Upfront resection versus no resection of the primary tumor in patients with synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer: the randomized phase III CAIRO4 study conducted by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group and the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Upfront primary tumor resection (PTR) has been associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients with synchronous unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in retrospective analyses. The aim of the CAIRO4 study was to investigate whether the addition of upfront PTR to systemic therapy resulted in a survival benefit in patients with synchronous mCRC without severe symptoms of their primary tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase III trial was conducted in 45 hospitals in The Netherlands and Denmark. Eligibility criteria included previously untreated mCRC, unresectable metastases, and no severe symptoms of the primary tumor. Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to upfront PTR followed by systemic therapy or systemic therapy without upfront PTR. Systemic therapy consisted of first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab in both arms. Primary endpoint was OS in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01606098. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and February 2021, 206 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 204 patients were included (n = 103 without upfront PTR, n = 101 with upfront PTR) of whom 116 were men (57%) with median age of 65 years (interquartile range 59-71 years). Median follow-up was 69.4 months. Median OS in the arm without upfront PTR was 18.3 months (95% confidence interval 16.0-22.2 months) compared with 20.1 months (95% confidence interval 17.0-25.1 months) in the upfront PTR arm (P = 0.32). The number of grade 3-4 events was 71 (72%) in the arm without upfront PTR and 61 (65%) in the upfront PTR arm (P = 0.33). Three deaths (3%) possibly related to treatment were reported in the arm without upfront PTR and four (4%) in the upfront PTR arm. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of upfront PTR to palliative systemic therapy in patients with synchronous mCRC without severe symptoms of the primary tumor does not result in a survival benefit. This practice should no longer be considered standard of care.

Leg Lymphoedema After Inguinal and Ilio-Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma: Results from a Prospective, Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Evaluation of Groin Lymphadenectomy Extent for Melanoma (EAGLE FM) study sought to address the question of whether to perform inguinal (IL) or ilio-inguinal lymphadenectomy (I-IL) for patients with inguinal nodal metastatic melanoma who have no clinical or imaging evidence of pelvic disease. Primary outcome measure was disease-free survival at 5 years, and secondary endpoints included lymphoedema. METHODS: EAGLE FM was designed to recruit 634 patients but closed with 88 patients randomised because of slow recruitment and changes in melanoma management. Lymphoedema assessments occurred preoperatively and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. Lymphoedema was defined as Inter-Limb Volume Difference (ILVD) > 10%, Lymphoedema Index (L-Dex®) > 10 or change of L-Dex® > 10 from baseline. RESULTS: Prevalence of leg lymphoedema between the two groups was similar but numerically higher for I-IL at all time points in the first 24 months of follow-up; highest at 6 months (45.9% IL [CI 29.9-62.0%], 54.1% I-IL [CI 38.0-70.1%]) and lowest at 18 months (18.8% IL [CI 5.2-32.3%], 41.4% I-IL [CI 23.5-59.3%]). Median ILVD at 24 months for those affected by lymphoedema was 14.5% (IQR 10.6-18.7%) and L-Dex® was 12.6 (IQR 9.0-17.2). There was not enough statistical evidence to support associations between lymphoedema and extent of surgery, radiotherapy, or wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a trend for patients who had I-IL to have greater lymphoedema prevalence than IL in the first 24 months after surgery, our study's small sample did not have the statistical evidence to support an overall difference between the surgical groups.

Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in need of oncological follow-up is growing. As a response, patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) was developed, implemented and assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experienced PHFU. DESIGN: A qualitative study with individual semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed through an inductive, double-coding approach. SETTING: A university medical centre in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 12 curatively treated patients with CRC who received PHFU were included after purposive sampling. RESULTS: Overall, participants (N=12) were satisfied with PHFU. The time and cost-saving aspects for patient and hospital were evidently valued. PHFU was experienced as a shared effort, but patients felt like the primary responsibility remained in the hospital. Patients mentioned a decreased personal interaction with their healthcare provider (HCP) and felt a higher threshold to ask for help. However, all major questions were still addressed. Patients felt sufficiently competent to interpret their individual test results but experienced difficulty in interpreting repeated increases in carcinoembryonic antigen levels within the normal range. Educational status, age and a complicated disease course were seen as factors limiting the applicability of PHFU, and it was expressed that PHFU should be offered as an alternative instead of a novel standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: According to patients, PHFU has great potential. However, PHFU may not be suitable for every CRC patient, and factors such as educational status, age and disease course should be taken into consideration. Patient and HCP have a shared responsibility to help successfully organise PHFU in practice.

Evolution of clinical nature, treatment and survival of locally recurrent rectal cancer: Comparative analysis of two national cross-sectional cohorts.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer declined after guideline revision in 2014. This decline is thought to affect the clinical nature and treatability of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Therefore, this study compared two national cross-sectional cohorts before and after the guideline revision with the aim to determine the changes in treatment and survival of LRRC patients over time. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of primary rectal cancer in 2011 (n = 2094) and 2016 (n = 2855) from two nationwide cohorts with a 4-year follow up were included. Main outcomes included time to LRRC, synchronous metastases at time of LRRC diagnosis, intention of treatment and 2-year overall survival after LRRC. RESULTS: Use of neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for the primary tumour decreased from 88.5% to 60.0% from 2011 to 2016. The 3-year LRRC rate was not significantly different with 5.1% in 2011 (n = 114, median time to LRRC 16 months) and 6.3% in 2016 (n = 202, median time to LRRC 16 months). Synchronous metastasis rate did not significantly differ (27.2% vs 33.7%, p = 0.257). Treatment intent of the LRRC shifted towards more curative treatment (30.4% vs. 47.0%, p = 0.009). In the curatively treated group, two-year overall survival after LRRC diagnoses increased from 47.5% to 78.7% (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Primary rectal cancer patients in 2016 were treated less often with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, while LRRC rates remained similar. Those who developed LRRC were more often candidate for curative intent treatment compared to the 2011 cohort, and survival after curative intent treatment also improved substantially.

Quality assurance of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery among patients in the BOOG 2013-08 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the BOOG 2013-08 trial (NCT02271828), cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients were randomized between breast conserving surgery with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) followed by whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). While awaiting primary endpoint results (axillary recurrence rate), this study aims to perform a quality assurance analysis on protocol adherence and (incidental) axillary radiation therapy (RT) dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2022. Data on prescribed RT and (in 25% of included patients) planning target volumes (PTV) parameters were recorded for axillary levels I-IV and compared between treatment arms. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine prognostic variables for incidental axillary RT dose. RESULTS: 1,439/1,461 included patients (98.5%) were treated according to protocol and 87 patients (5.9%) received regional RT (SLNB 10.9%, no-SLNB 1.5 %). In 326 patients included in the subgroup analysis, the mean incidental PTV dose at axilla level I was 59.5% of the prescribed breast RT dose. In 5 patients (1.5%) the mean PTV dose at level I was ≥95% of the prescribed breast dose. No statistically or clinically significant differences regarding incidental axillary RT dose were found between treatment arms. Tumour bed boost (yes/no) was associated with a higher incidental mean dose in level I (R2 = 0.035, F(6, 263) = 1.532, p 0.168). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RT-protocol adherence was high, and that incidental axillary RT dose was low in the BOOG 2013-08 trial. Potential differences between treatmentarms regarding the primary endpoint can thus not be attributed to different axillary radiation doses.