Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiation: US Experience of a Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation followed by chemotherapy as total neoadjuvant therapy has been investigated primarily in Europe and Australia with increasing global acceptance. There are limited data on this regimen's use in the United States, however, potentially delaying implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical performance and oncologic outcomes of 2 rectal cancer neoadjuvant treatment modalities: short-course total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard chemoradiation. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was performed at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 413 patients had locally advanced rectal cancers diagnosed from June 2009 to May 2018 and received either short-course total neoadjuvant therapy or standard chemoradiation. INTERVENTIONS: There were 187 patients treated with short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (5 × 5 Gy radiation followed by consolidation oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy) compared with 226 chemoradiation recipients (approximately 50.4 Gy radiation in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil equivalent). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were tumor downstaging, measured by complete response and "low" neoadjuvant rectal score rates, and progression-free survival. Secondary analyses included treatment characteristics and completion, sphincter preservation, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher rates of complete response (26.2% vs 17.3%; p = 0.03) and "low" neoadjuvant rectal scores (40.1% vs 25.7%; p < 0.01) despite a higher burden of node-positive disease (78.6% vs 68.9%; p = 0.03). Short-course recipients also completed trimodal treatment more frequently (88.4% vs 50.4%; p < 0.01) and had fewer months with temporary stomas (4.8 vs 7.0; p < 0.01). Both regimens achieved comparable local control (local recurrence: 2.7% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy vs 2.2% chemoradiation, p = 0.76) and 2-year progression-free survival (88.2% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (95% CI, 82.9-93.5) vs 85.6% chemoradiation (95% CI, 80.5-90.7)). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, unbalanced disease severity, and variable dosing of neoadjuvant consolidation chemotherapy were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved downstaging and similar progression-free survival compared with chemoradiation. These results were achieved with shortened radiation courses, improved treatment completion, and less time with diverting ostomies. Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy is an optimal regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724.TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL CON RADIACIÓN DE CORTA DURACIÓN: EXPERIENCIA ESTADOUNIDENSE DE UNA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO. ANTECEDENTES: La radiación de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia como terapia neoadyuvante total se ha investigado principalmente en Europa y Australia con una aceptación mundial cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, datos limitados sobre el uso de este régimen en los Estados Unidos, han potencialmente retrasando su implementación. OBJETIVO: Comparar el desempeño clínico y los resultados oncológicos de dos modalidades de tratamiento neoadyuvante del cáncer de recto: terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración versus quimioradiación. estándar. DISEO: Cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Centro oncológico designado por el NCI. PACIENTES: Un total de 413 cánceres rectales localmente avanzados diagnosticados entre junio de 2009 y mayo de 2018 que recibieron cualquiera de los regímenes neoadyuvantes. INTERVENCIONES: Hubo 187 pacientes tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto (radiación 5 × 5 Gy seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación basada en oxaliplatino) en comparación con 226 pacientes de quimiorradiación (aproximadamente 50,4 Gy de radiación en 28 fracciones con equivalente de fluorouracilo concurrente). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los criterios primarios de valoración fueron la disminución del estadio del tumor, medido por la respuesta completa y las tasas de puntuación rectal neoadyuvante "baja", y la supervivencia libre de progresión. Los análisis secundarios incluyeron las características del tratamiento y las tasas de finalización, conservación del esfínter y recurrencia. RESULTADOS: La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración, se asoció con tasas más altas de respuesta completa (26,2% versus 17,3%, p = 0,03) y puntuaciones rectales neoadyuvantes "bajas" (40,1% versus 25,7%, p < 0,01) a pesar de una mayor carga de enfermedad con ganglios positivos (78,6% versus 68,9%, p = 0,03). Los pacientes de ciclo corto también completaron el tratamiento trimodal con mayor frecuencia (88,4% versus 50,4%, p < 0,01) y tuvieron menos meses con estomas temporales (4,8 versus 7,0, p < 0,01). Ambos regímenes lograron un control local comparable (recidiva local: 2,7% de SC-TNT versus 2,2% de TRC, p = 0,76) y supervivencia libre de progresión a 2 años (88,2% de SC-TNT [IC: 82,9 - 93,5] versus 85,6% CRT [CI: 80,5 - 90,7]). LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, gravedad de la enfermedad desequilibrada y dosificación variable de quimioterapia neoadyuvante de consolidación. CONCLUSIONES: La terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto se asoció con una mejora en la reducción del estadio y una supervivencia libre de progresión similar en comparación con la quimioradiación. Estos resultados se lograron con ciclos de radiación más cortos, tratamientos mejor finalizados y menos tiempo en ostomías de derivación. La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración es un régimen óptimo para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724. (Traducción- Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Perioperative Complications After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Does Neoadjuvant Regimen Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the association between neoadjuvant treatment strategy and perioperative complications in patients undergoing proctectomy for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neoadjuvant SC-TNT is an alternative to neoadjuvant CRT for rectal cancer. Some have argued that short-course radiation and extended radiation-to-surgery intervals increase operative difficulty and complication risk. However, the association between SC-TNT and surgical complications has not been previously investigated. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for nonmetastatic rectal cancer after SC-TNT or CRT between 2010 and 2018. Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary outcomes, including overall POM, intraoperative complications, and resection margins, was performed. Logistic regression of severe POM was also performed. RESULTS: Of 415 included patients, 156 (38%) received SC-TNT and 259 (62%) received CRT. The cohorts were largely similar, though patients with higher tumors (69.9% vs 47.5%, P < 0.0001) or node-positive disease (76.9% vs 62.6%, P = 0.004) were more likely to receive SC-TNT. We found no difference in incidence of severe POM (9.6% SC-TNT vs 12.0% CRT, P = 0.46) or overall POM (39.7% SC-TNT vs 37.5% CRT, P = 0.64) between cohorts. Neoadjuvant regimen was also not associated with a difference in severe POM (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.04-4.70, P = 0.48) in multivariate analysis. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant regimen and any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: In rectal cancer patients treated with SC-TNT and proctectomy, we found no significant association with POM compared to patients undergoing CRT. SC-TNT does not significantly increase the risk of POM compared to CRT.

First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Although diverting stomas have reduced anastomotic leak rates after sphincter-preserving proctectomy in some series, the effectiveness of routine diversion among a broad population of rectal cancer patients remains controversial. We hypothesized that routine temporary diversion is not associated with decreased rates of leak or reintervention in cancer patients at large undergoing sphincter-sparing procedures. STUDY DESIGN: The Florida State Inpatient Database (AHRQ, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) was queried for patients undergoing sphincter-preserving proctectomy for cancer (2005 to 2014). Matched cohorts defined by diversion status were created using propensity scores based on patient and hospital characteristics. Incidence of anastomotic leak, nonelective reintervention, and readmission were compared, and cumulative 90-day inpatient costs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 8,620 eligible sphincter-sparing proctectomy patients, 1,992 matched pairs were analyzed. Leak rates did not significantly vary between groups (4.5% vs 4.3%; p = 0.76), but diversion was associated with significantly higher odds of nonelective reintervention (2.37; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.96) and readmission (1.55; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.81) compared with undiverted patients. Median costs were higher among those diverted (US$21,325 vs US$15,050; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No association between diversion and anastomotic leak was found. However, temporary diversion was associated with increased incidence of nonelective reinterventions, readmissions, and higher costs. We therefore challenge the paradigm of routine diversion in rectal cancer operations. Additional study is needed to identify which patients would benefit most from diversion.