Search

PURPOSE Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited. METHODS In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival. RESULTS Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates. CONCLUSION Organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME, and postoperative chemotherapy.

Current guidelines recommend restaging with MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, but the accuracy of restaging MRI in estimating circumferential margin involvement requires additional clarification.The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of circumferential resection margin assessment by MRI after neoadjuvant therapy and identify characteristics associated with accuracy.MRI data were retrospectively analyzed for concordance with the findings of whole-mount pathology analysis of the corresponding surgical specimens. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with accuracy.This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.Included in the study were consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2018 and March 2020 after receiving neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing restaging with MRI.The primary outcome of this study included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for categorizing the circumferential resection margin as threatened; mean and paired mean differences were in proximity of the margin.Of the 94 patients included in the analysis, 39 (41%) had a threatened circumferential resection margin according to MRI at restaging, but only 17 (18%) had a threatened margin based on pathology. The accuracy of MRI in identifying a threatened margin was 63.8%, with margin proximity overestimated by 0.4 cm on average. In multivariate logistic regression, anterior location of the margin and tumor proximity to the anal verge were independently associated with reduced MRI accuracy.A limitation was the retrospective design at a single institution.The knowledge that MRI-based restaging after neoadjuvant therapy overestimates circumferential margin proximity may render some surgical radicality unnecessary and thereby help avoid the associated morbidity. With the recognition that MRI-based assessment of margin proximity may not be reliable for anterior margin and for distal tumors, radiologists may want to use greater caution in interpreting images of tumors with these characteristics and to acknowledge the uncertainty in their reports. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.ANTECEDENTES:Las pautas actuales recomiendan la re-estadificación por medio de la resonancia magnética luego de terapia neoadyuvante en los casos de cáncer de recto, pero la precisión de la reevaluación con la IRM para estimar el grado de implicación del margen circunferencial requiere aclaraciones adicionales.OBJETIVO:Medir el grado de exactitud en la evaluación del margen de resección circunferencial mediante resonancia magnética después de la terapia neoadyuvante e identificar las características asociadas con la precisión.DISEÑO:Se analizaron retrospectivamente los datos de resonancia magnética para determinar la concordancia entre los hallazgos del análisis de la pieza de anatamopatología y las muestras quirúrgicas correspondientes. Se realizó el análisis de regresión logística univariada y multivariada para identificar las características asociadas con la exactitud.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos que se sometieron consecutivamente a una excisión total del mesorrecto por cáncer rectal entre Enero 2018 y Febrero 2020 luego de recibir terapia neoadyuvante y someterse a una re-estadificación por imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La exactitud, la sensibilidad y especificidad; los valores predictivos positivos y negativos para categorizar el margen de resección circunferencial como amenazado; la diferencia media y las medias pareadas de proximidad a los margenes.RESULTADOS:De los 94 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 39 (41%) tenían un margen de resección circunferencial amenazado según la resonancia magnética en la re-estadificación, pero solo 17 (18%) tenían un margen amenazado basado en la patología. La precisión de la resonancia magnética para identificar un margen amenazado fue del 63,8%, con la proximidad del margen sobreestimada en 0,4 cm en promedio. En la regresión logística multivariada, la ubicación anterior de los bordes de resección y la proximidad del tumor al margen anal se asociaron de forma independiente con la reducción en la precisión de la resonancia magnética.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo en una institución única.CONCLUSIONES:El saber que la re-estadificación basada en la IRM, luego de terapia neoadyuvante sobreestima la proximidad de la lesión a los márgenes circunferenciales, hace innecesaria cierta radicalidad quirúrgica complementaria, lo que ayuda a evitar morbilidad asociada. Reconociendo que la evaluación de proximidad de los márgenes de resección basada en la resonancia magnética, no puede ser confiable en casos de márgenes anteriores y en casos de tumores distales. Los radiólogos recomiendan tener más precaución en la interpretación de imágenes de tumores con estas características y reconocen cierto desasosiego en sus informes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.

