Abandonment of Routine Radiotherapy for Nonlocally Advanced Rectal Cancer and Oncological Outcomes.

Importance: Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy was routinely applied for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer (cT1-3N0-1M0 with >1 mm distance to the mesorectal fascia) in the Netherlands following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial. This policy has shifted toward selective application after guideline revision in 2014. Objective: To determine the association of decreased use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with cancer-related outcomes and overall survival at a national level. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, population-based, nationwide cross-sectional cohort study analyzed Dutch patients with rectal cancer who were treated in 2011 with a 4-year follow-up. A similar study was performed in 2021, analyzing all patients that were surgically treated in 2016. From these cohorts, all patients with cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and radiologically unthreatened mesorectal fascia were included in the current study. The data of the 2011 cohort were collected between May and October 2015, and the data of the 2016 cohort were collected between October 2020 and November 2021. The data were analyzed between May and October 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 4-year local recurrence and overall survival rates. Results: Among the 2011 and 2016 cohorts, 1199 (mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years; 430 women [36%]) of 2095 patients (57.2%) and 1576 (mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years; 547 women [35%]) of 3057 patients (51.6%) had cT1-3N0-1M0 rectal cancer and were included, with proportions of neoadjuvant radiotherapy of 87% (2011) and 37% (2016). Four-year local recurrence rates were 5.8% and 5.5%, respectively (P = .99). Compared with the 2011 cohort, 4-year overall survival was significantly higher in the 2016 cohort (79.6% vs 86.4%; P < .001), with lower non-cancer-related mortality (13.8% vs 6.3%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that an absolute 50% reduction in radiotherapy use for nonlocally advanced rectal cancer did not compromise cancer-related outcomes at a national level. Optimizing clinical staging and surgery following the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial has potentially enabled safe deintensification of treatment.

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modifiers of health and disease is increasingly recognized. The aim of this study was to analyze gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and relative survival (RS) in colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Observational population-based study including patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2020. Stratified by localization (colon/rectum) and age (18-55/56-70/≥71years), gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and RS were analyzed. Multivariable regression was used to analyze the influence of gender on treatment and RS. RESULTS: The age-standardized incidence per 100,000 person-years of colon and rectal cancer is higher among men than women (colon: 41.2 versus 32.4, rectum: 22.8 versus 12.6). Besides differences in patient- and tumor characteristics, differences in treatment allocation and RS were observed. Most strikingly, women aged ≥ 71 years with stage IV colon cancer are less often treated with systemic therapy (31.3 % versus 28.4 %, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95 % CI 0.48-0.83) and more often receive best supportive care only (47.6 % versus 40.0 %, adjusted OR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.19-2.11). CONCLUSION: Statistically significant and clinically relevant gender differences in incidence, patient- and tumor characteristics and treatment allocation are observed in patients with CRC. Reasons for differences in treatment allocation deserve further investigation.

Transarterial Chemoembolization With Drug-Eluting Beads Versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes From a Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 2 Trial (the TRENDY Trial).

PURPOSE: To compare transarterial chemoembolization delivered with drug eluting beads (TACE-DEB) with stereotactioc body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were included if they were eligible for TACE. They could also be recruited if they required treatment prior to liver transplantation. A maximum of four TACE-DEB procedures and ablation after incomplete TACE-DEB were both allowed. SBRT was delivered in six fractions of 8-9Gy. Primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), toxicity, and quality of life (QoL). The calculated sample size was 100 patients. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and April 2020, 30 patients were randomized to the study. Due to slow accrual the trial was closed prematurely. Two patients in the SBRT arm were considered ineligible leaving 16 patients in the TACE-DEB arm and 12 in the SBRT arm. Median follow-up was 28.1 months. Median TTP was 12 months for TACEDEB and 19 months for SBRT (p=0.15). Median LC was 12 months for TACE-DEB and >40 months (not reached) for SBRT (p=0.075). Median OS was 36.8 months for TACEDEB and 44.1 months for SBRT (p=0.36). A post-hoc analysis showed 100% for SBRT 1- and 2-year LC, and 54.4% and 43.6% for TACE-DEB (p=0.019). Both treatments resulted in RR>80%. Three episodes of possibly related toxicity grade ≥3 were observed after TACE-DEB. No episodes were observed after SBRT. QoL remained stable after both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, TTP after TACE-DEB was not significantly improved by SBRT, while SBRT showed higher local antitumoral activity than TACE-DEB, without detrimental effects on OS, toxicity and QoL. To overcome poor accrual in randomized trials that include SBRT, and to generate evidence for including SBRT in treatment guidelines, international cooperation is needed.

