Palliation of dysphagia in metastatic oesogastric cancers: An international multidisciplinary position.

Malignant dysphagia is the most common symptom in advanced oesogastric cancers patients. Relief of dysphagia allows quality of life improvement, nutritional replenishment and potentially improves prognosis. Chemotherapy alone is effective and should be prioritised in patients with metastatic disease a good performance status, and its impact on dysphagia should be determined before further interventions are planned. Regarding local treatments, the insertion of a covered self-expandable metallic stent is the most commonly used alternative, as it allows for the rapid relief of severe dysphagia. Although several randomised trials have highlighted the role of oesophageal brachytherapy, this technique is often not easily accessible. Contemporary trials are ongoing to better define the role of external radiation therapy. While awaiting these results, external radiation therapy can be considered as a second-best option for patients with a life-expectancy > 3 months. It is important to offer nutritional support and to integrate quality of life measures in the palliative management of dysphagia. This multidisciplinary international position paper aims to propose a decision-making process and highlight randomised trials for the management of malignant dysphagia in metastatic oesogastric cancer patients.

Phase II study of preoperative radiation plus concurrent daily tegafur-uracil (UFT) with leucovorin for locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Considerable variation in intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) metabolism can occur due to the wide range of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme activity, which can affect both tolerability and efficacy. The oral fluoropyrimidine tegafur-uracil (UFT) is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient alternative to intravenous 5-FU. We undertook this study in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of UFT with leucovorin (LV) and preoperative radiotherapy and to evaluate the utility and limitations of multicenter staging using pre- and post-chemoradiotherapy ultrasound. We also performed a validated pretherapy assessment of DPD activity and assessed its potential influence on the tolerability of UFT treatment. METHODS: This phase II study assessed preoperative UFT with LV and radiotherapy in 85 patients with locally advanced T3 rectal cancer. Patients with potentially resectable tumors received UFT (300 mg/m/2/day), LV (75 mg/day), and pelvic radiotherapy (1.8 Gy/day, 45 Gy total) 5 days/week for 5 weeks then surgery 4-6 weeks later. The primary endpoints included tumor downstaging and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Most adverse events were mild to moderate in nature. Preoperative grade 3/4 adverse events included diarrhea (n = 18, 21%) and nausea/vomiting (n = 5, 6%). Two patients heterozygous for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) experienced early grade 4 neutropenia (variant IVS14+1G > A) and diarrhea (variant 2846A > T). Pretreatment ultrasound TNM staging was compared with postchemoradiotherapy pathology TN staging and a significant shift towards earlier TNM stages was observed (p < 0.001). The overall downstaging rate was 42% for primary tumors and 44% for lymph nodes. The pCR rate was 8%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for staging was poor. Anal sphincter function was preserved in 55 patients (65%). Overall and recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 86.1% and 66.7%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 36 node-positive patients (mean duration 118 days). CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy using UFT with LV plus radiotherapy was well tolerated and effective and represents a convenient alternative to 5-FU-based chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of resectable rectal cancer. Pretreatment detection of DPD deficiency should be performed to avoid severe adverse events.

Colorectal cancer screening: physicians' knowledge of risk assessment and guidelines, practice, and description of barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Physician nonadherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations contributes to underuse of screening. OBJECTIVE: To assess physicians' knowledge of CRC screening guidelines for average-risk individuals, perceived barriers to screening and practice behaviours. METHODS: Between October 2004 and March 2005, staff physicians working in three university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, were surveyed. Self-administered questionnaires assessed knowledge of risk classification and current guidelines for average-risk individuals, as well as perceptions of barriers to screening and practice behaviours. RESULTS: All 65 invited physicians participated in the survey, including 46 (70.8%) family medicine physicians and 19 (29.2%) general internists. Most physicians knew that screening should begin at 50 years of age, all knew to screen men and women and 92% said they screened average-risk patients. Fifty-seven (87.7%) physicians correctly identified three common characteristics associated with high risk for developing CRC. Physicians who screened average-risk patients preferred fecal occult blood testing (88.3%) and colonoscopy (88.3%) to flexible sigmoidoscopy (10.0%) and double-contrast barium enema (30.0%). Most physicians knew the correct screening periodicity for fecal occult blood testing (87.6%), but only 40% or fewer could identify correct screening periodicities for the other modalities. Barriers and facilitators focused on health care delivery system improvements, better evidence on which to base recommendations and development of practical screening modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians lacked knowledge of the recommended screening modalities and periodicities to appropriately screen average-risk individuals. Because CRC screening can reduce mortality, efforts to improve physician delivery should focus on physician knowledge and changes to the health care delivery system.

The safety and usefulness of high-dose-rate endoluminal brachytherapy as a boost in the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer with external beam radiation with or without chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study reports the results of a single-institution experience with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) used as a boost in the treatment of esophageal cancer with external beam radiation therapy (ERT) with or without chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients without evidence of metastatic disease were identified. HDRBT was given before ERT with a dose of 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Patients with a Karnofsky performance of more than 70 received treatment with 50 Gy in 25 fractions and concurrent 5-fluorouracil and cis-platinum during Weeks 1 and 5, whereas patients with a Karnofsky performance of less than 70 were treated with radiation therapy alone with 35 Gy in 14 fractions. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received HDRBT treatment with combined ERT and chemotherapy and 17 patients with ERT alone. The incidence of acute bone marrow toxicity was 55% Grade 2 and 15% Grade 3, and 85% of patients had Grade 2 esophagitis. With a median follow-up time of 26 months, the median survival was 21 months; the 2-year local recurrence was 25%, and the 5-year survival rate was 28%. CONCLUSION: HDRBT is safe and beneficial for local control in the radical treatment of patients with esophageal cancer.