Eflornithine plus Sulindac for Prevention of Progression in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of combination therapy with eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in delaying disease progression in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of eflornithine and sulindac, as compared with either drug alone, in adults with familial adenomatous polyposis. The patients were stratified on the basis of anatomical site with the highest polyp burden and surgical status; the strata were precolectomy (shortest projected time to disease progression), rectal or ileal pouch polyposis after colectomy (longest projected time), and duodenal polyposis (intermediate projected time). The patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 750 mg of eflornithine, 150 mg of sulindac, or both once daily for up to 48 months. The primary end point, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was disease progression, defined as a composite of major surgery, endoscopic excision of advanced adenomas, diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia in the rectum or pouch, or progression of duodenal disease. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients underwent randomization. Disease progression occurred in 18 of 56 patients (32%) in the eflornithine-sulindac group, 22 of 58 (38%) in the sulindac group, and 23 of 57 (40%) in the eflornithine group, with a hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 1.32) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with sulindac (P = 0.29) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.24) for eflornithine-sulindac as compared with eflornithine. Among 37 precolectomy patients, the corresponding values in the treatment groups were 2 of 12 patients (17%), 6 of 13 (46%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.32] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.32]); among 34 patients with rectal or ileal pouch polyposis, the values were 4 of 11 patients (36%), 2 of 11 (18%), and 5 of 12 (42%) (hazard ratios, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.43 to 9.62] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.24 to 2.90]); and among 100 patients with duodenal polyposis, the values were 12 of 33 patients (36%), 14 of 34 (41%), and 13 of 33 (39%) (hazard ratios, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.52] and 0.76 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.64]). Adverse and serious adverse events were similar across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, the incidence of disease progression was not significantly lower with the combination of eflornithine and sulindac than with either drug alone. (Funded by Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01483144; EudraCT number, 2012-000427-41.).

Combination of Sulindac and Eflornithine Delays the Need for Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery in Patients With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy and proctocolectomy are the initial standard of care for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Pharmacotherapy to prevent the progression of polyposis and surgeries in the lower GI tract would be beneficial to patients with this disease. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of eflornithine-sulindac combination versus monotherapy in delaying time to disease progression in the lower GI tract of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. DESIGN: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 21 hospitals in 7 countries treating patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. PATIENTS: Adults with familial adenomatous polyposis were randomly assigned 1:1:1 into 3 arms. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either eflornithine (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg), or both once daily for up to 48 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated as the time from randomization to predefined primary disease progression end points. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in the study. Disease progression was observed in 2 of 54 (3.7%), 9 of 53 (17.0%), and 10 of 51 (19.6%) patients with at least partial lower GI tract in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions of 80% (p = 0.02) and 83% (p = 0.01) between combination and sulindac or eflornithine. When endoscopic excision of adenomas ≥10 mm in size was censored, the need for major surgery was observed in 0 of 54, 7 of 53 (13.2%), and 8 of 51 (15.7%) patients in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions approaching 100% between combination and sulindac (p = 0.005) or combination and eflornithine (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This was a post hoc analysis, the sample size was small, and there were fewer than expected events. CONCLUSIONS: Eflornithine-sulindac combination therapy was superior to either drug alone in delaying or preventing the need for lower GI tract surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01483144; EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2012-000427-41. LA COMBINACIN DE SULINDAC Y EFLORNITINA RETRASA LA NECESIDAD DE CIRUGA DEL TUBO DIGESTIVO BAJO EN PACIENTES CON PAF ANLISIS POSTHOC DE UN ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO: ANTECEDENTES:La colectomía y la proctocolectomía son el estándar inicial de atención para los pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. La farmacoterapia para prevenir la progresión de la poliposis y las cirugías en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior sería beneficiosa para los pacientes con esta enfermedad.OBJETIVO:Este análisis tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la combinación de eflornitina-sulindac versus la monoterapia en el retraso del tiempo hasta la progresión de la enfermedad en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior de pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis posthoc de un ensayo de fase 3 aleatorizado.ENTORNO CLINICO:Veintiún hospitales en 7 países que tratan a pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar.PACIENTES:Adultos con poliposis adenomatosa familiar fueron aleatorizados 1: 1: 1 en 3 brazos.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes recibieron eflornitina (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg) o ambos una vez al día durante un máximo de 48 meses.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:La eficacia se evaluó como el tiempo desde la aleatorización hasta los criterios de valoración primarios predefinidos de progresión de la enfermedad.RESULTADOS:Los resultados se informan para la población de estudio excluyendo a los pacientes que se habían sometido a ileostomías permanentes (n = 158). Se observó progresión de la enfermedad en 2/54 (3,7%), 9/53 (17,0%) y 10/51 (19,6%) pacientes con al menos tracto gastrointestinal inferior parcial en los brazos de combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes al riesgo de reducciones del 80% (p = 0,02) y del 83% (p = 0,01) entre la combinación y el sulindaco o la eflornitina, respectivamente. Cuando se censuró la escisión endoscópica de adenomas ≥10 mm de tamaño, se observó la necesidad de cirugía mayor en 0/54, 7/53 (13,2%) y 8/51 (15,7%) pacientes en la combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes a reducciones de riesgo cercanas al 100% entre combinación y sulindac (p = 0,005) o combinación y eflornitina (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este fue un análisis posthoc, el tamaño de la muestra fue pequeño y hubo menos eventos de los esperados.CONCLUSIONES:La terapia de combinación de eflornitina-sulindac fue superior a cualquier fármaco solo para retrasar o prevenir la necesidad de cirugía del tracto gastrointestinal inferior en pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658.

