Multivariable prognostic modelling to improve prediction of colorectal cancer recurrence: the PROSPeCT trial.

OBJECTIVE: Improving prognostication to direct personalised therapy remains an unmet need. This study prospectively investigated promising CT, genetic, and immunohistochemical markers to improve the prediction of colorectal cancer recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This multicentre trial (ISRCTN 95037515) recruited patients with primary colorectal cancer undergoing CT staging from 13 hospitals. Follow-up identified cancer recurrence and death. A baseline model for cancer recurrence at 3 years was developed from pre-specified clinicopathological variables (age, sex, tumour-node stage, tumour size, location, extramural venous invasion, and treatment). Then, CT perfusion (blood flow, blood volume, transit time and permeability), genetic (RAS, RAF, and DNA mismatch repair), and immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis and hypoxia (CD105, vascular endothelial growth factor, glucose transporter protein, and hypoxia-inducible factor) were added to assess whether prediction improved over tumour-node staging alone as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six of 448 participants formed the final cohort (226 male; mean 66 ± 10 years. 227 (70%) had ≥ T3 stage cancers; 151 (46%) were node-positive; 81 (25%) developed subsequent recurrence. The sensitivity and specificity of staging alone for recurrence were 0.56 [95% CI: 0.44, 0.67] and 0.58 [0.51, 0.64], respectively. The baseline clinicopathologic model improved specificity (0.74 [0.68, 0.79], with equivalent sensitivity of 0.57 [0.45, 0.68] for high vs medium/low-risk participants. The addition of prespecified CT perfusion, genetic, and immunohistochemical markers did not improve prediction over and above the clinicopathologic model (sensitivity, 0.58-0.68; specificity, 0.75-0.76). CONCLUSION: A multivariable clinicopathological model outperformed staging in identifying patients at high risk of recurrence. Promising CT, genetic, and immunohistochemical markers investigated did not further improve prognostication in rigorous prospective evaluation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A prognostic model based on clinicopathological variables including age, sex, tumour-node stage, size, location, and extramural venous invasion better identifies colorectal cancer patients at high risk of recurrence for neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy than stage alone. KEY POINTS: Identification of colorectal cancer patients at high risk of recurrence is an unmet need for treatment personalisation. This model for recurrence, incorporating many patient variables, had higher specificity than staging alone. Continued optimisation of risk stratification schema will help individualise treatment plans and follow-up schedules.

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.

The concept and use of the neoadjuvant rectal score as a composite endpoint in rectal cancer.

There is no universally accepted instrument to use as a validated surrogate endpoint for overall survival in phase 2 and phase 3 multimodal rectal cancer trials using chemoradiotherapy. Efforts are hampered by the inaccuracy of clinical TNM staging, the variability of indications for neoadjuvant treatment, and diverse definitions of tumour regression grade. Pathological complete response is commonly used, but fails to capture information from the majority of patients. The neoadjuvant rectal score categorises response and downstaging from the entire trial population to identify whether or not a novel treatment group in a chemoradiation trial is superior by predicting overall survival outcomes. Additionally, the neoadjuvant rectal score assesses the difference between initial clinical and pathological T stage and the presence or absence of nodal involvement after treatment. The neoadjuvant rectal score has been conceptually, but incompletely, statistically validated by two independent trial datasets. However, a fundamental weakness of the score is that no preoperative phase 3 trials in locally advanced rectal cancer in the past 20 years have provided a significant benefit in overall survival to statistically validate the neoadjuvant rectal score as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival. We review the robustness, practical value, applicability, generalisability, advantages, and disadvantages of the neoadjuvant rectal score as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival and recommend how this score could be improved and be acceptable as a standard endpoint in studies investigating neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy (SCRT-CCT) has emerged as a promising alternative to the long course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) regimen in locally advanced rectal cancer management. The systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at summarizing current evidence on SCRT-CCT and comparing it to LCRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched using a predefined search strategy returning 3314 articles. This review included 11 studies (6 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies) on SCRT-CCT regimen based on seven different cohorts. Weighted arithmetic means and forest plots were generated to determine summary estimates. RESULTS: The probability of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) was higher with SCRT-CCT compared to LCRT (risk ratio [RR] = 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.19). No statistically significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS) was observed between the two groups (RR= 1.06, 95% CI: 0.98-1.14). The weighted arithmetic mean of 3-year OS and pCR was 83.6% versus 80.9%, and 24.5% versus 13.6% for SCRT-CCT and LCRT, respectively. R0 resection and T-downstaging rates ranged from 69.2-100% to 47-75% for SCRT-CCT, and 71-92.3% and 41-75% for LCRT, respectively. The regimens had similar compliance, postoperative, and late toxicity, however, acute toxicity rates varied primarily due to differences in treatment protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the ability of SCRT-CCT to produce improved tumor response with comparable OS, R0 resection, and T-downstaging at the cost of increased acute toxicity. However, heterogeneity in treatment protocols across studies makes it difficult to provide definitive conclusions regarding the regimen. Several ongoing trials are expected to provide further evidence confirming the findings of RAPIDO trial and detail appropriate SCRT-CCT protocols to improve oncological outcomes, minimize toxicity, and determine its effectiveness as the standard-of-care for locally advanced rectal cancer patients.