A small proportion of rectal adenocarcinomas develop in patients many years after the treatment of a previous cancer using pelvic radiation, and the incidence of these rectal cancers depends on the length of follow-up from the end of radiotherapy. The risk of radiation-associated rectal cancer (RARC) is higher in patients treated with prostate external beam radiotherapy than it is in patients treated with brachytherapy. The molecular features of RARC have not been fully investigated, and survival is lower compared to non-irradiated rectal cancer patients. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the worse outcomes are related to differences in patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, or tumor biology. Radiation is widely used in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma; however, pelvic re-irradiation of RARC is challenging and carries a higher risk of treatment complications. Although RARC can develop in patients treated for a variety of malignancies, it is most common in patients treated for prostate cancer. This study will review the incidence, molecular characteristics, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer. For clarity, we will distinguish between rectal cancer not associated with prostate cancer (RCNAPC), rectal cancer in non-irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCNRPC), and rectal cancer in irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCRPC). RARC represents a unique but understudied subset of rectal cancer, and thus requires a more comprehensive investigation in order to improve its treatment and prognosis.

Opioid-induced immunomodulation may be important in colon adenocarcinoma, where tumour DNA mismatch repair (MMR) can determine the level of immune activation with consequences for therapeutic response and prognosis. We evaluated the relationship between intraoperative opioid exposure, MMR subtype, and oncological outcomes after surgery for colon adenocarcinoma.Intraoperative opioid use (standardised by calculating morphine milligram equivalents) during stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma resection was reviewed retrospectively. Tumours were classified as DNA mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or proficient (pMMR) by immunohistochemistry. The primary outcome was local tumour recurrence, distant tumour recurrence, or both (multivariable analysis). The exposures of interest were intraoperative analgesia and tumour subtype. Opioid-related gene expression was analysed using The Cancer Genome Atlas Colon Adenocarcinoma transcriptomic data.Clinical and pathological data were analysed from 1157 subjects (median age, 60 [51-70] yr; 49% female) who underwent curative resection for stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma. Higher intraoperative opioid doses were associated with reduced risk of tumour recurrence (hazard ratio=0.92 per 10 morphine milligram equivalents; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.87-0.98; P=0.007), but not with overall survival. In tumours deficient in DNA MMR, tumour recurrence was less likely (HR=0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68; P=0.001), with higher opioid dose associated with eightfold lower recurrence rates. Gene expression related to opioid signalling was different between dMMR and pMMR tumours.Higher intraoperative opioid dose was associated with a lower risk of tumour recurrence after surgery for stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma, but particularly so in tumours in which DNA MMR was deficient.

10 Background: Interest in organ preservation (OP) strategies for rectal cancer (RC) patients persists. The efficacy of long course chemoradiation (LCRT) vs. short course radiation therapy (SCRT) relative to OP is unknown. We compared OP rates between SCRT and LCRT total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategies. Methods: During the COVID-19 pandemic we established an institutional SCRT mandate with no exceptions. For comparison, we identified RC patients treated with LCRT immediately before and after the mandate period. After completion of TNT, patients were restaged by clinical exam, endoscopy, and MRI. A watch and wait (WW) approach was recommended for patients with a clinical complete response (cCR), defined by the MSK regression schema. Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for non-cCR patients. OP was defined as alive, TME-free, and with no evidence of disease in the pelvis. We performed survival analysis for: local regrowth rate, OP, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 563 consecutive patients with RC treated with TNT, of whom 231 were excluded due to either metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or non-adenocarcinoma histology (Jan. 2018-Jan. 2021). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar in the LCRT (n = 256) and SCRT (n = 76) cohorts. No significant differences in high-risk features were noted. Most patients had clinical stage III disease (82% in LCRT vs. 83% in SCRT). Induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation was the most common treatment order (78% (LCRT) vs. 70% (SCRT)). The median interval from end of TNT to clinical restaging was 8 weeks (LCRT) and 9 weeks (SCRT). The cCR rate was 46% in both cohorts. The cCR rate was numerically higher in patients treated with radiation first, as compared to chemotherapy first (53% vs. 44% (LCRT) and 52% vs. 43% (SCRT)). Among patients with a cCR, the likelihood of WW management was similar (98% (LCRT) vs. 94% (SCRT)). From start of TNT, the median follow-up was 32 and 28 months respectively for LCRT and SCRT. The 2-year OS (95% vs. 92%), DFS (78% vs 70%), and distant recurrence (20% vs. 21%) rates were similar. Among all patients, the 2-year OP rate was 40% (95% CI 35-47%) for LCRT and 29% (95% CI 20-42%) with SCRT. In those patients managed by WW, the 2-year local regrowth rate was 20% (95% CI 12-27%) with LCRT vs. 36% (95% CI 16-52%) with SCRT. Conclusions: In this nonrandomized comparison, while cCR rates were similar, we observed a numerically higher OP rate with LCRT-TNT than with SCRT-TNT. The ongoing ACO/ARO/AIO-18.1 trial, hypothesizing that LCRT-TNT will increase OP rates relative to SCRT-TNT, should definitively answer this question.