Cancer pharmacoprevention: Targeting polyamine metabolism to manage risk factors for colon cancer.

Cancer is a set of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell growth. In certain cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor gene is altered in either germline or somatic cells and causes formation of risk factors, such as benign colonic or intestinal neoplasia, which can progress to invasive cancer. APC is a key component of the WNT pathway, contributing to normal GI tract development, and APC alteration results in dysregulation of the pathway for production of polyamines, which are ubiquitous cations essential for cell growth. Studies with mice have identified nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), an inhibitor of polyamine synthesis, as potent inhibitors of colon carcinogenesis. Moreover, gene expression profiling has uncovered that NSAIDs activate polyamine catabolism and export. Several DFMO-NSAID combination strategies are effective and safe methods for reducing risk factors in clinical trials with patients having genetic or sporadic risk of colon cancer. These strategies affect cancer stem cells, inflammation, immune surveillance, and the microbiome. Pharmacotherapies consisting of drug combinations targeting the polyamine pathway provide a complementary approach to surgery and cytotoxic cancer treatments for treating patients with cancer risk factors. In this Minireview, we discuss the role of polyamines in colon cancer and highlight the mechanisms of select pharmacoprevention agents to delay or prevent carcinogenesis in humans.

Efficacy and safety of eflornithine (CPP-1X)/sulindac combination therapy versus each as monotherapy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): design and rationale of a randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Molecular studies suggest inhibition of colorectal mucosal polyamines (PAs) may be a promising approach to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). Inhibition of ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) using low-dose eflornithine (DFMO, CPP-1X), combined with maximal PA export using low-dose sulindac, results in greatly reduced levels of normal mucosal PAs. In a clinical trial, this combination (compared with placebo) reduced the 3-year incidence of subsequent high-risk adenomas by >90 %. Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) is characterized by marked up-regulation of ODC in normal intestinal epithelial and adenoma tissue, and therefore PA reduction might be a potential strategy to control progression of FAP-related intestinal polyposis. CPP FAP-310, a randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial was designed to examine the safety and efficacy of sulindac and DFMO (alone or in combination) for preventing a clinically relevant FAP-related progression event in individuals with FAP. METHODS: Eligible adults with FAP will be randomized to: CPP-1X 750 mg and sulindac 150 mg, CPP-1X placebo and sulindac 150 mg, or CPP-1X 750 mg and sulindac placebo once daily for 24 months. Patients will be stratified based on time-to-event prognosis into one of the three treatment arms: best (ie, longest time to first FAP-related event [rectal/pouch polyposis]), intermediate (duodenal polyposis) and worst (pre-colectomy). Stage-specific, "delayed time to" FAP-related events are the primary endpoints. Change in polyp burden (upper and/or lower intestine) is a key secondary endpoint. DISCUSSION: The trial is ongoing. As of February 1, 2016, 214 individuals have been screened; 138 eligible subjects have been randomized to three treatment groups at 15 North American sites and 6 European sites. By disease strata, 26, 80 and 32 patients are included for assessment of polyp burden in the rectum/pouch, duodenal polyposis and pre-colectomy groups, respectively. Median age is 40 years; 59 % are men. The most common reasons for screening failure include minimal polyp burden (n = 22), withdrawal of consent (n = 9) and extensive polyposis requiring immediate surgical intervention (n = 9). Enrollment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01483144 ; November 21, 2011) and the EU Clinical Trials Register( EudraCT 2012-000427-41 ; May 15, 2014).