Outcome measures in multimodal rectal cancer trials.

There is a large variability regarding the definition and choice of primary endpoints in phase 2 and phase 3 multimodal rectal cancer trials, resulting in inconsistency and difficulty of data interpretation. Also, surrogate properties of early and intermediate endpoints have not been systematically assessed. We provide a comprehensive review of clinical and surrogate endpoints used in trials for non-metastatic rectal cancer. The applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of these endpoints are summarised, with recommendations on clinical endpoints for the different phase trials, including limited surgery or non-operative management for organ preservation. We discuss how early and intermediate endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes and involvement of patients in decision making, can be used to guide trial design and facilitate consistency in reporting trial results in rectal cancer.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of squamous cell anal canal cancer: acute and early-late toxicity, outcome, and efficacy.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review our experience on 84 patients with squamous cell anal canal cancer (SCAC) within 12 months after combined treatment with intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), in terms of acute and early-late toxicity, overall treatment time and interruptions, colostomy-free survival (CFS), and tumor response. METHODS: Acute gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and cutaneous (CU) toxicities were assessed according to Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Early-late toxicity was scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late radiation morbidity scoring system. Tumor response was evaluated with response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) v1.1. RESULTS: Acute toxicity for 84 subjects (100%): severe (≥ G3) GI and skin toxicity was observed in 4 (5%) and 19 patients (23%), respectively. Early-late toxicity for 73 subjects (87%): severe (≥ G3) GI and vulvo-vaginal toxicity was observed in 2 (3%) and 2 (3%) patients, respectively. No acute or early-late severe GU toxicity was reported. A treatment interruption occurred in 65 patients (77%). CFS was 96% (95% CI 89-99) at 6 months and 92% (95% CI 83-96) at 12 months. At 6 months complete response (CR), partial response (PR) and progressive disease (PD) was observed in 70 (83%), 3 (4%), and 7 patients (8%), respectively. At 12 months, CR was observed in 60 patients (81%); eleven patients (15%) experienced PD. CONCLUSION: Our study showed an excellent clinical result and very low acute toxicity rates, confirming the IMRT as standard of care for curative treatment of anal cancer patients. The current trial was registered with the number IEO N87/11.

