Chemoradiation and Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Compare oncological long-term and short-term outcomes between patients with distal cT2NO rectal cancer treated with chemoradio-therapy and local excision (CRT + LE) and patients treated with total mesorectal excision (TME). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies showed that CRT + LE is equivalent to TME in local tumor control and survival for T2N0 rectal cancer. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT + LE in the ACOSOG Z6041 trial were compared to a cohort of 79 patients with pT2N0 tumors treated with upfront TME in the Dutch TME trial. Survival, short-term outcomes, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Three patients (4%) in the CRT + LE group required abdominoperineal resection, compared with 31 (40%) in the TME group. Forty TME patients (51%) required a permanent stoma. CRT-related toxicity occurred in 43% of the CRT + LE patients; however, TME patients had a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation (1 vs 9%; P = 0 .03). Five-year disease-free survival {88.2% [confidence interval (CI), 77.7%-93.9%] vs 88.3% [CI, 78.7%-93.7%]; P = 0.88} and overall survival [90.3% (CI, 80.8%-95.3%) vs 88.4% (CI, 78.9%-93.8%); P = 0 .82] were similar in the 2 groups. Compared to baseline, overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in the TME group. In both groups, patients with sphincter preservation had worse HRQOL scores 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: In patients who underwent CRT + LE, oncological outcomes were similar to those of patients who underwent TME, with fewer complications requiring reoperation but significant CRT toxicity. Although overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in TME patients, when considering anorectal function, results were worse in both groups.

Conditional recurrence-free survival of clinical complete responders managed by watch and wait after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database: a retrospective, international, multicentre registry study.

BACKGROUND: Watch and wait is a novel management strategy in patients with rectal cancer who have a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surveillance of these patients is generally intensive, because local regrowth (with the potential for salvage) occurs in 25% of patients, and distant metastases occur in 10% of patients. It is unclear for how long these patients should be followed up. To address this issue, we did conditional survival modelling using the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD), which is a large-scale registry of patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. METHODS: We did a retrospective, multicentre registry study using a dataset from the IWWD, which includes data from 47 clinics across 15 countries. We selected patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were subsequently managed by a watch-and-wait strategy between Nov 25, 1991, and Dec 31, 2015. Patients who had not achieved a clinical complete response or who had undergone any surgical procedure were excluded. The criteria used for defining a clinical complete response and the specific surveillance strategies were at the discretion of each participating centre. We used conditional survival modelling to estimate the probability of patients remaining free of local regrowth or distant metastasis for an additional 2 years after sustaining a clinical complete response or being distant metastasis-free for 1, 3, and 5 years from the date of the decision to commence watch and wait. The primary outcomes were conditional local regrowth-free survival at 3 years, and conditional distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years. FINDINGS: We identified 793 patients in the IWWD with clinical complete response who had been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Median follow-up was 55·2 months (IQR 36·0-75·6). The probability of remaining free from local regrowth for an additional 2 years if a patient had a sustained clinical complete response for 1 year was 88·1% (95% CI 85·8-90·9), for 3 years was 97·3% (95·2-98·6), and for 5 years was 98·6% (97·6-100·0). The probably of remaining free from distant metastasis for a further 2 years in patients who had a clinical complete response without distant metastasis for 1 year was 93·8% (92·3-95·9), for 3 years was 97·8% (96·6-99·3), and for 5 years was 96·6% (94·0-98·9). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that the intensity of active surveillance in patients with rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait approach could be reduced if they achieve and maintain a clinical complete response within the first 3 years of starting this approach. FUNDING: European Registration of Cancer Care, financed by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, the Bas Mulder Award, granted by the Alpe d'HuZes Foundation and the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Psychological distress and quality of life following positive fecal occult blood testing in colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess psychological functioning, quality of life, and regret about screening after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and subsequent colonoscopy, and to evaluate changes over time. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. Individuals aged 55 to 75 with a positive FIT that were referred for colonoscopy between July 2017 and November 2018, were invited to complete questionnaires related to psychological distress and health-related quality of life at three predefined time points: before colonoscopy, after histopathology result notification, and after 6 months. Four questionnaires were used: the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the six-item Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and the 36-item Short-Form (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 1066 participants out of 2151 eligible individuals were included. Patients with cancer showed a significant increase in psychological dysfunction (P = .01) and cancer worry (P = .008) after colonoscopy result notification, and a decline to pre-colonoscopy measurements after 6 months. In the no-cancer groups, psychological dysfunction and cancer worry significantly decreased over time (P < .05) but there was no ongoing decline. After 6 months, 17% of participants with no cancer experienced high level of cancer worry (CWS ≥ 10). Yet, only 5% reported high level of regret about screening participation (DRS > 25). A good global quality of life was reported in participants with no cancer. CONCLUSION: Some psychological distress remains up to 6 months after colonoscopy in participants who tested false-positive in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program.

Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study.

BACKGROUND: The strategy of watch and wait (W&W) in patients with rectal cancer who achieve a complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is new and offers an opportunity for patients to avoid major resection surgery. However, evidence is based on small-to-moderate sized series from specialist centres. The International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) aims to describe the outcome of the W&W strategy in a large-scale registry of pooled individual patient data. We report the results of a descriptive analysis after inclusion of more than 1000 patients in the registry. METHODS: Participating centres entered data in the registry through an online, highly secured, and encrypted research data server. Data included baseline characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, imaging protocols, incidence of local regrowth and distant metastasis, and survival status. All patients with rectal cancer in whom the standard of care (total mesorectal excision surgery) was omitted after neoadjuvant therapy were eligible to be included in the IWWD. For the present analysis, we only selected patients with no signs of residual tumour at reassessment (a cCR). We analysed the proportion of patients with local regrowth, proportion of patients with distant metastases, 5-year overall survival, and 5-year disease-specific survival. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2015, and June 30, 2017, we identified 1009 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment and were managed by W&W in the database from 47 participating institutes (15 countries). We included 880 (87%) patients with a cCR. Median follow-up time was 3·3 years (95% CI 3·1-3·6). The 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 25·2% (95% CI 22·2-28·5%), 88% of all local regrowth was diagnosed in the first 2 years, and 97% of local regrowth was located in the bowel wall. Distant metastasis were diagnosed in 71 (8%) of 880 patients. 5-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI 80·9-87·7%), and 5-year disease-specific survival was 94% (91-96%). INTERPRETATION: This dataset has the largest series of patients with rectal cancer treated with a W&W approach, consisting of approximately 50% data from previous cohort series and 50% unpublished data. Local regrowth occurs mostly in the first 2 years and in the bowel wall, emphasising the importance of endoscopic surveillance to ensure the option of deferred curative surgery. Local unsalvageable disease after W&W was rare. FUNDING: European Registration of Cancer Care financed by European Society of Surgical Oncology, Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, Bas Mulder Award granted by the Alpe d'Huzes Foundation and Dutch Cancer Society, and European Research Council Advanced Grant.

Quality of Life After Curative Resection for Rectal Cancer in Patients Treated With Adjuvant Chemotherapy Compared With Observation: Results of the Randomized Phase III SCRIPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection for rectal cancer is the standard of care in several American and European guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the differences in health-related quality of life over time between patients with rectal cancer who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy or observation. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled phase III trial. SETTINGS: Health-related quality-of-life assessments were conducted in Dutch patients from 43 institutes. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy followed by curative surgery (the SCRIPT trial) were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy for 8 cycles or observation. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30 and CR38 questionnaires at 1 month after surgery (before the start of chemotherapy), and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the difference in quality of life at 6 months after surgery, just after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients in the treatment group. Second, the difference in health-related quality of life at 12 months after surgery was examined. A statistically significant difference of 5 points was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Health-related quality-of-life results of 226 of 233 patients were available. At T3, overall quality of life (C30 summary score) was worse for patients treated with chemotherapy compared with observation (mean 82.3 versus 86.9, p = 0.006), but the difference was not clinically relevant. Patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy reported clinically relevant worse physical functioning (mean 78.3 versus 87.0, p < 0.001) and more reports of fatigue and dyspnea (35.7 versus 21.0 and 17.1 versus 6.7, p < 0.001). All differences were resolved at 12 months postsurgery. LIMITATIONS: A selection of relatively fit patients willing to be randomly assigned may limit the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Although inferior health-related quality of life was reported just after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, no persistent deterioration in quality of life was detected. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A907.

