Practice Patterns for Organ Preservation in US Patients With Rectal Cancer, 2006-2020.

Importance: In March 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsed watch and wait for those with complete clinical response to total neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy is highly efficacious, so this recommendation may have broad implications, but the current trends in organ preservation in the US are unknown. Objective: To describe organ preservation trends among patients with rectal cancer in the US from 2006 to 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational case series included adults (aged ≥18 years) with rectal adenocarcinoma managed with curative intent from 2006 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database. Exposure: The year of treatment was the primary exposure. The type of therapy was chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery (proctectomy, transanal local excision, no tumor resection). The timing of therapy was classified as neoadjuvant or adjuvant. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the absolute annual proportion of organ preservation after radical treatment, defined as chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, proctectomy, or transanal local excision. A secondary analysis examined complete pathologic responses among eligible patients. Results: Of the 175 545 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 63 (13) years, 39.7% were female, 17.4% had clinical stage I disease, 24.7% had stage IIA to IIC disease, 32.1% had stage IIIA to IIIC disease, and 25.7% had unknown stage. The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by 9.8 percentage points (from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020; P < .001). From 2006 to 2020, the absolute rate of organ preservation increased by 13.0 percentage points for patients with stage IIA to IIC disease (19.5% to 32.5%), 12.9 percentage points for patients with stage IIIA to IIC disease (16.2% to 29.1%), and 10.1 percentage points for unknown stages (16.5% to 26.6%; all P < .001). Conversely, patients with stage I disease experienced a 6.1-percentage point absolute decline in organ preservation (from 26.4% in 2006 to 20.3% in 2020; P < .001). The annual rate of transanal local excisions decreased for all stages. In the subgroup of 80 607 eligible patients, the proportion of complete pathologic responses increased from 6.5% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy. Given the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsement of watch and wait, the increasing trends in organ preservation, and the nearly 3-fold increase in complete pathologic responses, international professional societies should urgently develop multidisciplinary core outcome sets and care quality indicators to ensure high-quality rectal cancer research and care delivery accounting for organ preservation.

Survival After Induction Chemotherapy and Chemoradiation Versus Chemoradiation and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) improves tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy alone. The effect of TNT on patient survival has not been fully investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients with LARC at a comprehensive cancer center. Three hundred and eleven patients received chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) as the sole neoadjuvant treatment and planned adjuvant chemotherapy, and 313 received TNT (induction fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting). These patients then underwent total mesorectal excision or were entered in a watch-and-wait protocol. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) after neoadjuvant therapy (defined as pathological CR or clinical CR sustained for 2 years) was compared by the χ2 test. Disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. Cox regression models were used to further evaluate DFS. RESULTS: The rate of CR was 20% for chemoRT and 27% for TNT (P=.05). DFS, local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were no different. Disease-free survival was not associated with the type of neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.80; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Although TNT does not prolong survival than neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus intended postoperative chemotherapy, the higher response rate associated with TNT may create opportunities to preserve the rectum in more patients with LARC.

Implementing Quality Colon Cancer Survivorship Care: A Practical Proposal for a Path Forward.

There are currently close to 17 million survivors of cancer in the United States. This number is expected to grow as both an aging population and improved treatment increase the number of survivors. Consequently, the importance of quality survivorship care has been recognized, but implementing, measuring, and paying for this care in a highly fragmented health care system, across a broad spectrum of diseases, is difficult. Quality measurement tied to payment is one approach that has commonly been used to improve the quality of care in the US health care system, but the complexity of applying quality measurement metrics across the spectrum of cancer survivorship care had led to stalemate. In this article, we draw on prior work to develop a quality cancer survivorship framework and propose a practical path forward with a focus on the provision of colon cancer survivorship care within integrated health care delivery networks. With this narrowly defined approach, we hope that we can promote a practical solution that can be extended to other diseases and payment systems over time.