KRAS mutation and microsatellite instability: two genetic markers of early tumor development that influence the prognosis of colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examined two genetic markers established early in colorectal tumor development, microsatellite instability (MSI) and mutation of the KRAS proto-oncogene, to see if these genetic changes influence metastatic disease progression and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MSI and KRAS mutation status were assessed in 532 primary adenocarcinomas (stage I-IV) from patients treated by colon resection. Median follow-up was 4.1 years (range 0-13.3 years) overall, 5.4 years for survivors. RESULTS: MSI and KRAS mutation were detected in 12 and 36% of cases, respectively. MSI was more common in early-stage disease (I, 15%; II, 21%; III, 10%; IV, 2%; P = 0.0001). Prevalence of KRAS mutation did not vary with stage (I, 36%; II, 34%; III, 35%; IV, 40%; P = ns). Disease-specific survival was far superior for MSI tumors than for microsatellite stability (MSS) tumors (5-year survival 92 vs. 59%, P < 0.0001). KRAS mutation was a marker of poor survival (5-year survival 55 vs. 68%, P = 0.0002). Using Cox regression analysis MSI, KRAS mutation, and stage were strong independent predictors of survival in the entire patient population. A high-mortality group with MSS/KRAS-mutant tumors was identified within the stage I and II cohort. CONCLUSIONS: MSI and KRAS mutation provide fundamental genetic signatures influencing tumor behavior across patient subsets and stages of tumor development.

Clinical examination following preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer is not a reliable surrogate end point.

PURPOSE: Clinical assessment of rectal cancer response to preoperative combined-modality therapy (CMT) using digital rectal examination (DRE) has been proposed as a means of assessing efficacy of therapy. However, because the accuracy of this approach has not been established, we conducted a prospective analysis to determine the operating surgeon's ability to assess response using DRE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four prospectively accrued patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (T3/4 or N1) were evaluated with DRE and sigmoidoscopy in order to determine the following tumor characteristics: size, location, mobility, morphology, and circumference. Following preoperative CMT (50.40 Gy with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy) and under general anesthesia, the same surgeon estimated tumor response based on changes in these tumor characteristics, assessed via DRE. Percent pathologic tumor response was determined prospectively by a single pathologist using whole mount sections of the resected cancer. RESULTS: Clinical assessment using DRE underestimated pathologic response in 73 cases (78%). In addition, DRE was able to identify only 3 of 14 cases (21%) with a pathologic complete response. There were no clinical overestimates of response. None of the clinicopathologic tumor characteristics examined had a significant impact on DRE estimation of response. CONCLUSION: Clinical examination underestimates the extent of rectal cancer response to preoperative CMT. Given the inaccuracy of DRE following preoperative CMT, it should not be used as a sole means of assessing efficacy of therapy nor for selecting patients following CMT for local surgical therapies.

American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer.

PURPOSE: To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. RESULTS: A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. CONCLUSION: Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Complications after preoperative combined modality therapy and radical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer: a 14-year experience from a specialty service.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative combined modality therapy followed by total mesorectal excision has emerged as the optimal treatment paradigm for locally advanced rectal cancer (T3 to 4, N1, or both). But its impact on postoperative complications has not been adequately evaluated. Our aims were to evaluate our comprehensive experience and identify factors predictive of complications in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: The study group consisted of 297 consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with preoperative combined modality therapy (radiation: 5,040 cGy; chemotherapy: 5-FU-based) and then operation. Major complications were defined as those requiring medical or surgical treatment. A prospectively collected database was queried to determine the incidence of postoperative complications and associated clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: Median followup was 43.9 months (range 0.8 to 128.6 months). There were no postoperative mortalities (within 30 days of operation). But there were 145 major complications in 98 patients (33% of study population). The most common complications were small bowel obstruction (n = 32 [11%]) and wound infection (n = 31 [10%]). There were eight anastomotic leaks (4%) and nine pelvic abscesses (4%) in patients treated with low anterior resection (n = 210). Preoperative comorbidity was the only clinicopathologic factor associated with postoperative complications (p = 0.02). Postoperative complications had no significant impact on oncologic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although postoperative mortalities are rare, complications requiring treatment can be anticipated in one-third of patients undergoing preoperative combined modality therapy and total mesorectal excision. A policy of selective fecal diversion after preoperative combined modality therapy and total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer can achieve low rates of pelvic sepsis, but may lead to an increased incidence of small bowel obstruction.

