade ≥3 event.

CONCLUSION

Reirradiation using HDR-BT is well tolerated with low toxicity. An individualized multimodality approach using HDR-BT in the oligometastatic setting should be evaluated in prospective multi-institutional studies.

Radiotherapy & total neoadjuvant therapy for recurrent rectal cancer in previously irradiated patients, (RETRY): a multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence of rectal cancer (LRRC) previously treated with radiotherapy is associated with a poor prognosis. Historically, the integration of radiotherapy (RT) with surgery has improved the likelihood of complete resections (R0) and, consequently, enhanced survival. Unfortunately, many LRRC cases are not amenable to surgical intervention. The inclusion of chemotherapy (CHT) alongside advanced RT techniques including proton and carbon ion RT (CIRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), has generated new treatment options. Therefore, there is a need for improved stratification of LRRC patients to enhance treatment outcomes. The RETRY is an integrated trial with the primary aim to explore if combining CHT with RT in all available modalities can enhance local control (LC) in LRRC patients, consequently improving survival.

METHODS

Experts from Italian centers specializing in rectal cancer and LRRC management collaborated to design a prospective multicenter observational study within the AIRO group for gastrointestinal malignancies. Eligible participants are adult LRRC patients who previously had pelvic RT, meet specific criteria, and are affiliated with the participating Italian centers. Specific criteria must be met for CIRT referral. A total of 88 patients will be enrolled over three years. The primary objective is to determine the 3-year LC rate. Secondary outcomes include assessing survival, quality of life, and R0 resection rates in surgery cases. A minimum dose of 40 Gy, conventional fractionation with concomitant fluoropyrimidine-with/without oxaliplatin-based CHT (CRT) is prescribed in neoadjuvant setting. Alternatively, the dose will vary from 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions based on clinical judgment, by SBRT. Both proton and photon therapies will be evaluated in these approaches. Surgery will be considered if deemed operable. In inoperable cases, CIRT with a dose of 40-60 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) will be administered with a daily dose fraction ranging between 3 and 4.8 Gy RBE.

DISCUSSION

The RETRY trial aims to investigate the combined effects of RT and CHT and when feasible the addition of surgery, to determine whether this comprehensive approach can result in improved survival and quality of life for LRRC patients. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT05984576).

Treatment of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Review

ABSTRACT

Up to 10% of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer will experience locoregional recurrence. In the setting of prior surgery and often radiation and chemotherapy, these represent uniquely challenging cases. When feasible, surgical resection offers the best chance for oncologic control yet risks significant morbidity. Studies have consistently indicated that a negative surgical resection margin is the strongest predictor of oncologic outcomes. Chemoradiation is often recommended to increase the chance of an R0 resection, and in cases of close/positive margins, intraoperative radiation/brachytherapy can be utilized. In patients who are not surgical candidates, radiation can provide symptomatic relief. Ongoing phase III trials are aiming to address questions regarding the role of reirradiation and induction multiagent chemotherapy regimens in this population.

[Treatment strategies for recurrent rectal cancer]

Multimodal treatment approaches with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy followed by oncological and total mesorectal excision (TME) have significantly reduced the recurrence rate even in locally advanced rectal cancer. Nevertheless, up to 10% of patients develop a local relapse. Surgical R0 resection is the only chance of a cure in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Due to the altered anatomy and physiology of the true pelvis as a result of the pretreatment and operations as well as the localization and extent of the recurrence, the treatment decision is individualized and remains a challenge for the interdisciplinary team. Even locally advanced tumors with involvement of adjacent structures can be treated in designated centers using multimodal treatment concepts with potentially curative intent.

Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Evolution of clinical nature, treatment and survival of locally recurrent rectal cancer: Comparative analysis of two national cross-sectional cohorts

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer declined after guideline revision in 2014. This decline is thought to affect the clinical nature and treatability of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Therefore, this study compared two national cross-sectional cohorts before and after the guideline revision with the aim to determine the changes in treatment and survival of LRRC patients over time.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of primary rectal cancer in 2011 (n = 2094) and 2016 (n = 2855) from two nationwide cohorts with a 4-year follow up were included. Main outcomes included time to LRRC, synchronous metastases at time of LRRC diagnosis, intention of treatment and 2-year overall survival after LRRC.