Assessment of a Watch-and-Wait Strategy for Rectal Cancer in Patients With a Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

IMPORTANCE: The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy aims to spare patients with rectal cancer unnecessary resection. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes of WW among patients with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective case series analysis conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in New York included patients who received a diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2006, and January 31, 2015. The median follow-up was 43 months. Data analyses were conducted from June 1, 2016, to October 1, 2018. EXPOSURES: Patients had a clinical complete response after completing neoadjuvant therapy and agreed to a WW strategy of active surveillance and possible salvage surgery (n = 113), or patients underwent total mesorectal excision and were found to have a pathologic complete response (pCR) at resection (n = 136). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for analyses of local regrowth and 5-year rates of overall survival, disease-free survival, and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Compared with the 136 patients in the pCR group, the 113 patients in the WW group were older (median [range], 67.2 [32.1-90.9] vs 57.3 [25.0-87.9] years, P < .001) with cancers closer to the anal verge (median [range] height from anal verge, 5.5 [0.0-15.0] vs 7.0 [0.0-13.0] cm). All 22 local regrowths in the WW group were detected on routine surveillance and treated by salvage surgery (20 total mesorectal excisions plus 2 transanal excisions). Pelvic control after salvage surgery was maintained in 20 of 22 patients (91%). No pelvic recurrences occurred in the pCR group. Rectal preservation was achieved in 93 of 113 patients (82%) in the WW group (91 patients with no local regrowths plus 2 patients with local regrowths salvaged with transanal excision). At 5 years, overall survival was 73% (95% CI, 60%-89%) in the WW group and 94% (95% CI, 90%-99%) in the pCR group; disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI, 62%-90%) in the WW group and 92% (95% CI, 87%-98%) in the pCR group; and disease-specific survival was 90% (95% CI, 81%-99%) in the WW group and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) in the pCR group. A higher rate of distant metastasis was observed among patients in the WW group who had local regrowth vs those who did not have local regrowth (36% vs 1%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A WW strategy for select rectal cancer patients who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy resulted in excellent rectal preservation and pelvic tumor control; however, in the WW group, worse survival was noted along with a higher incidence of distant progression in patients with local regrowth vs those without local regrowth.

Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Treatment of locally advanced rectal (LARC) cancer involves chemoradiation, surgery, and chemotherapy. The concept of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), in which chemoradiation and chemotherapy are administered prior to surgery, has been developed to optimize delivery of effective systemic therapy aimed at micrometastases. Objective: To compare the traditional approach of preoperative chemoradiation (chemoRT) followed by postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with the more recent TNT approach for LARC. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort analysis using Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) records from 2009 to 2015 was carried out. A total of 811 patients who presented with LARC (T3/4 or node-positive) were identified. Exposures: Of the 811 patients, 320 received chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy and 308 received TNT (induction fluorouracil- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy followed by chemoRT). Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment and outcome data for the 2 cohorts were compared. Dosing and completion of prescribed chemotherapy were assessed on the subset of patients who received all therapy at MSK. Results: Of the 628 patients overall, 373 (59%) were men and 255 (41%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 56.7 (12.9) years. Of the 308 patients in the TNT cohort, 181 (49%) were men and 127 (49%) were women. Of the 320 patients in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort, 192 (60%) were men and 128 (40%) were women. Patients in the TNT cohort received greater percentages of the planned oxaliplatin and fluorouracil prescribed dose than those in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort. The complete response (CR) rate, including both pathologic CR (pCR) in those who underwent surgery and sustained clinical CR (cCR) for at least 12 months posttreatment in those who did not undergo surgery, was 36% in the TNT cohort compared with 21% in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: Our findings provide additional support for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines that categorize TNT as a viable treatment strategy for rectal cancer. Our data suggest that TNT facilitates delivery of planned systemic therapy. Long-term follow-up will determine if this finding translates into improved survival. In addition, given its high CR rate, TNT may facilitate nonoperative treatment strategies aimed at organ preservation.