Definition of the Rectum: An International, Expert-based Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: The wide global variation in the definition of the rectum has led to significant inconsistencies in trial recruitment, clinical management, and outcomes. Surgical technique and use of preoperative treatment for a cancer of the rectum and sigmoid colon are radically different and dependent on the local definitions employed by the clinical team. A consensus definition of the rectum is needed to standardise treatment. METHODS: The consensus was conducted using the Delphi technique with multidisciplinary colorectal experts from October, 2017 to April, 2018. RESULTS: Eleven different definitions for the rectum were used by participants in the consensus. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the most frequent modality used to define the rectum (67%), and the preferred modality for 72% of participants. The most agreed consensus landmark (56%) was "the sigmoid take-off," an anatomic, image-based definition of the junction of the mesorectum and mesocolon. In the second round, 81% of participants agreed that the sigmoid take-off as seen on computed tomography or MRI achieved consensus, and that it could be implemented in their institution. Also, 87% were satisfied with the sigmoid take-off as the consensus landmark. CONCLUSION: An international consensus definition for the rectum is the point of the sigmoid take-off as visualized on imaging. The sigmoid take-off can be identified as the mesocolon elongates as the ventral and horizontal course of the sigmoid on axial and sagittal views respectively on cross-sectional imaging. Routine application of this landmark during multidisciplinary team discussion for all patients will enable greater consistency in tumour localisation.

The impact of MRI sequence on tumour staging and gross tumour volume delineation in squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal.

OBJECTIVES: To compare maximum tumour diameter (MTD) and gross tumour volume (GTV) measurements between T2-weighted (T2-w) and diffusion-weighted (DWI) MRI in squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCA) and assess sequence impact on tumour (T) staging. Second, to evaluate interobserver agreement and reader delineation confidence. METHODS: The staging MRI scans of 45 SCCA patients (25 females) were assessed retrospectively by two independent radiologists (0 and 5 years' experience of anal cancer MRI). MTD and GTV were delineated on both T2-w and high-b-value DWI images and compared between sequences; T staging was derived from MTD. Interobserver agreement was assessed and delineation confidence scored (1 to 5) by each observer. RESULTS: GTV and MTD were significantly and systematically lower on DWI versus T2-w sequences by 14.80%/9.98% (MTD) and 29.70%/12.25% (GTV) for each reader, respectively, causing T staging discordances in approximately a quarter of cases. Bland-Altman limits of agreement were narrower and intraclass correlation coefficients higher for DWI. Delineation confidence was greater on DWI: 40/42 cases were scored confidently (4 or 5) by each reader, respectively, versus 31/36 cases based on T2-w images. CONCLUSIONS: Sequence selection affects SCCA measurements and T stage. DWI yields higher interobserver agreement and greater tumour delineation confidence. KEY POINTS: • MTD and GTV measurements are significantly lower on DWI than on T 2 -w MRI. • Such differences cause T staging discordances in up to a quarter of cases. • DWI results in higher agreement between inexperienced and experienced observers. • DWI offers greater tumour delineation confidence to inexperienced readers.

Clinical endpoints in trials of chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer.

This Review examines the reporting of endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radical chemoradiation for treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. The types, frequency, and definitions of clinical primary and secondary endpoints, and patient-reported outcome measures, reported in the methods and results sections of papers (and protocols, if available) were examined. Only six published RCTs comprising 2877 patients were identified. Primary outcome measures varied across the trials analysed: two used disease-free survival, one used progression-free survival, two used local failure, and one used colostomy-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, complete clinical response, quality of life, toxicity, and compliance. The definitions for primary and secondary endpoints were not consistent across trials, particularly for treatment failure (local, regional, and distant). We conclude that the quality of outcome reporting in RCTs of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is inconsistent. A core set of outcomes, including clinical and patient-reported outcome measures with standardised definitions, is needed to improve the reporting of RCTs examining chemoradiation for treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6-12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. FINDINGS: We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79-86), 84% (81-87), and 87% (84-89), respectively and was 72% (66-78), 59% (49-67), and 46% (37-55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81-88), 86% (82-88), and 87% (84-90), respectively, and was 75% (68-80), 61% (50-70), and 48% (36-58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. INTERPRETATION: Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Primary Rectal Cancer: Repeatability of Global and Local-Regional MR Imaging Texture Features.

