Comparison between pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT in baseline staging and radiation planning of anal squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in baseline staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma based on CT, MRI, and PET/CT, and the resultant impact on the radiation plan. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent baseline pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT (all examinations within 3 weeks of each other) from January 2010 to April 2020. CTs, MRIs, and PET/CTs were re-interpreted by three separate radiologists. Several imaging features were assessed; tumor stage was determined based on the eight edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual; and T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) categories were determined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Radiologist assessments were then randomly presented to a radiation oncologist who formulated the radiation plan in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Across 28 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 31-78], T-category classification was significantly different on PET/CT compared to MRI and CT (p = 0.037 and 0.031, respectively). PET/CT staged a higher proportion of patients with T1/T2 disease (16/28, 57%) compared to MRI (11/28, 39%) and CT (10/28, 36%). MRI staged a higher proportion of patients with T3/T4 disease (14/28, 50%) compared to CT (12/28, 43%) and PET/CT (11/28, 39%). However, there was no significant difference between the three imaging modalities in terms of either N-category, AJCC staging, or NCCN TNM group classification, or in treatment planning. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory study showed that MRI demonstrated a higher proportion of T3/T4 tumors, while PET/CT demonstrated more T1/T2 tumors; however, MRI, CT, and PET/CT did not show any significant differences in AJCC and TNM group categories, nor was there any significant difference in treatment doses between them when assessed independently by an experienced radiation oncologist.

Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation plus sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (chemoradiotherapy) before surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America. Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) can be used in lieu of chemoradiotherapy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX (with chemoradiotherapy given only if the primary tumor decreased in size by <20% or if FOLFOX was discontinued because of side effects) as compared with chemoradiotherapy. Adults with rectal cancer that had been clinically staged as T2 node-positive, T3 node-negative, or T3 node-positive who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery were eligible to participate. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Noninferiority would be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed 1.29. Secondary end points included overall survival, local recurrence (in a time-to-event analysis), complete pathological resection, complete response, and toxic effects. RESULTS: From June 2012 through December 2018, a total of 1194 patients underwent randomization and 1128 started treatment; among those who started treatment, 585 were in the FOLFOX group and 543 in the chemoradiotherapy group. At a median follow-up of 58 months, FOLFOX was noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.92; 90.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). Five-year disease-free survival was 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9 to 83.7) in the FOLFOX group and 78.6% (95% CI, 75.4 to 81.8) in the chemoradiotherapy group. The groups were similar with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.44) and local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.44 to 3.16). In the FOLFOX group, 53 patients (9.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 8 (1.4%) received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery, preoperative FOLFOX was noninferior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy with respect to disease-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PROSPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01515787.).

Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

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.

MRI at Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer Overestimates Circumferential Resection Margin Proximity as Determined by Comparison With Whole-Mount Pathology.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend restaging with MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, but the accuracy of restaging MRI in estimating circumferential margin involvement requires additional clarification. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of circumferential resection margin assessment by MRI after neoadjuvant therapy and identify characteristics associated with accuracy. DESIGN: MRI data were retrospectively analyzed for concordance with the findings of whole-mount pathology analysis of the corresponding surgical specimens. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with accuracy. SETTING: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Included in the study were consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2018 and March 2020 after receiving neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing restaging with MRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for categorizing the circumferential resection margin as threatened; mean and paired mean differences were in proximity of the margin. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients included in the analysis, 39 (41%) had a threatened circumferential resection margin according to MRI at restaging, but only 17 (18%) had a threatened margin based on pathology. The accuracy of MRI in identifying a threatened margin was 63.8%, with margin proximity overestimated by 0.4 cm on average. In multivariate logistic regression, anterior location of the margin and tumor proximity to the anal verge were independently associated with reduced MRI accuracy. LIMITATIONS: A limitation was the retrospective design at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge that MRI-based restaging after neoadjuvant therapy overestimates circumferential margin proximity may render some surgical radicality unnecessary and thereby help avoid the associated morbidity. With the recognition that MRI-based assessment of margin proximity may not be reliable for anterior margin and for distal tumors, radiologists may want to use greater caution in interpreting images of tumors with these characteristics and to acknowledge the uncertainty in their reports. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814. LA IRM EN LA REESTADIFICACIN LUEGO DE TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN EL CNCER DE RECTO SOBRESTIMA LA PROXIMIDAD DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL SEGN LO DETERMINADO COMPARATIVAMENTE CON LA PIEZA DE ANATOMOPATOLOGA: ANTECEDENTES:Las pautas actuales recomiendan la re-estadificación por medio de la resonancia magnética luego de terapia neoadyuvante en los casos de cáncer de recto, pero la precisión de la reevaluación con la IRM para estimar el grado de implicación del margen circunferencial requiere aclaraciones adicionales.OBJETIVO:Medir el grado de exactitud en la evaluación del margen de resección circunferencial mediante resonancia magnética después de la terapia neoadyuvante e identificar las características asociadas con la precisión.DISEÑO:Se analizaron retrospectivamente los datos de resonancia magnética para determinar la concordancia entre los hallazgos del análisis de la pieza de anatamopatología y las muestras quirúrgicas correspondientes. Se realizó el análisis de regresión logística univariada y multivariada para identificar las características asociadas con la exactitud.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos que se sometieron consecutivamente a una excisión total del mesorrecto por cáncer rectal entre Enero 2018 y Febrero 2020 luego de recibir terapia neoadyuvante y someterse a una re-estadificación por imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La exactitud, la sensibilidad y especificidad; los valores predictivos positivos y negativos para categorizar el margen de resección circunferencial como amenazado; la diferencia media y las medias pareadas de proximidad a los margenes.RESULTADOS:De los 94 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 39 (41%) tenían un margen de resección circunferencial amenazado según la resonancia magnética en la re-estadificación, pero solo 17 (18%) tenían un margen amenazado basado en la patología. La precisión de la resonancia magnética para identificar un margen amenazado fue del 63,8%, con la proximidad del margen sobreestimada en 0,4 cm en promedio. En la regresión logística multivariada, la ubicación anterior de los bordes de resección y la proximidad del tumor al margen anal se asociaron de forma independiente con la reducción en la precisión de la resonancia magnética.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo en una institución única.CONCLUSIONES:El saber que la re-estadificación basada en la IRM, luego de terapia neoadyuvante sobreestima la proximidad de la lesión a los márgenes circunferenciales, hace innecesaria cierta radicalidad quirúrgica complementaria, lo que ayuda a evitar morbilidad asociada. Reconociendo que la evaluación de proximidad de los márgenes de resección basada en la resonancia magnética, no puede ser confiable en casos de márgenes anteriores y en casos de tumores distales. Los radiólogos recomiendan tener más precaución en la interpretación de imágenes de tumores con estas características y reconocen cierto desasosiego en sus informes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.