BioXmark® liquid fiducials to enable radiotherapy tumor boosting in rectal cancer, a feasibility trial.

Background and purpose: Dose-escalation in rectal cancer (RCa) may result in an increased complete response rate and thereby enable omission of surgery and organ preservation. In order to implement dose-escalation, it is crucial to develop a technique that allows for accurate image-guided radiotherapy. The aim of the current study was to determine the performance of a novel liquid fiducial marker (BioXmark®) in RCa patients during the radiotherapy course by assessing its positional stability on daily cone-beam CT (CBCT), technical feasibility, visibility on different imaging modalities and safety. Materials and methods: Prospective, non-randomized, single-arm feasibility trial with inclusion of twenty patients referred for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced RCa. Primary study endpoint was positional stability on CBCT. Furthermore, technical aspects, safety and clinical performance of the marker, such as visibility on different imaging modalities, were evaluated. Results: Seventy-four markers from twenty patients were available for analysis. The marker was stable in 96% of the cases. One marker showed clinically relevant migration, one marker was lost before start of treatment and one marker was lost during treatment. Marker visibility was good on computed tomography (CT) and CBCT, and moderate on electronic portal imaging (EPI). Marker visibility on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was poor during response evaluation. Conclusion: The novel liquid fiducial marker demonstrated positional stability. We provide evidence of the feasibility of the novel fiducial marker for image-guided radiotherapy on daily cone beam CT for RCa patients.

Endorectal contact radiation boosting: Making the case for dose AND volume reporting.

INTRODUCTION: The various rectal endoluminal radiation techniques all have steep, but different, dose gradients. In rectal contact brachytherapy (CXB) doses are typically prescribed and reported to the applicator surface and not to the gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV) or organs at risk (OAR), which is crucial to understand tumor response and toxicity rates. To quantify the above-described problem, we performed a dose modeling study using a fixed prescription dose at the surface of the applicator and varied tumor response scenarios. METHODS: Endorectal ultrasound-based 3D-volume-models of rectal tumors and the rectal wall were used to simulate the delivered dose to GTV, CTV and the rectal wall layers, assuming treatment with Maastro HDR contact applicator for rectal cancer with a fixed prescription dose to the applicator surface (equivalent to 3 × 30 Gy CXB) and various response scenarios. RESULTS: An identical prescribed dose to the surface of the applicator resulted in a broad range of doses delivered to the GTV, CTV and the uninvolved intestinal wall. For example, the equieffective dose in 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) D90% of the GTV varied between 63 and 231 Gy, whereas the EQD2 D2cc of the rectal wall varied between 97 and 165 Gy. CONCLUSION: Doses prescribed at the surface are not representative of the dose received by the tumor and the bowel wall. This stresses the relevance of dose reporting and prescription to GTV and CTV volumes and OAR in order to gain insight between delivered dose, local control and toxicity and to optimize treatment protocols.

Limited impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands in 2020.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the health services worldwide. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer (CRC) care in the Netherlands in 2020. METHODS: CRC patients, diagnosed in 2018-2020 in the Netherlands, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The year 2020 was divided in four periods reflecting COVID-19 developments in the Netherlands (pre-COVID, 1st peak, recovery period, 2nd peak) and compared with the same periods in 2018/2019. Patient characteristics and treatment were compared using the Chi-squared test. Median time between diagnosis and treatment, and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 38,021 CRC patients were diagnosed in 2018/2019 (n = 26,816) and 2020 (n = 11,205). Median time between diagnosis and initial treatment decreased on average 4 days and median time between neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery in clinical stage II or III rectal cancer patients increased on average 34 days during the three COVID-19 periods compared to the same periods of 2018/2019. The proportion of colon cancer patients that underwent elective surgery significantly decreased with 3.0% during the 1st peak. No differences were found in the proportion of patients who received (neo)adjuvant therapy, systemic therapy, or no anti-cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Only minor changes in the care for CRC patients occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly during the 1st peak. In conclusion, the impact on CRC care in the Netherlands was found to be limited. However, long-term effects cannot be precluded.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Population-based Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care services worldwide. In the Netherlands, the first confirmed COVID-19 infection was on February 27, 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Colorectal cancer patients who were diagnosed in 25 hospitals in weeks 2 to 26 of the year 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and divided in 4 periods. The average number of patients treated per type of initial treatment was analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age. Median time between diagnosis and treatment and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann Whitney test. Percentages of (acute) resection, stoma and (neo)adjuvant therapy were compared using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: In total, 1,653 patients were included. The patient population changed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding higher stage and more clinical presentation with ileus at time of diagnosis. Slight changes were found regarding type of initial treatment. Median time between diagnosis and treatment decreased on average by 4.5 days during the pandemic. The proportion of colon cancer patients receiving a stoma significantly increased with 6.5% during the pandemic. No differences were found in resection rate and treatment with (neo)adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health care, the impact on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands was limited.

Treatment and overall survival of four types of non-metastatic periampullary cancer: nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Periampullary adenocarcinoma consists of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC), ampullary cancer (AC), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment modalities and overall survival by tumor origin. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic periampullary cancer in 2012-2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was studied with Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by origin. RESULTS: Among the 8758 patients included, 68% had PDAC, 13% DC, 12% AC, and 7% DA. Resection was performed in 35% of PDAC, 56% of DC, 70% of AC, and 59% of DA. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy was administered in 22% of PDAC, 7% of DC, 7% of AC, and 12% of DA. Three-year OS was highest for AC (37%) and DA (34%), followed by DC (21%) and PDAC (11%). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS among PDAC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55-0.69) and DC (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), but not AC (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.62-1.22) and DA (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.48-1.50). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study identified considerable differences in treatment modalities and OS between the four periampullary cancer origins in daily clinical practice. An improved OS after adjuvant chemotherapy could not be demonstrated in patients with AC and DA.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Long-Term Results of the Dutch Randomized PREOPANC Trial.

PURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Impact of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Quality of Life in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 2-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized RECTAL-BOOST Trial.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer did not result in higher complete response rates but initiated more tumor regression in the randomized RECTAL-BOOST trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01951521). This study compared patient reported outcomes between patients who received dose-escalated CRT (5 × 3 gray boost + CRT) or standard CRT for 2 years after randomization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were participating in the RECTAL-BOOST trial filled out European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of treatment. Between-group differences in functional QoL domains were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model and expressed as effect size (ES). Symptom scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Patients treated with dose-escalated CRT (boost group, n = 51) experienced a significantly stronger decline in global health at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.4 and ES -0.4), physical functioning at 6 months (ES -1.1), role functioning at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.8 and ES -0.6), and social functioning at 6 months (ES -0.6), compared with patients treated with standard CRT (control group, n = 64). The boost group reported significantly more fatigue at 3 and 6 months (83% vs 66% respectively 89% vs 76%), pain at 3 and 6 months (67% vs 36% respectively 80% vs 44%), and diarrhea at 3 months (45% vs 29%) compared with the control group. From 12 months onwards, QoL and symptoms were similar between groups, apart from more blood/mucus in stool in the boost group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, dose-escalated CRT resulted in a transient deterioration in global health, physical, role, and social functioning and more pain, fatigue and diarrhea at 3 and 6 months after start of treatment compared with standard CRT. From 12 months onwards, the effect of dose-escalated CRT on QoL largely resolved.