Purpose To assess the day-to-day repeatability of global and local-regional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging texture features derived from primary rectal cancer. Materials and Methods After ethical approval and patient informed consent were obtained, two pretreatment T2-weighted axial MR imaging studies performed prospectively with the same imaging unit on 2 consecutive days in 14 patients with rectal cancer (11 men [mean age, 61.7 years], three women [mean age, 70.0 years]) were analyzed to extract (a) global first-order statistical histogram and model-based fractal features reflecting the whole-tumor voxel intensity histogram distribution and repeating patterns, respectively, without spatial information and (b) local-regional second-order and high-order statistical texture features reflecting the intensity and spatial interrelationships between adjacent in-plane or multiplanar voxels or regions, respectively. Repeatability was assessed for 46 texture features, and mean difference, 95% limits of agreement, within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV), and repeatability coefficient (r) were recorded. Results Repeatability was better for global parameters than for most local-regional parameters. In particular, histogram mean, median, and entropy, fractal dimension mean and standard deviation, and second-order entropy, homogeneity, difference entropy, and inverse difference moment demonstrated good repeatability, with narrow limits of agreement and wCVs of 10% or lower. Repeatability was poorest for the following high-order gray-level run-length (GLRL) gray-level zone size matrix (GLZSM) and neighborhood gray-tone difference matrix (NGTDM) parameters: GLRL intensity variability, GLZSM short-zone emphasis, GLZSM intensity nonuniformity, GLZSM intensity variability, GLZSM size zone variability, and NGTDM complexity, demonstrating wider agreement limits and wCVs of 50% or greater. Conclusion MR imaging repeatability is better for global texture parameters than for local-regional texture parameters, indicating that global texture parameters should be sufficiently robust for clinical practice. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Systematic review of the quality of life issues associated with anal cancer and its treatment with radiochemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Radiochemotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of anal carcinoma achieving good loco-regional control and sphincter preservation. This approach is however associated with acute and late toxicities including haematological, skin, bowel function and genito-urinary complications. This paper systematically reviews studies addressing the quality of life (QoL) implications of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy. The paper also evaluates how QoL is assessed in anal cancer. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications (1996-2014) reporting the effects on patients of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 152 papers reporting treatment-related effects on patients, only 11 provided a formal assessment of QoL. In the absence of an anal cancer-specific measure, QoL was assessed using generic cancer instruments such as the core EORTC quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or colorectal cancer tools such as the EORTC QLQ-CR29. Bowel function, particularly diarrhoea, and sexual problems were the most commonly reported QoL concerns. The review of QoL issues of anal cancer patients treated with radiochemotherapy is limited by the QoL assessment measures used. It is argued that certain treatment-related toxicities, for example skin-induced radiation problems, are overlooked or inadequately represented in existing measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasises the need to develop an anal cancer-specific QoL measure and to incorporate QoL as an outcome of future trials in anal cancer. The results of this review are informative to clinicians and patients in terms of treatment decision-making.

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 Prophylactic colonic stent placement is not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 Colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery is not recommended as a standard treatment of symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 3 For patients with potentially curable but obstructing left-sided colonic cancer, stent placement may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, I. e. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status ≥ III and/or age > 70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence), except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e. g. bevacizumab) (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Pelvic MRI for guiding treatment decisions in rectal cancer.

Fluoropyrimidine-based chemoradiation (CRT) is used routinely for locally advanced rectal cancer to shrink the tumor preoperatively, improve lateral surgical clearance at total mesorectal excision, prevent local recurrence, and preserve organ function. In Northern Europe, short-course preoperative radiotherapy (SCPRT) is preferred to achieve locoregional control. However, with recent improvements in the quality of surgery, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and in pathologic reporting, we question whether "routine" CRT or SCPRT should be offered indiscriminately for all patients.MRI is considered the optimal modality for locoregional staging and evaluation of the potential for an involved circumferential resection margin. MRI also provides detailed anatomic information for surgical planning, and may identify poor prognostic features, which influence the way in which the pathologist processes specimens. MRI can predict the likelihood of good/poor tumor response to neoadjuvant CRT and can categorize responders/nonresponders following treatment.Using MRI to define the risk of both local recurrence and metastatic spread allows clinicians to determine which patients might benefit from or safely avoid neoadjuvant treatment. We have arrived at these views after comparing data from published observational studies, results from randomized trials, and outcome analyses of the Norwegian National Cancer Registry.

Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. METHODS: In this 2 × 2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m(2) on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. FINDINGS: We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR 3.9-6.9). 391 of 432 (90.5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89.6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference -0.9%, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.1; p=0.64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69-77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68-77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p=0.70). INTERPRETATION: The results of our trial--the largest in anal cancer to date--show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50.4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Oncological risks associated with the planned watch-and-wait strategy using total neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A narrative review.

Overall survival benefit of total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) remains unconfirmed. Thus, in our opinion, the main rationale for using TNT is a planned watch-and-wait (w&w) strategy to improve patients' long-term quality of life through organ preservation. The OPRA randomized trial, which examined a planned w&w strategy using TNT, showed a higher organ preservation rate but also a higher regrowth rate compared to studies on the opportunistic w&w strategy. Higher rates of complete clinical response with TNT did not improve disease-free survival compared to historical controls. Therefore, the gain in organ-sparing capability might not be balanced by the increased oncological risk. The ultimate local failure rate in the intention-to-treat analysis of the OPRA trial was 13% for induction chemotherapy and 16% for consolidation chemotherapy, which seems higher than expected compared to 8% in a meta-analysis of w&w studies or 12% after TNT and surgery in the PRODIGE-23 and RAPIDO trials, which enrolled patients with more advanced cancers than the OPRA trial. Other studies also suggest worse local control when surgery is delayed for radio-chemoresistant cancers. Our review questions the safety of the planned w&w strategy using TNT in unselected patients. To reduce the oncological risk while maintaining high organ preservation rates, we suggest that the planned w&w strategy using TNT requires a two-tier patient selection process: before treatment and after tumor response assessment at the midpoint of consolidation chemotherapy. These robust selections should identify patients who are unlikely to achieve organ preservation with TNT and would be better managed by preoperative chemoradiotherapy (without consolidation chemotherapy) and surgery, or by discontinuing consolidation chemotherapy and proceeding directly to surgery.

Early Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Trials: Surrogacy Revisited.

Trial-level surrogacy is critical before early response endpoints are used to approve new therapies.

Prognostic factors for recurrence and survival in anal cancer: generating hypotheses from the mature outcomes of the first United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I).

BACKGROUND: Only 2 prospective studies have previously reported prognostic factors for anal cancer, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 22861 (EORTC 22861) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 98-11 (RTOG 98-11). Both of those trials reported that clinically positive lymph nodes and male sex predicted poorer overall survival (OS). The EORTC 22861 trial indicated that the same factors were prognostic for locoregional control. In the current report, the authors investigated potential prognostic factors from the first United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I), in which patients were randomized to receive either radiotherapy alone or chemoradiation (CRT) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin C. METHODS: In the ACT I trial, associations between several baseline characteristics and 3 endpoints were investigated: locoregional failure (LRF), anal cancer death (ACD), and OS. The analyses were restricted to 292 patients who received CRT, which subsequently became standard treatment. A score was derived using multivariable Cox regression to identify the set of factors that, together, had the best prognostic performance. This score was then validated with a large, independent prospective trial (the ACT II trial). RESULTS: Palpable, clinically positive lymph nodes were associated with LRF (P = .012), a greater risk of ACD (P = .031), and decreased OS (P = .006) in multivariable analyses. Men had worse outcomes than women for LRF (P = .036), ACD (P = .039), and OS (P = .008). On average, a lower hemoglobin level had an adverse effect on ACD (P = .008), and a higher white blood cell count had an adverse effect on OS (P = .001). However, external validation of the score was poor for LRF (area under the curve [AUC] = 54%) but was better for ACD (AUC = 67%) and OS (AUC = 63%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this analysis of the ACT I trial supported evidence for palpable lymph nodes and male sex as prognostic factors for LRF and OS, and lower hemoglobin levels and a higher white blood cell count were identified as prognostic factors for ACD and OS, respectively.