Trends in Surgeon-Level Utilization of Sacral Nerve Stimulator Implantation for Fecal Incontinence in New York State.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of real-world data regarding surgeon utilization of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence compared with anal sphincteroplasty. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine trends in sacral nerve stimulation use compared with sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence and surgeon-level variation in progression to implantation of the pulse generator. DESIGN: This is a population-based study. PATIENTS: Patients with fecal incontinence between 2011 and 2014 in New York who underwent stage 1 of the sacral nerve stimulation procedure were selected. For the comparison with sphincteroplasty, patients with fecal incontinence who underwent anal sphincteroplasty between 2008 and 2014 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes after sacral nerve stimulation generator placement were unplanned 30-day admission, emergency department visit within 30 days, revision or explant of leads or generator, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-one patients with fecal incontinence underwent a stage 1 procedure with 79.7% progressing to stage 2. There has been an increase in the number of sacral nerve stimulation cases per year as well as the number of surgeons performing the procedure. The rate of progression to stage 2 among patients treated by colorectal surgeons was 80.2% compared with 77.0% among those treated by noncolorectal surgeons. Among those who completed stage 2, there were 3 (0.5%) unplanned 30-day admissions, 24 (4.4%) emergency department visits within 30 days, and 0 mortalities within 30 days. Thirty-two (6.5%) patients had their leads or pulse generator revised or explanted. There was a significant decrease in annual sphincteroplasty cases and the number of providers performing the procedure starting in 2011. LIMITATIONS: We lacked data regarding patient and physician decision making and the severity of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence is increasing in popularity with an increasing number of surgeons utilizing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence rather than sphincteroplasty. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A450.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a phase II randomized controlled trial evaluating 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation plus induction or consolidation chemotherapy, and total mesorectal excision or nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with non-metastatic, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) includes pre-operative chemoradiation, total mesorectal excision (TME) and post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy. This trimodality treatment provides local tumor control in most patients; but almost one-third ultimately die from distant metastasis. Most survivors experience significant impairment in quality of life (QoL), due primarily to removal of the rectum. A current challenge lies in identifying patients who could safely undergo rectal preservation without sacrificing survival benefit and QoL. METHODS/DESIGN: This multi-institutional, phase II study investigates the efficacy of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and selective non-operative management (NOM) in LARC. Patients with MRI-staged Stage II or III rectal cancer amenable to TME will be randomized to receive FOLFOX/CAPEOX: a) before induction neoadjuvant chemotherapy (INCT); or b) after consolidation neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CNCT), with 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemoradiation. Patients in both arms will be re-staged after completing all neoadjuvant therapy. Those with residual tumor at the primary site will undergo TME. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) will receive non-operative management (NOM). NOM patients will be followed every 3 months for 2 years, and every 6 months thereafter. TME patients will be followed according to NCCN guidelines. All will be followed for at least 5 years from the date of surgery or--in patients treated with NOM--the last day of treatment. DISCUSSION: The studies published thus far on the safety of NOM in LARC have compared survival between select groups of patients with a cCR after NOM, to patients with a pathologic complete response (pCR) after TME. The current study compares 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in an entire population of patients with LARC, including those with cCR and those with pCR. We will compare the two arms of the study with respect to organ preservation at 3 years, treatment compliance, adverse events and surgical complications. We will measure QoL in both groups. We will analyze molecular indications that may lead to more individually tailored treatments in the future. This will be the first NOM trial utilizing a regression schema for response assessment in a prospective fashion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02008656.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy without routine use of radiation therapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a pilot trial.

PURPOSE: Although neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy achieves low local recurrence rates in clinical stages II to III rectal cancer, it delays administration of optimal chemotherapy. We evaluated preoperative infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)/bevacizumab with selective rather than consistent use of chemoradiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with clinical stages II to III rectal cancer participated in this single-center phase II trial. All were candidates for low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients were to receive six cycles of FOLFOX, with bevacizumab included for cycles 1 to 4. Patients with stable/progressive disease were to have radiation before TME, whereas responders were to have immediate TME. Postoperative radiation was planned if R0 resection was not achieved. Postoperative FOLFOX × 6 was recommended, but adjuvant regimens were left to clinician discretion. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate. RESULTS: Between April 2007 and December 2008, 32 (100%) of 32 study participants had R0 resections. Two did not complete preoperative chemotherapy secondary to cardiovascular toxicity. Both had preoperative chemoradiotherapy and then R0 resections. Of 30 patients completing preoperative chemotherapy, all had tumor regression and TME without preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The pathologic complete response rate to chemotherapy alone was 8 of 32 (25%; 95% CI, 11% to 43%). The 4-year local recurrence rate was 0% (95% CI, 0% to 11%); the 4-year disease-free survival was 84% (95% CI, 67% to 94%). CONCLUSION: For selected patients with clinical stages II to III rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and selective radiation does not seem to compromise outcomes. Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation Before Chemotherapy and TME (PROSPECT), a randomized phase III trial to validate this experience, is now open in the US cooperative group network.

