Cost-effectiveness analysis of long-course oxaliplatin and bolus of fluorouracil based preoperative chemoradiotherapy vs. 5x5Gy radiation plus FOLFOX4 for locally advanced resectable rectal cancer

Organ preservation after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Potential differences in organ preservation between total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) regimens integrating long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) in rectal cancer remain undefined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This natural experiment arose from a policy change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during which our institution switched from uniformly treating patients with LCCRT to mandating that all patients be treated with SCRT. Our study includes 323 locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients treated with LCCRT-based or SCRT-based TNT from January 2018 to January 2021. Patients who achieved clinical complete response were offered organ preservation with watch-and-wait (WW) management. The primary outcome was 2-year organ preservation. Additional outcomes included local regrowth, distant recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between LCCRT (n = 247) and SCRT (n = 76) cohorts. Median follow-up was 31 months. Similar clinical complete response rates were observed following LCCRT and SCRT (44.5% versus 43.4%). Two-year organ preservation was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34% to 46%] and 31% (95% CI 22% to 44%) among all patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively. In patients managed with WW, LCCRT resulted in higher 2-year organ preservation (89% LCCRT, 95% CI 83% to 95% versus 70% SCRT, 95% CI 55% to 90%; P = 0.005) and lower 2-year local regrowth (19% LCCRT, 95% CI 11% to 26% versus 36% SCRT, 95% CI 16% to 52%; P = 0.072) compared with SCRT. The 2-year distant recurrence (10% versus 6%), DFS (90% versus 90%), and OS (99% versus 100%) were similar between WW patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While WW eligibility was similar between cohorts, WW patients treated with LCCRT had higher 2-year organ preservation and lower local regrowth than those treated with SCRT, yet similar DFS and OS. These data support induction LCCRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy as the preferred TNT regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer pursuing organ preservation.

Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance ("Guidance") provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more.PURPOSETo provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.METHODSA systematic review of the literature published from 2013 to 2023 was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews, phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies where applicable.RESULTSTwelve RCTs, two systematic reviews, and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.RECOMMENDATIONSFollowing assessment with magnetic resonance imaging, for patients with microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair locally advanced rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT; ie chemoradiation [CRT] and chemotherapy) should be offered as initial treatment for patients with tumors located in the lower rectum and/or patients who are at higher risk for local and/or distant metastases. Patients without higher-risk factors may discuss chemotherapy with selective CRT depending on extent of response, TNT, or neoadjuvant long-course CRT or short-course radiation. For patients who are candidates for TNT, the preferred timing for chemotherapy is after radiation, and neoadjuvant long-course CRT is preferred over short-course radiation therapy (RT), however short-course RT may also be a viable treatment option depending on circumstances. Nonoperative management may be discussed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients who have a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. For patients whose tumors are microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, immunotherapy is recommended.Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Preoperative sequential short-course radiation therapy and FOLFOX chemotherapy versus long-course chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SOLAR trial)

BACKGROUND

Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy has been widely used as an effective treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), leading to a significant reduction in pelvic recurrence rates. Because early administration of intensive chemotherapy for LARC has more advantages than adjuvant chemotherapy, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been introduced and evaluated to determine whether it can improve tumor response or treatment outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by intensive chemotherapy improves oncologic outcomes compared with traditional preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

A multicenter randomized phase II trial involving 364 patients with LARC (cT3-4, cN+, or presence of extramural vascular invasion) will be conducted. Patients will be randomly assigned to the experimental or control arm at a ratio of 1:1. Participants in the experimental arm will receive SCRT (25 Gy in 5 fractions, daily) followed by four cycles of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and folinic acid) as a neoadjuvant treatment, and those in the control arm will receive conventional radiotherapy (45-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions, 5 times a week) concurrently with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil. As a mandatory surgical procedure, total mesorectal excision will be performed 2-5 weeks from the last cycle of chemotherapy in the experimental arm and 6-8 weeks after the last day of radiotherapy in the control arm. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival, and the secondary endpoints are tumor response, overall survival, toxicities, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

This is the first Korean randomized controlled study comparing SCRT-based TNT with traditional preoperative LC-CRT for LARC. The involvement of experienced colorectal surgeons ensures high-quality surgical resection. SCRT followed by FOLFOX chemotherapy is expected to improve disease-free survival compared with CRT, with potential advantages in tumor response, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at Clinical Research Information under the identifier Service KCT0004874 on April 02, 2020, and at Clinicaltrial.gov under the identifier NCT05673772 on January 06, 2023.

Short-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness between Long-Course Chemoradiation and Short-Course Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) has been widely recommended in a majority of rectal cancer patients. Recently, encouraging data on short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) for rectal cancer has emerged. In this study, we aimed to compare these two methods in terms of short-term outcomes and cost analysis under the Korean medical insurance system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients with high-risk rectal cancer, who underwent either SCRT or LCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME), were classified into two groups. Twenty-seven patients received 5 Gy×5 with two cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² every 3 weeks) followed by TME (SCRT group). Thirty-five patients received capecitabine-based LCRT followed by TME (LCRT group). Short-term outcomes and cost estimation were assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Pathological complete response was achieved in 18.5% and 5.7% of patients in the SCRT and LCRT groups, respectively (p=0.223). The 2-year recurrence-free survival rate did not show significant difference between the two groups (SCRT vs. LCRT: 91.9% vs. 76.2%, p=0.394). The average total cost per patient for SCRT was 18% lower for inpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $18787 vs. $22203, p<0.001) and 40% lower for outpatient treatment (SCRT vs. LCRT: $11955 vs. $19641, p<0.001) compared to LCRT. SCRT was shown to be the dominant treatment option with fewer recurrences and fewer complications at a lower cost.

