Is neoadjuvant therapy an alternative strategy to immediate surgery in locally perforated colon cancer?

BACKGROUND: Perforations are a rare but serious complication of colorectal cancer. The current standard of treatment is emergent surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The concern with this approach is not only the uncertainty of achieving a R0 resection but also potential injury to adjacent vessels, nerves and ureters due to inflamed tissue planes. A subset of this patient population with a contained perforation who are clinically stable may have superior oncological outcomes with local sepsis control, neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical resection. The aim of this study is to report on the pre-operative safety profile for neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of an abscess from colon cancer perforation and the short-term oncological surgical quality outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, all consecutive perforated colon cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy from Jan 2010 to Dec 2019 were included. RESULTS: There were 21 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The most common symptom at presentation was abdominal pain (71.4%) and most common site of perforation was sigmoid colon (61.9%). Local sepsis control was achieved with a combination of radiological or surgical drainage, diverting ostomy and/or intravenous antibiotics. Thirteen patients had long-course chemoradiation and eight patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of these, 13 (61.9%) had tumour regression, with one patient having a pathological complete response. All patients achieved a R0 resection. CONCLUSIONS: In a small subset of patients with colon cancer perforation, this study has demonstrated the potential safe usage of neoadjuvant therapy first before radical surgery to achieve a clear resection margin.

Determining the Safety and Efficacy of Enhanced Recovery Protocols in Major Oncologic Surgery: An Institutional NSQIP Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced-recovery (ER) protocols are increasingly being utilized in surgical practice. Outside of colorectal surgery, however, their feasibility, safety, and efficacy in major oncologic surgery have not been proven. This study compared patient outcomes before and after multispecialty implementation of ER protocols at a large, comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Surgical cases performed from 2011 to 2016 and captured by an institutional NSQIP database were reviewed. Following exclusion of outpatient and emergent surgeries, 2747 cases were included in the analyses. Cases were stratified by presence or absence of ER compliance, defined by preoperative patient education and electronic medical record order set-driven opioid-sparing analgesia, goal-directed fluid therapy, and early postoperative diet advancement and ambulation. RESULTS: Approximately half of patients were treated on ER protocols (46%) and the remaining on traditional postoperative (TP) protocols (54%). Treatment on an ER protocol was associated with decreased overall complication rates (20% vs. 33%, p < 0.0001), severe complication rates (7.4% vs. 10%, p = 0.010), and median hospital length of stay (4 vs. 5 days, p < 0.0001). There was no change in readmission rates (ER vs. TP, 8.6% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.701). Subanalyses of high magnitude cases and specialty-specific outcomes consistently demonstrated improved outcomes with ER protocol adherence, including decreased opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment of a large-scale ER implementation in multispecialty major oncologic surgery indicates its feasibility, safety, and efficacy. Future efforts should be directed toward defining the long-term oncologic benefits of these protocols.

DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Rectal Cancer: Benchmarking Its Impact on Prognosis, Neoadjuvant Response Prediction, and Clinical Cancer Genetics.

PURPOSE: DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) hallmarks consensus molecular subtype 1 of colorectal cancer. It is being routinely tested, but little is known about dMMR rectal cancers. The efficacy of novel treatment strategies cannot be established without benchmarking the outcomes of dMMR rectal cancer with current therapy. We aimed to delineate the impact of dMMR on prognosis, the predicted response to fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant therapy, and implications of germline alterations in the MMR genes in rectal cancer. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2012, 62 patients with dMMR rectal cancers underwent multimodality therapy. Oncologic treatment and outcomes as well as clinical genetics work-up were examined. Overall and rectal cancer-specific survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median age at diagnosis was 41 years. MMR deficiency was most commonly due to alterations in MSH2 (53%) or MSH6 (23%). After a median follow-up of 6.8 years, the 5-year rectal cancer-specific survival was 100% for stage I and II, 85.1% for stage III, and 60.0% for stage IV disease. Fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a complete pathologic response rate of 27.6%. The extent of surgical resection was influenced by synchronous colonic disease at presentation, tumor height, clinical stage, and pelvic radiation. An informed decision for a limited resection focusing on proctectomy did not compromise overall survival. Five of the 11 (45.5%) deaths during follow-up were due to extracolorectal malignancies. CONCLUSION: dMMR rectal cancer had excellent prognosis and pathologic response with current multimodality therapy including an individualized surgical treatment plan. Identification of a dMMR rectal cancer should trigger germline testing, followed by lifelong surveillance for both colorectal and extracolorectal malignancies. We herein provide genotype-specific outcome benchmarks for comparison with novel interventions.

Analysis of prognostic factors impacting oncologic outcomes after neoadjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been transformed with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). While data on optimal duration of adjuvant imatinib remains elusive, guidelines for administration of neoadjuvant TKIs remain unknown. METHODS: Under an institutional review board-approved protocol, patients at our institution with a diagnosis of GIST treated with neoadjuvant TKIs and surgical resection were identified. Clinical and pathologic characteristics were obtained from medical records. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients underwent surgical resection after neoadjuvant TKI therapy; 41 had primary and 52 had recurrent/metastatic GIST. Median follow-up was 2.4 years. Median duration of neoadjuvant therapy was 315 (range 3-1,611) days for primary and 537 (range 4-3,257) days for recurrent/metastatic GIST (p = 0.001). Two-year, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 85 and 44 % for primary and recurrent/metastatic disease, respectively, whereas 2-year overall survival (OS) was 97 % for primary and 73 % for recurrent/metastatic GIST. For primary GIST, duration of neoadjuvant therapy >365 days (p = 0.02) was associated with higher risk of recurrence on univariate analysis, whereas none of the clinicopathologic factors impacted OS. For recurrent/metastatic disease, disease progression was associated with a shorter OS (p = 0.001), but no factors were found to impact RFS. Lastly, when examining all patients, KIT mutations (p = 0.03) and multivisceral resection (p = 0.011) predicted shorter RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant TKIs can be effectively used for the treatment of primary and recurrent/metastatic GIST. While duration of neoadjuvant therapy, KIT mutation status, and the need for multivisceral resection can help to predict higher risk for recurrence, progression on neoadjuvant TKIs can aid in selection of patients with recurrent/metastatic disease for surgical resection.