The Evolving Neoadjuvant Treatment Paradigm for Patients with Locoregional mismatch Repair Proficient Rectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has included preoperative chemoradiation, total mesorectal excision surgery and post operative adjuvant chemotherapy based on histopathology. The current therapeutic landscape in LARC has many different options with different directions of travel - depending on the goal of treatment. Enthusiasm for delivering total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is increasing in the light of recently published randomised phase III trials - RAPIDO and PRODIGE-23. There is a wide diversity of different potential schedules and a multitude of approaches, which include induction neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with a range of chemotherapy options (CAPEOX, FOLFOX, FOLFOXIRI) and a varying duration of 6-18 weeks, or consolidation NACT. These schedules either precede or follow short-course preoperative radiation therapy (SCPRT) using 5 × 5Gy or long-course chemoradiation (LCCRT) using 45-60Gy respectively. The different strategies of induction and consolidation neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been compared and have similar long-term outcomes, but consolidation chemotherapy may facilitate organ-sparing. The results are driving novel paradigms with both intensification and de-intensification treatment strategies. The ideal combination, sequence or duration of such a TNT approach remains undefined. As yet, there are no robust clinical, genetic, molecular, immune or imaging features (alone or integrated), which either direct or aid these choices. Currently, the selection of neoadjuvant treatment is driven by the impact on avoidance or feasibility of surgery or reducing the risk of metastases rather than prevention of local recurrence. Most believe that TNT will improve overall survival, despite the present lack of evidence. Both the inherent heterogeneity in LARC and the observed range of different responses underline the need for response biomarkers to individually tailor therapy rather than 'a one size fits all' approach.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy without Radiation in Colorectal Cancer.

In colon cancer, primary surgery followed by postoperative chemotherapy represents the standard of care. In rectal cancer, the standard of care is preoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiation, which significantly reduces local recurrence but has no impact on subsequent metastatic disease or overall survival. The administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) before surgery can increase the chance of a curative resection and improves long-term outcomes in patients with liver metastases. Hence, NACT is being explored in both primary rectal and colon cancers as an alternative strategy to shrink the tumor, facilitate a curative resection, and simultaneously counter the risk of metastases. Yet, this lack of clarity regarding the precise aims of NACT (downstaging, maximizing response, or improving survival) is hindering progress. The appropriate cytotoxic agents, the optimal regimen, the number of cycles, or duration of NACT prior to surgery or in the postoperative setting remains undefined. Several potential strategies for integrating NACT are discussed with their advantages and disadvantages.

The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning.

OBJECTIVES: Radiologist input in peer review of head and neck radiotherapy has been introduced as a routine departmental approach. The aim was to evaluate this practice and to quantitatively analyse the changes made. METHODS: Patients treated with radical-dose radiotherapy between August and November 2020 were reviewed. The incidence of major and minor changes, as defined by The Royal College of Radiologists guidance, was prospectively recorded. The amended radiotherapy volumes were compared with the original volumes using Jaccard Index (JI) to assess conformity; Geographical Miss Index (GMI) for undercontouring; and Hausdorff Distance (HD) between the volumes. RESULTS: In total, 73 out of 87 (84%) patients were discussed. Changes were recommended in 38 (52%) patients: 30 had ≥1 major change, eight had minor changes only. There were 99 amended volumes: The overall median JI, GMI and HD was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.80-0.97), 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.18) and 0.42 cm (IQR = 0.20-1.17 cm), respectively. The nodal gross-tumour-volume (GTVn) and therapeutic high-dose nodal clinical-target-volume (CTVn) had the biggest magnitude of changes: The median JI, GMI and HD of GTVn was 0.89 (IQR = 0.44-0.95), 0.11 (IQR = 0.05-0.51), 3.71 cm (IQR = 0.31-6.93 cm); high-dose CTVn was 0.78 (IQR = 0.59-0.90), 0.20 (IQR = 0.07-0.31) and 3.28 cm (IQR = 1.22-6.18 cm), respectively. There was no observed difference in the quantitative indices of the 85 'major' and 14 'minor' volumes (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Routine head and neck radiologist input in radiotherapy peer review is feasible and can help avoid gross error in contouring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The major and minor classifications may benefit from differentiation with quantitative indices but requires correlation from clinical outcomes.