RESULTS

Use of neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for the primary tumour decreased from 88.5% to 60.0% from 2011 to 2016. The 3-year LRRC rate was not significantly different with 5.1% in 2011 (n = 114, median time to LRRC 16 months) and 6.3% in 2016 (n = 202, median time to LRRC 16 months). Synchronous metastasis rate did not significantly differ (27.2% vs 33.7%, p = 0.257). Treatment intent of the LRRC shifted towards more curative treatment (30.4% vs. 47.0%, p = 0.009). In the curatively treated group, two-year overall survival after LRRC diagnoses increased from 47.5% to 78.7% (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Primary rectal cancer patients in 2016 were treated less often with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, while LRRC rates remained similar. Those who developed LRRC were more often candidate for curative intent treatment compared to the 2011 cohort, and survival after curative intent treatment also improved substantially.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR.

RESULTS

Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Understanding the Philosophy, Anatomy, and Surgery of the Extra-TME Plane of Locally Advanced and Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer; Single Institution Experience with International Benchmarking

Pelvic exenteration surgery has become a widely accepted procedure for treatment of locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, there is still unwarranted variation in peri-operative management and subsequently oncological outcome after this procedure. In this article we will elaborate on the various reasons for the observed differences based on benchmarking results of our own data to the data from the PelvEx collaborative as well as findings from 2 other benchmarking studies. Our main observation was a significant difference in extent of resection between exenteration units, with our unit performing more complete soft tissue exenterations, sacrectomies and extended lateral compartment resections than most other units, resulting in a higher R0 rate and longer overall survival. Secondly, current literature shows there is a tendency to use more neoadjuvant treatment such as re-irradiation and total neoadjuvant treatment and perform less radical surgery. However, peri-operative chemotherapy or radiotherapy should not be a substitute for adequate radical surgery and an R0 resection remains the gold standard. Finally, we describe our experiences with standardizing our surgical approaches to the various compartments and the achieved oncological and functional outcomes.

Oncological outcomes of multimodality treatment for patients undergoing surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are several strategies in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with the optimum treatment yet to be established. This systematic review aims to compare oncological outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for LRRC who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant CRT, surgery only or surgery and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT).

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed for studies that reported data on oncological outcomes for the different treatment modalities in patients with LRRC from January 1990 to January 2022. Weighted means were calculated for the following outcomes: postoperative resection status, local control, and overall survival at 3 and 5 years.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies of 974 patients were included and they received the following treatment: 346 neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 279 neoadjuvant CRT, 136 adjuvant CRT, 189 surgery only, and 24 surgery and IORT. The highest proportion of R0 resection was found in the neoadjuvant CRT group followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant CRT groups (64.07% vs 52.46% vs 47.0% respectively). The neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean 5-year local control rate (49.50%) followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (22.0%). Regarding the 5-year overall survival rate, the neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean of 34.92%, followed by surgery only (29.74%), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (28.94%) and adjuvant CRT (20.67%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review suggest that neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery can lead to improved resection status, long-term disease control and survival in the management of LRRC. However, treatment strategies in LRRC are complex and further comparisons, particularly taking into account previous treatments for the primary rectal cancer, are required.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: oncological outcomes with different treatment strategies in two tertiary referral units

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate different treatment strategies in two leading tertiary referral hospitals in Europe.

METHODS

All patients who underwent curative surgery for LRRC between January 2003 and December 2017 in Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (CHE), or Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (KAR), were studied retrospectively. Available MRIs were reviewed to obtain a uniform staging for optimal comparison of both cohorts. The main outcomes studied were overall survival (OS), local re-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS).

RESULTS

In total, 377 patients were included, of whom 126 and 251 patients came from KAR and CHE respectively. At 5 years, the LRFS rate was 62.3 per cent in KAR versus 42.3 per cent in CHE (P = 0.017), whereas OS and MFS were similar. A clear surgical resection margin (R0) was the strongest prognostic factor for survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.23 (95 per cent c.i. 1.74 to 2.86; P < 0.001), 3.96 (2.87 to 5.47; P < 0.001), and 2.00 (1.48 to 2.69; P < 0.001) for OS, LRFS, and MFS respectively. KAR performed more extensive operations, resulting in more R0 resections than in CHE (76.2 versus 61.4 per cent; P = 0.004), whereas CHE relied more on neoadjuvant treatment and intraoperative radiotherapy, to reduce the morbidity of multivisceral resections (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In radiotherapy-naive patients, neoadjuvant full-course chemoradiation confers the best oncological outcome. However, neoadjuvant therapy does not diminish the need for extended radical surgery to increase R0 resection rates.

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multidisciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments.