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.

Anal Adenocarcinoma Treated in the Era of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy and Nonoperative Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma bears a treatment strategy unique to other anal cancers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe oncologic outcomes of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait approach for anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 2004 and 2019 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-four patients received neoadjuvant therapy and were divided into 2 groups according to their treatment strategy: total neoadjuvant therapy versus single neoadjuvant modality therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Organ preservation, tumor regrowth, local failure, distant metastasis rates, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: This study included 70 patients with anal adenocarcinoma. Fifty-four patients (77%) received neoadjuvant therapy, of whom 30 (42%) received total neoadjuvant therapy and 24 (34%) received single neoadjuvant modality. Twenty-three (33%) patients achieved complete clinical response and were managed by watch-and-wait approach. The proportion of patients able to continue to watch-and-wait approach was higher after receiving total neoadjuvant therapy (60%) compared with single neoadjuvant modality therapy (20%; p = 0.004). A tumor regrowth rate of 22% was observed in the total neoadjuvant therapy group. The 5-year overall survival rate was 70% (95% CI, 59%-83%), including 61% (95% CI, 42%-88%) for the total neoadjuvant therapy and 65% (95% CI, 48%-88%) for the single neoadjuvant modality groups. Colostomy was avoided in 50% of patients who received total neoadjuvant therapy and 83% of watch-and-wait patients. Five-year recurrence-free survival rates of 55% (95% CI, 39%-79%) and 30% (95% CI, 15%-58%) were observed in the total neoadjuvant therapy and single neoadjuvant modality groups. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report in the literature describing the safety and feasibility of nonoperative management for anal adenocarcinoma. Anal adenocarcinoma treated with total neoadjuvant therapy and nonoperative management achieve regrowth rates comparable to those observed in rectal cancer, with oncologic outcomes similar to those of traditional treatment strategies. See Video Abstract . ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL TRATADO EN LA ERA DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL Y EL TRATAMIENTO NO QUIRRGICO: ANTECEDENTES:El adenocarcinoma anal conlleva una estrategia de tratamiento único para otros cánceres anales.OBJETIVO:Describir los resultados oncológicos de la terapia neoadyuvante total seguida de observar y esperar en adenocarcinoma anal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Se seleccionaron pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 2004-2019.INTERVENCIONES:Cincuenta y cuatro pacientes recibieron terapia neoadyuvante y se dividieron en dos grupos según su estrategia de tratamiento: terapia neoadyuvante total versus terapia de modalidad neoadyuvante única.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Preservación de órganos, recurrencia tumoral, falla local, tasas de metástasis a distancia, libre de recurrencia y supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:El estudio incluyó a 70 pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. Cincuenta y cuatro pacientes (77%) recibieron terapia neoadyuvante, de los cuales 30 (42%) recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total y 24 (34%) recibieron modalidad neoadyuvante única. Veintitrés (33%) pacientes presentaron una respuesta clínica completa y fueron tratados con vigilancia y espera. La proporción de pacientes capaces de continuar en observar y esperar fue mayor después de recibir terapia neoadyuvante total (60%) en comparación con la terapia de modalidad neoadyuvante única (20%) ( p = 0,004). Se observó una tasa de recurrencia tumoral del 22% en el grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total. La tasa de supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% (IC95% 59%-83 %), incluido el 61% (IC95% 42%-88%) para la terapia neoadyuvante total y el 65% (IC95% 48%-88%) para grupos de modalidad neoadyuvante única. Se evitó la colostomía en el 50% de los pacientes que recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total y el 83% de los pacientes en observar y esperar. Se observaron tasas de supervivencia libre de recurrencia a cinco años del 55% (IC95% 39%-79%) y del 30% (IC95% 15%-58%) en los grupos de terapia neoadyuvante total y modalidad neoadyuvante única, respectivamente.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer informe en la literatura que describe la seguridad y viabilidad del tratamiento no quirúrgico del adenocarcinoma anal. El adenocarcinoma anal tratado con terapia neoadyuvante total y manejo no quirúrgico logra tasas de recurrencia comparables a las observadas en el cáncer de recto, con resultados oncológicos similares a las estrategias de tratamientos tradicionales. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

A Dynamic Clinical Calculator for Estimating Conditional Recurrence-Free Survival After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer and Either Surgery or Watch-and-Wait Management.

Importance: The risk of recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has historically been determined after surgery, relying on pathologic variables. A growing number of patients are being treated without surgery, and their risk of recurrence needs to be calculated differently. Objective: To develop a dynamic calculator for estimating the probability of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with rectal cancer who undergo total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) (induction systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) and either surgery or watch-and-wait management. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients who presented with stage II or III rectal cancer between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2015, at a comprehensive cancer center. Conditional modeling was incorporated into a previously validated clinical calculator to allow the probability of RFS to be updated based on whether the patient remained in watch-and-wait management or underwent delayed surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: TNT followed by immediate surgery or watch-and-wait management with the possibility of delayed surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: RFS, concordance index, calibration curves. Results: Of the 302 patients in the cohort, 204 (68%) underwent surgery within 3 months from TNT completion (median [range] age, 51 [22-82] years; 78 [38%] women), 54 (18%) underwent surgery more than 3 months from TNT completion (ie, delayed surgery; median [range] age, 62 [31-87] years; 30 [56%] female), and 44 (14%) remained in watch-and-wait management as of April 21, 2021 (median [range] age, 58 [32-89] years; 16 [36%] women). Among patients who initially opted for watch-and-wait management, migration to surgery due to regrowth or patient choice occurred mostly within the first year following completion of TNT, and RFS did not differ significantly whether surgery was performed 3.0 to 5.9 months (73%; 95% CI, 52%-92%) vs 6.0 to 11.9 months (71%; 95% CI, 51%-99%) vs more than 12.0 months (70%; 95% CI, 49%-100%) from TNT completion (P = .70). RFS for patients in the watch-and-wait cohort at 12 months from completion of TNT more closely resembled patients who had undergone surgery and had a pathologic complete response than the watch-and-wait cohort at 3 months from completion of TNT. Accordingly, model performance improved over time, and the concordance index increased from 0.62 (95% CI, 0.53-0.71) at 3 months after TNT to 0.66 (95% CI, 0-0.75) at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with rectal cancer, the clinical calculator reliably estimated the likelihood of RFS for patients who underwent surgery immediately after TNT, patients who underwent delayed surgery after entering watch-and-wait management, and patients who remained in watch-and-wait management. Delayed surgery following attempted watch-and-wait did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes. The risk calculator provided conditional survival estimates at any time during surveillance and could help physicians counsel patients with rectal cancer about the consequences of alternative treatment pathways and thereby support informed decisions that incorporate patients' preferences.

Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Who Should Get Postoperative Radiation?

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment of well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) is surgery followed by adjuvant radioactive iodine therapy. Postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) is rarely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to report our experience of patients with WDTC who were selected to receive PORT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, patients who received PORT were identified from a departmental database of 6259 patients with WDTC treated with primary surgery from 1986 to 2015. We carried out propensity matching to compare outcomes with a cohort of patients who did not receive PORT. The main outcome of interest was central neck recurrence-free probability (CNRFP), while secondary outcomes were lateral neck recurrence-free probability (LNRFP), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From 6259 patients, 32 (0.5%) patients with a median age of 65.2 years received PORT. Tall-cell variant papillary thyroid carcinoma was the most common pathology (45%). Patients who received PORT had no difference in CNRFP compared with patients treated without PORT (10-year CNRFP 88% vs. 73%; p = 0.18). Furthermore, patients who received PORT had superior LNRFP (10-year LNRFP 100% vs. 62%; p = 0.001) compared with the no-PORT cohort. Despite this, patients who received PORT had similar DSS (71% PORT vs. 75% no-PORT) and OS (65% PORT vs. 58% no-PORT group) as the no-PORT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that select patients who received PORT had improved locoregional recurrence-free probability; however, this did not translate into improved DSS and OS. At our institution, we recommend the use of PORT only in highly selected patients with locally advanced primary tumors who are deemed to have a high risk of central neck recurrence for which salvage surgery would result in unacceptable risk to the airway.

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.

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.

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.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy With or Without Concurrent Chemotherapy in Nonanaplastic Thyroid Cancer with Unresectable or Gross Residual Disease.

BACKGROUND: Differentiated thyroid cancer typically has an indolent clinical course but can cause significant morbidity by local progression. Oncologic surgical resection can be technically difficult due to the proximity to critical normal structures in the neck. Our objective was to review the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of definitive-intent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to analyze whether patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy (CC-IMRT) had higher rates of disease control and survival over IMRT alone in patients with unresectable or gross residual disease (GRD). METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with GRD or unresectable nonanaplastic, nonmedullary thyroid cancer treated with definitive-intent IMRT between 2000 and 2015 were identified. Local progression-free survival (LPFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses using cox regression were used to determine the impact of clinical conditions and treatment on LPFS, DMFS, and OS. RESULTS: Of the 88 patients identified, 45 (51.1%) were treated CC-IMRT and 43 (48.9%) were treated with IMRT alone. All patients treated with CC-IMRT received weekly doxorubicin (10 mg/m2). The median follow-up among surviving patients was 40.3 months and 29.2 months for all patients. The LPFS at 4 years was 77.3%. Patients receiving CC-IMRT had higher LPFS compared with IMRT alone (CC-IMRT 85.8% vs. IMRT 68.8%, p = 0.036). The 4-year OS was 56.3% for all patients. Patients treated with CC-IMRT had higher OS compared to patients treated with IMRT alone (CC-IMRT 68.0% vs. IMRT 47.0%, p = 0.043). On multivariate analysis, receipt of concurrent chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of death (HR 0.395, p = 0.019) and lower risk of local failure (HR 0.306, p = 0.042). Grade 3+ acute toxicities occurred in 23.9% of patients, the most frequent being dermatitis (18.2%) and mucositis (9.1%). 17.1% of patients required a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube during or shortly after completion of RT, with 10.1% of patients needing a PEG more than 12 months after therapy. The rates of acute and late toxicities were not statistically higher in the CC-IMRT cohort, although trends towards higher toxicity in the CC-IMRT were present for dermatitis and PEG requirement. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT is a safe and effective means to achieve local control in patients with unresectable or incompletely resected nonanaplastic, nonmedullary thyroid cancer. Concurrent doxorubicin was not associated with worse toxicity and should be considered in these patients given its potential to improve local control and overall survival.