Development and Assessment of a Clinical Calculator for Estimating the Likelihood of Recurrence and Survival Among Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy, and Surgery.

Importance: Predicting outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer is challenging because of tumor downstaging. Validated clinical calculators that can estimate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with rectal cancer who have received multimodal therapy are needed. Objective: To develop and validate clinical calculators providing estimates of rectal cancer recurrence and survival that are better for individualized decision-making than the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system or the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study developed risk models, graphically represented as nomograms, for patients with incomplete pathological response using Cox proportional hazards and multivariable regression analyses with restricted cubic splines. Because patients with complete pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy had uniformly favorable outcomes, their predictions were obtained separately. The study included 1400 patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who received treatment with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery at 2 comprehensive cancer centers (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK] Cancer Center and Siteman Cancer Center [SCC]) between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2017. Patients from the MSK cohort received chemoradiation, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2014; these patients were randomly assigned to either a model training group or an internal validation group. Models were externally validated using data from the SCC cohort, who received either chemoradiation, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (chemoradiotherapy group) or short-course radiotherapy, consolidation chemotherapy, and surgery (total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy group) from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2020, to January 10, 2021. Exposures: Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recurrence-free survival and OS were the outcome measures, and the discriminatory performance of the clinical calculators was measured with concordance index and calibration plots. The ability of the clinical calculators to predict RFS and OS was compared with that of the AJCC staging system and the NAR score. The models for RFS and OS among patients with incomplete pathological response included postoperative pathological tumor category, number of positive lymph nodes, tumor distance from anal verge, and large- and small-vessel venous and perineural invasion; age was included in the risk model for OS. The final clinical calculators provided RFS and OS estimates derived from Kaplan-Meier curves for patients with complete pathological response and from risk models for patients with incomplete pathological response. Results: Among 1400 total patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, the median age was 57.8 years (range, 18.0-91.9 years), and 863 patients (61.6%) were male, with tumors at a median distance of 6.7 cm (range, 0-15.0 cm) from the anal verge. The MSK cohort comprised 1069 patients; of those, 710 were assigned to the model training group and 359 were assigned to the internal validation group. The SCC cohort comprised 331 patients; of those, 200 were assigned to the chemoradiotherapy group and 131 were assigned to the total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy group. The concordance indices in the MSK validation data set were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76) for RFS and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80) for OS. In the external SCC data set, the concordance indices in the chemoradiotherapy group were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81) for RFS and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.85) for OS; the concordance indices in the total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy group were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49-0.75) for RFS and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.46-0.84) for OS. Calibration plots confirmed good agreement between predicted and observed events. These results compared favorably with predictions based on the AJCC staging system (concordance indices for MSK validation: RFS = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64-0.74]; OS = 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58-0.75]) and the NAR score (concordance indices for MSK validation: RFS = 0.56 [95% CI, 0.50-0.63]; OS = 0.56 [95% CI, 0.46-0.66]). Furthermore, the clinical calculators provided more individualized outcome estimates compared with the categorical schemas (eg, estimated RFS for patients with AJCC stage IIIB disease ranged from 7% to 68%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, clinical calculators were developed and validated; these calculators provided more individualized estimates of the likelihood of RFS and OS than the AJCC staging system or the NAR score among patients with rectal cancer who received multimodal treatment. The calculators were easy to use and applicable to both short- and long-course radiotherapy regimens, and they may be used to inform surveillance strategies and facilitate future clinical trials and statistical power calculations.