Impact of a temporary stoma on the quality of life of rectal cancer patients undergoing treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data from randomized controlled trials support use of a diverting stoma in rectal cancer patients with low anastomoses, but there is little data on how this impacts patient quality of life (QOL). This study prospectively evaluates QOL in stage I-III rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) with a temporary diverting stoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patents were identified from a prospective single-institution study of stage I-III rectal cancer patients undergoing SPS. Patients completed the EORTC C30/CR38 QOL scale preoperatively, at stoma closure, and at 6 months. The Stoma Quality of Life (SQOL) was administered at stoma closure. Subscales of the EORTC hypothesized to be affected by a diverting stoma were identified a priori. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Frequencies for responses on specific SQOL items were tabulated, and correlations between SQOL subscales and EORTC Global QOL assessed with Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Global QOL was reportedly good (mean score 70.2) and did not change with a temporary stoma (P = .83). Physical (P = .33), role (P = .07), and social function (P = .48) were also stable. Decreased body image was observed (P = .03). Stoma-related difficulties identified by the SQOL included sexual activity (53%), leakage (39%), discomfort in clothing (34%), concerns regarding privacy to empty pouch (32%), and feeling unattractive (31%). "Overall satisfaction with life," Work/social function (P < .001), sexuality/body image (P = .01), and stoma function (P = .01) subscales of the SQOL correlated strongly with the EORTC Global QOL score (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this longitudinal study of QOL in rectal cancer patients with a temporary stoma, Global QOL was good despite significant stoma-related difficulties. Use of alternative research methodology is necessary to provide insight into why this contradiction exists.

Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rate and predictors of sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer patients treated at specialty institutions. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: SPS has been considered a surrogate for surgical quality, and sphincter preservation is tremendously important to patients. Evidence of association between case volume and SPS rate has prompted recommendations that all rectal cancer patients undergo surgery at specialty institutions. However, rates of SPS, and the factors associated with ability to perform SPS, have not been well-characterized. METHODS: A prospective registry of all colorectal cancer patients treated at 7 National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III rectal cancer undergoing surgery (n = 674) between September 2005 and October 2007. Patient, tumor and treatment factors were abstracted; patients' clinical characteristics with and without SPS were compared using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 674 identified patients (median age, 58.2; 60% male), 520 (77%) had SPS. Of these, 240 had low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis, 268 low anterior resection without coloanal anastomosis; 12 had other SPS procedures. Sixty-two percent had a temporary diverting stoma. On multivariable analyses, independent predictors of SPS included younger age at diagnosis, proximal location in the rectum, nonfixed tumor, and institution. CONCLUSIONS: SPS rates at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions exceed those seen in population-based samples and clinical trials. In addition to expected variation in SPS rates based on patient and tumor characteristics, we identified variation among institutions. Although the optimal rate of SPS remains unknown, this provides areas for further research and potential performance improvement.

Squamous-cell carcinoma of the rectum: a rare but curable tumor.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate one institution's experience with treatment outcomes for rectal squamous-cell carcinoma. METHODS: Using our prospective Colorectal Database, we identified patients diagnosed with rectal squamous-cell carcinoma at our institution between 1983 and 2005. Pathology was rereviewed, tumor immunophenotype was compared to control cases of anal squamous-cell carcinoma and rectal adenocarcinoma, treatment modalities and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Twelve patients were identified (10 females median age, 58 years). Median distal extent of tumors was 7 (range, 5-8) cm from the anal verge. Treatment included chemotherapy only (n = 1), chemoradiation only (n = 2), induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery (n = 2), chemoradiation followed by surgery (n = 5), and surgery followed by chemoradiation (n = 2). The chemotherapy regimen was 5-fluorouracil-based. Radiotherapy total dose was 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/day, daily x 5) external iliac and inguinal nodes were not included in the radiation field. Complete clinical responders to chemoradiation (n = 2) received no further treatment. All seven partial responders underwent surgery; six had complete pathologic response; nodal status in two of six was unknown because they had local excision. Immunophenotypical analysis showed similar keratin expression profile between rectal squamous-cell carcinoma (n = 5) and rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 5), which is different from anal squamous-cell carcinoma (n = 10). All patients were alive without evidence of disease at follow-up (median follow-up, 2.6 (range, 0.5-16) years). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that most patients treated with upfront chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery did well. Sphincter-preserving surgery is usually feasible. Clinical judgment of tumor response after chemoradiation is not completely reliable. Immunohistochemistry suggests a common cellular origin for rectal squamous-cell carcinoma and rectal adenocarcinoma, which is different from anal squamous-cell carcinoma.