CONCLUSION

SCRT was well-tolerated and achieved favorable short-term outcomes. In addition, SCRT showed significant reduction in the total cost of care and distinguished cost-effectiveness compared to LCRT.

Tegafur-Uracil/Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) as Consolidation Regimen after Short-Course Radiotherapy Is Effective for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

This study aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant SCRT and tegafur−uracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) for LARC in comparison to those of the modified 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX-6) regimen. We retrospectively evaluated 15 and 22 patients with LARC who underwent SCRT, followed by consolidation chemotherapy with TEGAFOX and mFOLFOX-6 before surgery, respectively, between January 2015 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was the tumor response rate. The secondary endpoints were compliance, toxicity, complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). The dose reduction rate was lower in the TEGAFOX group (0 vs. 9.1% (n = 2)). No grade III-IV toxicities occurred in the TEGAFOX group. Two and four patients in the TEGAFOX and mFOLFOX-6 groups, respectively, achieved clinical complete responses. The pathologic complete response rate was lower in the TEGAFOX group (7.7% vs. 17.6%). Overall, 11 (73.3%) and 17 (81.0%) patients had a neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score of <16 in the TEGAFOX and mFOLFOX-6 groups, respectively. All patients in this study received sphincter-preservation surgery. One patient in each group developed Clavien−Dindo grade III complications. There were no significant between-group differences in the 3-year OS (81.8% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.884) and 3-year DFS (72% vs. 71.6%, p = 0.824) rates. TEGAFOX, as consolidation chemotherapy after SCRT, achieves good tumor downstaging and patient compliance in LARC. The toxicity, complications, and surgical outcomes are similar to those of mFOLFOX-6. Thus, TEGAFOX can be considered a chemotherapy option for rectal cancer treatment.

Neoadjuvant Short-Course Radiotherapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy before Surgery for Treating Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neoadjuvant short course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) is an alternative treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the tumor response and oncological outcomes of this new approach compared to conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT). An online search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed. This review included 7507 patients from 14 different cohorts. The pCR rate was higher with SCRT + CCT than that with CRT (RR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.35−1.91; p < 0.01). SCRT + CCT provided a higher ypN0 response (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01−1.12; p = 0.02). There were no differences in R0 resection and positive CRM rates; however, more sphincter-preservation surgeries were performed in the SCRT + CCT arm (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01−1.11; p = 0.02). There was no difference in the OS and DFS between the SCRT + CCT and the CRT arms (OS: HR: 0.85, p = 0.07; DFS: HR: 0.88, p = 0.08). The compliance and toxicity were comparable between the SCRT and CRT groups. In the subgroup analysis, patients who underwent four or more cycles of CCT had better pCR and DFS events. Therefore, SCRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy might be an effective alternative treatment for LARC.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY.

RESULTS

During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Comparing neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy with short-course radiotherapy in rectal cancer

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare short-course radiotherapy (SC) or neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LC) treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer patients.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had undergone neoadjuvant radiotherapy before surgery between 2013 and 2018 at the medical center in China were included in this study. All patients’ MRI confirmed T2N+M0 or T3-4N0-3M0 clinical stages. Patients in the SC group received pelvic radiotherapy with a dose of 5 × 5 Gy (with or without chemotherapy at any time), followed by immediate or delayed surgery. Patients in the LC group received a dose of 50–50.4 Gy in 25–28 fractions, concomitantly with FOLFOX or capecitabine-based chemotherapy, followed by surgery 4–6 weeks later. All clinical data were retrospectively collected, and long-term follow-up was completed and recorded at the same time.

Results

A total of 170 were eligible to participate in this study, 32 patients in the SC group, and 138 in the LC group. The median follow-up time of living patients was 39 months. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates in the SC group and LC group at 3 years, were, 84.9% versus 72.4% (P = 0.273) and 96.2% versus 87.2% (P = 0.510), respectively. The complete pathological response (pCR) rates in the SC group and LC group were, 25% versus 18.1% (the difference was not statistically significant, P = 0.375), respectively. However, the SC group had better node(N) downstaging compared to the LC group (P = 0.011).

Conclusions

There were no differences observed in DFS and OS between short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiation, and both can be used as treatment options for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Radiotherapy management of rectal cancer in the backdrop of the COVID pandemic

Background

COVID‐19 outbreak was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Over the last 3 months, the pandemic has challenged the diagnosis and treatment of all cancer, including rectal cancer. Constraints in resources call for a change in the treatment strategy without compromising efficacy.

Recent Findings

Delivery of shorter treatment schedules for radiotherapy offers advantages like short overall treatment time, improved throughput on the machine, improved compliance and reduced risk of transmission of COVID 19. Other strategies include delaying surgery, reducing the intensity of chemotherapy and adoption of organ preservation approach.

Conclusion

The curative treatment of rectal cancer should not be hindered during the COVID pandemic, and modifications in the multi‐modality treatment will help achieve quality care.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Options in Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Due to the heterogeneity of soft tissue sarcomas (STS), the choice of the proper perioperative treatment regimen is challenging. Neoadjuvant therapy has attracted increasing attention due to several advantages, particularly in patients with locally advanced disease. The number of available neoadjuvant modalities is growing continuously. We may consider radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, radiosensitizers, hyperthermia, and their combinations. This review discusses possible neoadjuvant treatment options in STS with an emphasis on available evidence, indications for each treatment type, and related risks. Finally, we summarize current recommendations of the STS neoadjuvant therapy response assessment.