Randomized Study on Dose Escalation in Definitive Chemoradiation for Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (ARTDECO Study).

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of radiation dose escalation to the primary tumor on local tumor control in definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable and/or irresectable esophageal carcinoma, referred for dCRT, were randomly assigned between a standard dose (SD) of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy for 5.5 weeks to the tumor and regional lymph nodes and a high dose (HD) up to a total dose of 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy consisted of courses of concurrent carboplatin (area under the curve 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) in both arms once a week for 6 weeks. The primary end point was local progression-free survival. RESULTS: Between September 2012 and June 2018, 260 patients were included. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was present in 61% of patients, and 39% had adenocarcinoma (AC). Radiation treatment was completed by 94%, and 85% had at least five courses of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for all patients was 50 months. The 3-year local progression-free survival (LPFS) was 70% in the SD arm versus 73% in the HD arm (not significant). The LPFS for SCC and AC was 75% versus 79% and 61% versus 61% for SD and HD, respectively (not significant). The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 52% and 59% for the SD and HD arms, respectively (P = .08). Overall, grade 4 and 5 common toxicity criteria were 12% and 5% in the SD arm versus 14% and 10% in the HD arm, respectively (P = .15). CONCLUSION: In dCRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation up to 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor did not result in a significant increase in local control over 50.4 Gy. The absence of a dose effect was observed in both AC and SCC.

A population-based study on incidence, treatment, and survival in ampullary cancer in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Ampullary cancer is rare and as a result epidemiological data are scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to determine the trends in incidence, treatment and overall survival (OS) in patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2016. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ampullary adenocarcinoma were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Incidence rates were age-adjusted to the European standard population. Trends in treatment and OS were studied over (7 years) period of diagnosis, using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses for OS and stratified by the presence of metastatic disease. RESULTS: In total, 3840 patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma were diagnosed of whom, 55.0% were male and 87.1% had non-metastatic disease. The incidence increased from 0.59 per 100,000 in 1989-1995 to 0.68 per 100,000in 2010-2016. In non-metastatic disease, the resection rate increased from 49.5% in 1989-1995 to 63.9% in 2010-2016 (p < 0.001). The rate of adjuvant therapy increased from 3.1% to 7.9%. In non-metastatic disease, five-year OS (95% CI) increased from 19.8% (16.9-22.8) in 1989-1995 to 29.1% (26.0-31.2) in 2010-2016 (logrank p < 0.001). In patients with metastatic disease, median OS did not significantly improve (from 4.4 months (3.6-5.0) to 5.9 months (4.7-7.1); logrank p = 0.06). Cancer treatment was an independent prognostic factor for OS among all patients. CONCLUSION: Both incidence and OS of ampullary cancer increased from 1989 to 2016 which is most likely related to the observed increased resection rates and use of adjuvant therapy.

The Dutch-Belgian Registry of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Metastases: Clinical Outcomes of 515 Patients and 668 Metastases.

PURPOSE: Although various studies have reported that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver metastases has high local control rates and relatively low toxicity, most series included a small number of patients. We aimed to validate these outcomes in a large multi-institution patient cohort treated in accordance with a common protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A shared web-based registry of patients with liver metastases treated with SBRT was developed by 13 centers (12 in the Netherlands and 1 in Belgium). All the centers had previously agreed on the items to be collected, the fractionation schemes, and the organs-at-risk constraints to be applied. Follow-up was performed at the discretion of the centers. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were entered in the registry. Only liver metastases treated individually as independent targets and with at least 1 radiologic follow-up examination were considered for local control analysis. Toxicity of grade 3 or greater was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (v4.03). RESULTS: Between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2019, a total of 515 patients were entered in the web-based registry. The median age was 71 years. In total, 668 liver metastases were registered, and 447 were included for local control analysis. The most common primary tumor origin was colorectal cancer (80.3%), followed by lung cancer (8.9%) and breast cancer (4%). The most-used fractionation scheme was 3x18-20 Gy (36.0%), followed by 8x7.5 Gy (31.8%), 5x11-12 Gy (25.5%), and 12x5 Gy (6.7%). The median follow-up time was 1.1 years for local control and 2.3 years for survival. Actuarial 1-year local control was 87%; 1-year overall survival was 84%. Toxicity of grade 3 or greater was found in 3.9% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional study confirms the high rates of local control and limited toxicity in a large patient cohort. Stereotactic body radiation therapy should be considered a valuable part of the multidisciplinary approach to treating liver metastases.