Technical complications and durability of hepatic artery infusion pumps for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: an institutional experience of 544 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy is an important component in the treatment of patients with hepatic metastases. Successful use of a hepatic arterial infusion pump requires a low technical complication rate. We evaluated the complications and longterm durability of these devices at our institution. STUDY DESIGN: Between April 1986 and March 2001, 544 patients underwent hepatic arterial infusion pump placement for treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Patient- and pump-related data were collected by chart review. Pump-related complications, duration of pump function, and overall patient survival were recorded. RESULTS: Median patient survival was 24 months after pump placement. The incidences of pump failure were 9% at 1 year and 16% at 2 years. Pump complications occurred in 120 (22%) of the patients. Complications that occurred early after operation (< 30 days) were more likely to be salvaged than those occurring late (70% versus 30%, p < 0.001). Increased pump complication rates occurred in the setting of variant arterial anatomy (28% versus 19%, p = 0.02), when the catheter was inserted into a vessel other than the gastroduodenal artery (42% versus 21%, p = 0.004), if the pump was placed during the first half of the study period (1986 to 1993, 25% versus 1994 to 2001, 18%; p = 0.05), and if the surgeon had performed fewer than 25 earlier procedures (< 25, 31% versus > or = 25, 19%; p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this large single institution experience, pump-related complications were low, the majority of early pump complications were salvaged, and pump complication rates improved as institutional experience accumulated. Longterm durability of pump function was excellent.

Matrix metalloproteinase-7 expression in colorectal cancer liver metastases: evidence for involvement of MMP-7 activation in human cancer metastases.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7) is a member of the MMP family, which is overexpressed by some tumor cells and is thought to enhance the tumor metastatic potential. The aim of this study is to examine the MMP-7 expression in the human colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases and normal liver tissue using multiple techniques and to determine its association with liver metastases formation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: MMP-7 mRNA, protein, and enzymatic levels were determined by reverse transcription-PCR, Western blot analysis, and casein zymography in the specimens of human CRC liver metastases and paired normal liver tissue from 44 patients. The cellular localization of MMP-7 was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Our data reveal that all of the investigated liver metastases samples overexpressed MMP-7 mRNA and protein compared with the normal liver tissue. By zymogram, higher levels of the latent form of MMP-7 were found in 88.6% (39 of 44) liver metastases samples, whereas normal liver tissue exhibited only trace amounts. The activated form of MMP-7 was only found in those in which the pro-MMP-7 was present (n = 39); in contrast, it was not detected in the normal liver tissues. Immunohistochemically, MMP-7 is localized to the cytoplasm of tumor cells, and the strong signal is concentrated in the tumor front areas. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations emphasize the important role of MMP-7 production and activation in human CRC liver metastases formation.

Ovarian neoplasms in patients with colorectal cancer: understanding the role of prophylactic oophorectomy.

Although the role of prophylactic oophorectomy is currently under debate and not well defined, it is of increasing and considerable relevance, especially in premenopausal women, particularly those with identifiable hereditary cancer syndromes. Patients with colorectal cancer with ovarian metastases are often symptomatic, require surgery, and have poor survival. Prophylactic oophorectomy abolishes the increased risk of primary ovarian cancer in these patients, resects synchronous metastases, and prevents development of metachronous ovarian metastases. Prophylactic oophorectomy trials, mostly conducted in postmenopausal women, have not shown survival advantage. In patients with ovarian metastases of colorectal cancer, maximal cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant therapy employing newer chemotherapeutic agents, whole abdominal irradiation with chemosensitization, or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may improve outcomes in selected patients.

