The prognostic value of tumour regression grade following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer.

AIM: To date, there is no uniform consensus on whether tumour regression grade (TRG) is predictive of outcome in rectal cancer. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of TRG grading is a major source of variability in published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of TRG in a cohort of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). In addition to the Mandard TRG, we utilized four TRG systems modified from the Mandard TRG system and applied them to the cohort to assess which TRG system is most informative. METHOD: One-hundred and fifty-three patients with a T3/T4 and/or a node-positive rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based CRT followed by surgical resection. RESULTS: Thirty-six (23.5%) patients achieving complete pathological response (ypCR) had a 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 100% compared with a DFS rate of 74% for 117 (76.5%) patients without ypCR (P = 0.003). The Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) TRG best condenses the Mandard five-point TRG by stratifying patients into three groups with distinct 5-year DFS rates of 100%, 86% and 67%, respectively (P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, pathological nodal status and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, but not TRG, remained significant predictors of DFS (P = 0.002, P = 0.035 and P = 0.310, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the notion that ypCR status, nodal status after neoadjuvant CRT and CRM status, but not TRG, are predictors of long-term survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is a recognised treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). AIMS: To review AS criteria in terms of patient selection, follow-up and indications for intervention. METHODS: A total of 2,959 potential participants were identified and invited via email to complete an online survey. Only urologists practising in an EU country were eligible to participate. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 18.0. The χ (2) test was used to compare responses between those who do and do not follow an AS protocol. RESULTS: Response rate was 8% (n = 226). Ninety-seven per cent urologists offer AS; 25% (n = 53/215) within a clinical trial and a further 28% (n = 60/215) using an official AS protocol. Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 (87 %, n = 173/200) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml (86%, n = 170/198) are the commonest selection criteria. There was a statistically significant association between having an AS protocol and using PSA as an eligibility criterion (p = 0.03). For urologists not following a protocol, 11% do not consider PSA as an eligibility criterion and 81% consider PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml to decide on AS, compared to 2 and 90%, respectively, who adhere to a protocol. Twenty-four per cent of urologists without a protocol do not re-biopsy in comparison to 11% with a protocol (p = 0.026). Gleason score progression trigger the most intervention (n = 168/192, 87%). CONCLUSIONS: Urologists not adhering to an AS protocol or participating in a clinical trial appear to apply less rigorous criteria for both eligibility and monitoring in AS.

A single centre experience of active surveillance as management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer in Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) is a management strategy for addressing the widely acknowledged problem of over diagnosis and over treatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled on the AS program in our institution between January 2008 and June 2012. All data were collected prospectively in a secure database. RESULTS: The mean age of patients enrolled was 62.7 years (range 50-72). Median PSA at enrolment was 5.6 ng/mL (range 1.2-13.4). The mean follow-up was 32 months (range 2-54). In total, 85 % of patients had a repeat biopsy after 1-year with 30 % having another biopsy after 3 years. Overall, 45 % of patients remain on AS. In the remainder; 42.5 % of patients have been removed from AS for definitive treatment, while 8.75 % of patients are now on watchful waiting, 2.5 % of patients self discharged from the program and one patient died of cardiovascular disease. The prostate cancer specific survival rate is 100 %. Reasons for removal from AS and referral for treatment were; 67.6 % of patients had upgrade of disease on repeat biopsy, 17.6 % of patients had PSA progression, 11.8 % patients had progression of disease on MRI, and one patient developed a palpable nodule. Regarding definitive treatment; 52.9 % of patients have been for referred for external beam radiotherapy, 14.7 % have been referred for brachytherapy, 29.4 % have been referred for surgery and one patient has refused definitive treatment. CONCLUSION: Our findings to date support active surveillance as a valid strategy for early, localised prostate cancer.

MR vs CT imaging: low rectal cancer tumour delineation for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.

Modern three-dimentional radiotherapy is based upon CT. For rectal cancer, this relies upon target definition on CT, which is not the optimal imaging modality. The major limitation of CT is its low inherent contrast resolution. Targets defined by MRI could facilitate smaller, more accurate, tumour volumes than CT. Our study reviewed imaging and planning data for 10 patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer (defined as < 6 cm from the anal verge on digital examination). Tumour volume and location were compared for sagittal pre-treatment MRI and planning CT. CT consistently overestimated all tumour radiological parameters. Estimates of tumour volume, tumour length and height of proximal tumour from the anal verge were larger on planning CT than on MRI (p < 0.05). Tumour volumes defined on MRI are smaller, shorter and more distal from the anal sphincter than CT-based volumes. For radiotherapy planning, this may result in smaller treatment volumes, which could lead to a reduction in dose to organs at risk and facilitate dose escalation.