Intra-Tumoral Genomic Heterogeneity in Rectal Cancer: Mutational Status Is Dependent on Preoperative Biopsy Depth and Location.

Neoadjuvant therapy before surgical resection is indicated for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, a significant number of patients show minimal or no response to neoadjuvant therapy. Unfortunately, we are currently unable to predict response and identify non-responding patients before neoadjuvant treatment is given. Genomic mutational status might provide valuable prognostic information. However, it is unclear whether predictions based on genomic mutational status in single preoperative biopsies are reliable due to intra-tumoral heterogeneity. In this study we aim to investigate the reliability of genomic mutations found in single pre-operative biopsies by comparing genomic mutations to four other locations within the same tumor using next generation sequencing. Rectal cancer patients undergoing primary resection without neoadjuvant therapy were included. From each patient, one biopsy, two deep and two superficial samples were obtained and sequenced using a targeted next generation sequencing gene panel. Concordance between these five samples was assessed. In this feasibility study we included 11 patients. In 7 out of 11 (64%) patients, all 5 samples showed concordant mutations. In 4 out of 11 patients (36%) discordant mutations were observed. In conclusion, assessment of mutational status on a single pre-operative biopsy shows discordance with tumor tissue from other locations in 36% of cases. These results warrant careful interpretation of biopsy material analysis, as these might be influenced by tumor heterogeneity.

Importance of patient reported and clinical outcomes for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and their treating physicians. Do clinicians know what patients want?

INTRODUCTION: Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians. METHODS: Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes. RESULTS: In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88-26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9-6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1-32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5-19.4, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.

Compliance and tolerability of short-course radiotherapy followed by preoperative chemotherapy and surgery for high-risk rectal cancer - Results of the international randomized RAPIDO-trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision is widely accepted as the standard of care for high-risk rectal cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy is advised in several international guidelines, although the survival benefit remains unclear and compliance is poor. The current multidisciplinary approach has led to major improvements in local control, yet the occurrence of distant metastases has not decreased accordingly. The combination of short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) and chemotherapy in the waiting period before surgery might have several benefits, including higher compliance, downstaging and better effect of systemic therapy. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, international multicentre randomized phase III trial. High-risk rectal cancer patients were randomized to SCRT followed by chemotherapy (6 cycles CAPOX or alternatively 9 cycles FOLFOX4) and subsequent surgery, or long-course radiotherapy (25-28 × 2-1.8 Gy) with concomitant capecitabine followed by surgery and optional postoperative chemotherapy (8 cycles CAPOX or 12 cycles FOLFOX4) according to local institutions' policy. The primary endpoint is time to disease-related treatment failure. Here, we report the compliance, toxicity and postoperative complications in both study groups. FINDINGS: Between June 2011 and June 2016, 920 patients were enrolled. Of these, 901 were evaluable (460 in the experimental arm and 441 in the standard arm). All patients in the experimental arm received 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy, and 84% of all patients received at least 75% of the prescribed chemotherapy. In the standard arm, the compliance for CRT was 93% and 58% for postoperative chemotherapy. Toxicity ≥grade 3 occurred in 48% of patients in the experimental arm, compared to 25% of patients in the standard arm during preoperative treatment and 35% of patients during postoperative chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in surgical procedures or postoperative complications were observed. INTERPRETATION: High compliance (84%) of preoperative systemic treatment could be achieved with the experimental approach. Although considerable toxicity was observed during preoperative therapy, this did not lead to differences in surgical procedures or postoperative complications. Longer follow-up time is needed to assess the primary endpoint and related outcomes.