Intraoperative parasympathetic nerve stimulation with tumescence monitoring during total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral or bilateral division of the parasympathetic nerves during resection of rectal cancer may result in sexual erectile dysfunction. The purposes of this project were twofold: to determine the ability to demonstrate penile tumescence in response to parasympathetic nerve stimulation after rectal cancer resection and to correlate the nerve stimulation response with clinical sexual function 6 months after operation. STUDY DESIGN: In 21 consecutive male patients with normal erectile function undergoing total mesorectal excision, cavernous nerve identification and integrity before and after pelvic dissection were assessed intraoperatively, both visually by an experienced surgeon and by using the CaverMap nerve stimulator. The minimal effective current necessary to produce a 2% increase in penile tumescence was recorded for both the left- and right-sided nerves, primarily the largest nerve trunk, S3. Postclearance stimulation data were then correlated with sexual function outcomes, specifically erection and orgasm at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: The operating surgeon's visual assessment of the pelvic autonomic nerve's integrity after pelvic dissection was deemed intact in 20 of the 21 patients (95.2%). Of the 20 patients who were evaluated with CaverMap after completion of total mesorectal excision, 17 (85%) had tumescence response after nerve stimulation on either side, and 3 patients (15%) had unilateral response only. Of the 19 patients evaluated for sexual function 6 months after surgery, 18 (94.7%) had normal function, including the 3 patients with only unilateral nerve stimulation tumescence response. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative mapping of the parasympathetic nerve trunks with the CaverMap nerve stimulator may be a valuable aid to less experienced pelvic surgeons and may help in autonomic nerve preservation during total mesorectal excision clearance.

Elective bowel resection for incurable stage IV colorectal cancer: prognostic variables for asymptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with stage IV disease at initial presentation remains controversial. Although bowel resection to manage symptoms such as bleeding, perforation, or obstruction has been advocated, management of asymptomatic patients has not been well defined. Patient-dependent factors (performance status, comorbid disease) and extent of distant metastases are among the considerations that impact on the decision to proceed with surgical management in asymptomatic stage IV CRC patients. We postulated that selected patients might benefit from elective resection of the asymptomatic primary CRC. The extent of distant metastases was objectively measured by several methods to identify potential prognostic variables that may help guide patient selection in this population. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed hospital and colorectal service databases for the years 1996 to 1999. Stage IV patients who had colorectal resections with gross residual metastatic disease were identified (n = 209). Among these 209 patients, 82 patients operated on for symptoms (obstruction, perforation, bleeding, or pain) were excluded, leaving 127 patients who underwent elective resection of their asymptomatic primary CRC. Over the same time period, 103 stage IV patients who did not undergo resection were identified. Data on patient characteristics and clinical management were collected. A radiologist performed an independent review of available CT scans to assess extent of liver disease. The chi-square test was used for analysis of categoric data and Student's t-test for continuous variables. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method and distributions compared by the log rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: The resected group could be easily distinguished from the nonresected group by a higher frequency of right colon cancers (p = 0.03) and metastatic disease restricted to the liver (p = 0.02) or one other site apart from the primary tumor (p = 0.02). Resected patients had prolonged median (16 versus 9 months, p < 0.001) and 2-year (25% versus 6%, p < 0.001) survival compared with patients never resected. Univariate analysis identified three significant prognostic variables (number of distant sites involved, metastases to liver only, and volume of hepatic replacement by tumor) in the resected group. Volume of hepatic replacement was also a significant predictor of survival in Cox multivariate regression analysis (p = 0.01). Subsequent to resection of asymptomatic primary CRC, 26 patients (20%) developed postoperative complications. Median hospital stay was 6 days. Two patients (1.6%) died within 30 days of surgery. CONCLUSION: Stage IV patients selected for elective palliative resection of asymptomatic primary colorectal cancers had substantial postoperative survival that was significantly better than those never having resection. Limited metastatic tumor burden and less extensive liver involvement were associated with better survival and a higher likelihood of benefit from elective bowel resection in asymptomatic patients with incurable stage IV CRC.