3509 Background: Clinical response following neoadjuvant therapy is paramount to identifying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients suitable for Watch and Wait (WW). A 3-tier schema was devised to stratify clinical response. Patients with a complete clinical response (cCR) are considered for WW, while those with an incomplete clinical response (iCR) are recommended for total mesorectal excision (TME). A near complete response (nCR) tier captures patients with significant, but not complete, response to be considered for WW. This schema’s efficacy has yet to be validated. We investigated survival and organ preservation (OP) rates based on this 3-tier clinical response assessment in patients with LARC who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in a prospective, multi-center clinical trial. Methods: Patients with MRI stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma were randomized to either induction chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPEOX) followed by chemoradiation or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPEOX). At 8+/-4 weeks following TNT, response on digital rectal and endoscopic examinations was evaluated by the 3-tier schema. The date of this restaging clinical response assessment was used as time zero. The endpoints of rate of OP, disease-free survival (DFS), TME-free DFS, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method with differences analyzed by the log-rank test. Results: Clinical response assessments were available for 294 patients. The median time to assessment after neoadjuvant therapy was 7.9 weeks. Based on the 3-tier schema, 124 patients were categorized as cCR, 113 as nCR, and 57 as iCR. Baseline age, sex, average distance from the anal verge, clinical T classification, and clinical N classification were similar between the response groups. The table shows the 3-year rates of OP, DFS, TME-free DFS, and OS. The median follow-up was 2.36 years. Of the patients with a nCR, the 3-year TME rate was 48% compared with 21% in the cCR group. Conclusions: The 3-tier clinical response assessment has prognostic implications for OP and DFS in patients with LARC who underwent TNT. In patients with a nCR, more than half achieved OP at 3 years. This information should be utilized to counsel patients regarding their expected outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02008656. [Table: see text]

4008 Background: Organ preservation (OP) with a watch and wait strategy (WW) and total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) are new treatment paradigms for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The safety and efficacy of WW and of TNT have not been studied prospectively. Methods: Patients with MRI stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma were randomized to 4 months of FOLFOX or CAPEOX before (Induction) or after (Consolidation) fluorouracil or capecitabine based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were re-staged 8-12 weeks after finishing TNT with digital rectal exam, flexible sigmoidoscopy and MRI. Patients with complete or near-complete clinical response were offered WW. Those with incomplete response had total mesorectal excision. The trial was designed so that each arm served as its own single-stage study that discriminates between 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of 75% (historical null) and 85%, with 86% power, and a two-sided type I error of 5%. Secondary objectives included comparing DFS, OP, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates between the two arms using the log-rank test. Results: Of 324 patients enrolled, 307 (152 I, 155 C) are currently evaluable for the time-to-event analysis as of 2/1/2020. Median follow-up is 2.1 years; 52 DFS events were observed. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics were generally balanced across the two arms. Full compliance with systemic chemotherapy was 82% and 81% for the I- and C-arms, respectively. The median radiation dose was 5400 cGy for both arms. Table shows 3-y DFS, DMFS, and OP rates. Conclusions: A WW strategy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer that achieve a clinical complete response to TNT results in organ preservation for a high proportion of patients without compromising survival. Up-front CRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a numerically higher WW rate compared to induction chemotherapy followed by CRT. Clinical trial information: NCT02008656 . [Table: see text]