Disqualification of Neoadjuvant Rectal Score Based on Data of 6596 Patients From the Netherlands Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: The neoadjuvant rectal score (NAR) was developed as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment. We aimed to validate the NAR score in patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied patients with rectal cancer treated with long-course neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2014. The probability of concordance with overall survival and the goodness of fit of several models were evaluated using Harrell's concordance index (c index) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC), which is used to compare the quality of statistical models. RESULTS: The NAR score resulted in a c index of 0.665. We found that single pathologic parameters (pT or pN) have similar concordance as the NAR formula (c index of 0.663 and 0.655, respectively). A combination of pT and pN resulted in better concordance with the true endpoint, overall survival (c index 0.684), and a simple Cox regression model with the 3 parameters included in the NAR formula (cT, pT, and pN) improved the concordance even more (c index 0.689). When the AIC index was compared for all models, the NAR score model showed the worst fit to the true endpoint. CONCLUSION: We found no additional value for using the NAR formula as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

Lateral Lymph Node Metastases in Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancers May Not Be Treated Effectively With Neoadjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy Only.

Background: In the West, pre-treatment abnormal lateral lymph nodes (LLN+) in patients with a low locally advanced rectal cancer (AJCC Stage III), are treated with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (nCRT), without a lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). It has been suggested, however, that LLN+ patients have higher local recurrence (LR) rates than similarly staged patients with abnormal mesorectal lymph nodes only (LLN-), but no comparative data exist. Therefore, we conducted this international multi-center study in the Netherlands and Australia of Stage III rectal cancer patients with either LLN+ or LLN- to compare oncological outcomes from both groups. Materials and Methods: Patients with Stage III low rectal cancer with (LLN+ group) or without (LLN- group) abnormal lateral lymph nodes on pre-treatment MRI were included. Patients underwent nCRT followed by rectal resection surgery with curative intent between 2009 and 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 2-years. No patient had a LLND. Propensity score matching corrected differences in baseline characteristics. Results: Two hundred twenty-three patients could be included: 125 in the LLN+ group and 98 in the LLN- group. Between groups, there were significant differences in cT-stage and in the rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administered. Propensity score matching resulted in 54 patients in each group, with equal baseline characteristics. The 5-year LR rate in the LLN+ group was 11 vs. 2% in the LLN- group (P = 0.06) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 64 vs. 76%, respectively (P = 0.09). Five-year overall survival was similar between groups (73 vs. 80%, respectively; P = 0.90). Conclusions: In Western patients with Stage III low rectal cancer, there is a trend toward worse LR rate and DFS rates in LLN+ patients compared to similarly staged LLN- patients. These results suggest that LLN+ patients may currently not be treated optimally with nCRT alone, and the addition of LLND requires further consideration.

[Intraoperative imaging using fluorescence, 5 years later]. / Intraoperatieve beeldvorming met fluorescentie, 5 jaar later.

Fluorescence imaging is a technique that uses near-infrared light combined with a fluorescent contrast agent to visualise specific tissue structures. This technique can be used to visualise vital anatomical structures, sentinel nodes, primary tumours and metastases during surgery or laparoscopic procedures. The development of various tumour-specific contrast agents has led to an increase in indications for the use of fluorescence imaging.