Simultaneous liver and colorectal resections are safe for synchronous colorectal liver metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical strategy for the treatment of synchronous resectable colorectal liver metastasis has not been defined. The aims of this study were to review our experience with synchronous colorectal metastasis and to define the safety of simultaneous versus staged resection of the colon and liver. STUDY DESIGN: From September 1984 through November 2001, 240 patients were treated surgically for primary adenocarcinoma of the large bowel and synchronous hepatic metastasis. Clinicopathologic, operative, and perioperative data were reviewed to evaluate selection criteria, operative methods, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four patients underwent simultaneous resection of a colorectal primary and hepatic metastasis in a single operation (Group I), and 106 patients underwent staged operations (Group II). Simultaneous resections tend to be performed for right colon primaries (p < 0.001), smaller (p < 0.01) and fewer (p < 0.001) liver metastases, and less extensive liver resection (p < 0.001). Complications were less common in the simultaneous resection group, with 65 patients (49%) sustaining 142 complications, compared with 71 patients (67%) sustaining 197 complications for both hospitalizations in the staged resection group (p < 0.003). Patients having simultaneous resection required fewer days in the hospital (median 10 days versus 18 days, p = 0.001). Perioperative mortality was similar (simultaneous, n = 3; staged, n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous colon and liver resection is safe and efficient in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis. By avoiding a second laparotomy, the overall complication rate is reduced, with no change in operative mortality. Given its reduced morbidity, shorter treatment time, and similar cancer outcomes, simultaneous resection should be considered a safe option in patients with resectable synchronous colorectal metastasis.

Assessing the predictive value of clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: an analysis of 488 patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with transmural or node-positive rectal cancer benefit from the addition of chemoradiation to surgical resection. Administration of the chemoradiation (combined modality therapy) preoperatively has gained popularity in recent years. Some patients undergo apparent complete tumor regression after preoperative combined modality therapy, and controversy exists about the proper management of these patients. Some investigators have proposed that such patients should simply be observed and not undergo resection. STUDY DESIGN: The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of clinical complete response to preoperative combined modality therapy. Specifically, we have attempted to determine the frequency with which a clinical complete response (based on the absence of detectable tumor on preoperative digital rectal examination and proctoscopy) correlates with a pathologic complete response (based on the absence of cancer cells in the resected specimen). A retrospective review of the clinical and pathologic characteristics of 488 patients from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering prospective colorectal database who received preoperative chemoradiation followed by resection for primary rectal cancer was performed. The indications for preoperative therapy included clinical or ultrasound T3 or T4 tumors or node-positive disease. RESULTS: The clinical complete response rate to preoperative therapy was 19%. All patients underwent resection subsequent to preoperative therapy regardless of response. The pathologic complete response rate among all patients was 10%. The pathologic complete response rate among clinical complete responders was 25%. Clinical complete response was a significant predictive factor for pathologic complete response, but the majority (75%) of clinical complete responders had persistent foci of tumor that were not detectable on preoperative examination or proctoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical complete response to preoperative therapy as determined by preoperative digital rectal examination and proctoscopy or EUA is not an accurate predictor of pathologic complete response. A significant percentage of clinical complete responders have persistent deep tumors or nodal involvement. We do not recommend making treatment decisions based solely on the absence of clinically palpable or visible tumor after chemoradiation. Our data suggest that all acceptable-risk patients with a diagnosis of primary rectal cancer should undergo resection, regardless of their response to preoperative therapy.

Preoperative radiation therapy for upper rectal cancer T3,T4/Nx: selectivity essential.

This review explores the current available literature regarding the role of neoadjuvant therapy for upper locally advanced rectal cancers (≥10 cm-15 cm). Although there is a paucity of data evaluating the outcomes of preoperative chemoradiation for upper rectal cancers the authors suggest that T3N0 tumors will not likely benefit from radiation and that treatment of T4N0 should be individualized.

Clinical end points for developing pharmaceuticals to manage patients with a sporadic or genetic risk of colorectal cancer.

To reduce the morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), current clinical practice focuses on screening for early detection and polypectomy as a form of secondary prevention, complemented with surgical interventions when appropriate. No pharmaceutical agent is currently approved for use in clinical practice for the management of patients at risk for CRC. This article will review earlier attempts to develop pharmaceuticals for use in managing patients with a sporadic or genetic risk of CRC. It will also discuss therapeutic end points under evaluation in current efforts to develop drugs for treating CRC risk factors.