Meaningful words in rectal MRI synoptic reports: How "polypoid" may be prognostic.

PURPOSE: This study explored the clinicopathologic outcomes of rectal tumor morphological descriptors used in a synoptic rectal MRI reporting template and determined that prognostic differences were observed. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. Fifty patients with rectal tumors for whom the synoptic descriptor "polypoid" was chosen by three experienced radiologists were compared with ninety comparator patients with "partially circumferential" and "circumferential" rectal tumors. Two radiologists re-evaluated all cases. The outcome measures were agreement among two re-interpreting radiologists, clinical T staging with MRI (mrT) and descriptive nodal features, and degrees of wall attachment of tumors (on MRI) compared with pathological (p) T and N stage when available. RESULTS: Re-evaluation by two radiologists showed moderate to excellent agreement in tumor morphology, presence of a pedicle, and degree of wall attachment (k = 0.41-0.76) and excellent agreement on lymph node presence and size (ICC = 0.83-0.91). Statistically significant lower mrT stage was noted for polypoid morphology, wherein 98% were mrT1/2, while only 7% and 2% of partially circumferential and circumferential tumors respectively were mrT1/2. Pathologic T and N stages among the three morphologies also differed significantly, with only 14% of polypoid cases higher than stage pT2 compared to 48% of partially circumferential cases and 60% of circumferential cases. CONCLUSION: Using a "polypoid" morphology in rectal cancer MRI synoptic reports revealed a seemingly distinct phenotype with lower clinical and pathologic T and N stages when compared with alternative available descriptors. PRECIS: "Polypoid" morphology in rectal cancer confers a lower clinical and pathologic T and N stage and may be useful in determining whether to proceed with surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment.

Type of recurrence is associated with disease-free survival after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of rectal cancer patients with local recurrence at a perianastomotic site (PA), a surgical field (SF) site, or in lateral lymph nodes (LLN). METHODS: A total of 114 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for recurrent, non-metastatic rectal cancer at a single comprehensive cancer center between 1997 and 2012 were grouped on the basis of radiographic assessment of type of recurrence: PA, 76 (67%) patients; SF, 25 (22%) patients; LLN, 13 (11%) patients. Demographic, clinical, and pathological features were compared between the three groups, as were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Recurrence type was associated with positive circumferential margin in the primary resection (PA, 4 [6%]; SF, 4 [19%]; LLN, 3 [25%]; P = 0.027), prior neoadjuvant therapy for the primary tumor (PA, 57 [75%]; SF, 18 [72%]; LLN, 4 [31%]; P = 0.007), and location of the primary tumor in the upper rectum (PA, 33 [45%]; SF, 5 [23%]; LLN, 1 [8%]; P < 0.001). Patients with PA had longer median DFS (PA, 5.1 years; SF, 1.5 years; LLN, 1.2 years; P = 0.036). There was a non-significant trend toward longer OS and higher rates of R0 resection for PA. CONCLUSION: Type of recurrence after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with longer DFS in patients with PA recurrence.

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.

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.

Update on colorectal cancer imaging.

Colorectal cancer remains a leading cancer killer worldwide. The disease is both curable and preventable, and yet the importance of widespread screening is only now starting to be appreciated. This article reviews the variety of diagnostic tests, imaging procedures and endoscopic examinations available to detect colorectal cancer and polyps in their early stage and also presents details on various screening options. The critical role of the radiologist is elaborated on including accurate assessment of the tumor extent within the bowel wall and beyond and the detection of lymph node and distant metastases. Staging with CT, MR imaging, endorectal ultrasound, and positron emission tomography are of paramount importance in determining the most appropriate therapy and the risk of tumor recurrence and overall prognosis.

Contrast enema before bypass surgery for small-bowel obstruction in the oncologic patient: is it necessary?

OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective study to determine the usefulness of contrast enema examinations in patients with small-bowel obstruction and known intraabdominal malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with known or suspected intraabdominal malignancy and small-bowel obstruction who underwent both CT and subsequent contrast enema were identified. CT and contrast enema reports were reviewed for patients with tumor involvement of the colon to determine whether the contrast enema findings had provided additional information to the data that had been acquired with CT. In cases in which the contrast enema had provided additional information, the patients' medical records were reviewed to determine whether treatment had been modified as a result of the additional information. RESULTS: In 14 (44%) of 32 patients, the contrast enema provided evidence of synchronous colonic disease not previously detected. The colonic involvement could be classified into two categories: implants (n = 1) and narrowing or complete obstruction (n = 13). Findings of the contrast enema resulted in a change in treatment in 10 (32%) of 32 of our patient population. CONCLUSION: Patients with known intraabdominal malignancy who present with small-bowel obstruction may have synchronous large-bowel disease that is undetectable on standard CT scans. In these patients, the additional information provided by the contrast enema altered subsequent treatment.