Safety and effectiveness of SGM-101, a fluorescent antibody targeting carcinoembryonic antigen, for intraoperative detection of colorectal cancer: a dose-escalation pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Tumour-targeted fluorescence imaging has the potential to advance current practice of oncological surgery by selectively highlighting malignant tissue during surgery. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is overexpressed in 90% of colorectal cancers and is a promising target for colorectal cancer imaging. We aimed to assess the tolerability of SGM-101, a fluorescent anti-CEA monoclonal antibody, and to investigate the feasibility to detect colorectal cancer with intraoperative fluorescence imaging. METHODS: We did an open-label, pilot study in two medical centres in the Netherlands. In the dose-escalation cohort, we included patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary colorectal cancer with increased serum CEA concentrations (upper limit of normal of ≥3 ng/mL) since diagnosis, who were scheduled for open or laparoscopic tumour resection. In the expansion cohort, we included patients (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent or peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer, with increasing serum concentrations of CEA since diagnosis, who were scheduled for open surgical resection. We did not mask patients, investigators, or anyone from the health-care team. We assigned patients using a 3 + 3 dose design to 5 mg, 7·5 mg, or 10 mg of SGM-101 in the dose-escalation cohort. In the expansion cohort, patients received a dose that was considered optimal at that moment of the study but not higher than the dose used in the dose-escalation cohort. SGM-101 was administered intravenously for 30 min to patients 2 or 4 days before surgery. Intraoperative imaging was done to identify near-infrared fluorescent lesions, which were resected and assessed for fluorescence. The primary outcome was tolerability and safety of SGM-101, assessed before administration and continued up to 12 h after dosing, on the day of surgery, the first postoperative day, and follow-up visits at the day of discharge and the first outpatient clinic visit. Secondary outcomes were effectiveness of SGM-101 for detection of colorectal cancer, assessed by tumour-to-background ratios (TBR); concordance between fluorescent signal and tumour status of resected tissue; and diagnostic accuracy in both cohorts. This trial is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02973672. FINDINGS: Between January, 2016, and February, 2017, 26 patients (nine in the dose-escalation cohort and 17 in the expansion cohort) were included in this study. SGM-101 did not cause any treatment-related adverse events, although three possibly related mild adverse events were reported in three (33%) of nine patients in the dose-escalation cohort and five were reported in three (18%) of 17 patients in the expansion cohort. Five moderate adverse events were reported in three (18%) patients in the expansion cohort, but they were deemed unrelated to SGM-101. No changes in vital signs, electrocardiogram, or laboratory results were found after administration of the maximum dose of 10 mg of SGM-101 in both cohorts. A dose of 10 mg, administered 4 days before surgery, showed the highest TBR (mean TBR 6·10 [SD 0·42] in the dose-escalation cohort). In the expansion cohort, 19 (43%) of 43 lesions were detected using fluorescence imaging and were not clinically suspected before fluorescent detection, which changed the treatment strategy in six (35%) of 17 patients. Sensitivity was 98%, specificity was 62%, and accuracy of fluorescence intensity was 84% in the expansion cohort. INTERPRETATION: This study presents the first clinical use of CEA-targeted detection of colorectal cancer and shows that SGM-101 is safe and can influence clinical decision making during the surgical procedure for patients with colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Surgimab.

Incisional Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for Perineal Wounds After Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer, a Pilot Study.

Objective: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is associated with high incidence of surgical wound infections. The use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) is known to reduce wound infections for several surgical indications. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the potential of a new portable negative-pressure therapy device on perineal wound healing in patients undergoing APR. Approach: A new single-use incisional negative-pressure therapy device was applied in 10 patients. A negative pressure of -80 mmHg was continued for 7 days postsurgery. Incidence of wound complications and time to wound healing were compared with a historical control group of 10 patients undergoing APR in 2014, treated with conventional wound care. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. Mean 1.6 dressings were used per patient. A wound complication was diagnosed in seven patients versus six in the control group. Wound infections were diagnosed median 11.5 days after surgery, compared with 10.5 days in the control group. Duration of wound healing was shorter in the study group (median 8.5 weeks vs. 13 weeks). Innovation: This is the first study to report on the use of this iNPWT device for patients who underwent APR for rectal cancer. Conclusion: In this study, iNPWT did not reduce wound complications. Wound infections occurred slightly later and seemed to have a less severe clinical course. After treatment with iNPWT, the duration of wound healing was shorter.