Lymph node response to chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer patients: relationship with radiotherapy fields.

BACKGROUND: The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNmets) is a poor prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer (OeC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery. Tumour regression grade (TRG) in LNmets has been suggested as a predictor for survival. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TRG in LNmets is related to their location within the radiotherapy (RT) field. METHODS: Histopathological TRG was retrospectively classified in 2565 lymph nodes (LNs) from 117 OeC patients treated with nCRT and surgery as: (A) no tumour, no signs of regression; (B) tumour without regression; (C) viable tumour and regression; and (D) complete response. Multivariate survival analysis was used to investigate the relationship between LN location within the RT field, pathological TRG of the LN and TRG of the primary tumour. RESULTS: In 63 (54%) patients, viable tumour cells or signs of regression were seen in 264 (10.2%) LNs which were classified as TRG-B (n = 56), C (n = 104) or D (n = 104) LNs. 73% of B, C and D LNs were located within the RT field. There was a trend towards a relationship between LN response and anatomical LN location with respect to the RT field (p = 0.052). Multivariate analysis showed that only the presence of LNmets within the RT field with TRG-B is related to poor overall survival. CONCLUSION: Patients have the best survival if all LNmets show tumour regression, even if LNmets are located outside the RT field. Response in LNmets to nCRT is heterogeneous which warrants further studies to better understand underlying mechanisms.

Efficacy of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Complete Tumor Response in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (RECTAL-BOOST): A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete tumor response after chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with a favorable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. In the RECTAL-BOOST trial, we aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumor before chemoradiation on pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response in LARC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multicenter, nonblinded, phase 2 randomized controlled trial followed the trials-within-cohorts design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can either accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomization. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of 2 radiation therapy centers were eligible. Patients were randomized to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 × 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy, directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 × 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathologic complete response (ie, ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks, or, as surrogate for pathologic complete response, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01951521. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4 stage and a low rectal tumor (31.3% vs 17.2% and 56.3% vs 45.3%, respectively), and more patients had a cN2 stage (59.4% vs 70.3%, respectively). Rate of pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%; 95% CI, 25.7-50.5) in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumor regression was more common in the intervention group (34 of 49; 69.4%) than in the control group (24 of 53; 45.3%; (OR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.21-6.18). Grade ≥3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.35-4.22). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation with an external radiation therapy boost to the tumor before neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathologic or sustained clinical complete tumor response rate in LARC.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Immediate Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial.

PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized phase III trial in 16 centers, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemcitabine, the second combined with 15 × 2.4 Gy radiotherapy, followed by surgery and 4 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine or to immediate surgery and 6 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between April 2013 and July 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery. Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P = .096). The resection rate was 61% and 72% (P = .058). The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigned to immediate surgery (P < .001). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with significantly lower rates of pathologic lymph nodes, perineural invasion, and venous invasion. Survival analysis of patients who underwent tumor resection and started adjuvant chemotherapy showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = .029). The proportion of patients who suffered serious adverse events was 52% versus 41% (P = .096). CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Although the outcomes of the secondary end points and predefined subgroup analyses suggest an advantage of the neoadjuvant approach, additional evidence is required.

Microscopic intramural extension of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: A meta-analysis based on individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: In selected rectal cancer patients with residual local disease following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and the preference of an organ preservation pathway, additional treatment with dose escalation by endoluminal radiotherapy (RT) may ultimately result in a clinical complete response. To date, the widespread introduction of selective endoluminal radiation techniques is hampered by a lack of evidence-based guidelines that describe the radiation treatment volume in relation to the residual tumor mass. In order to convert an incomplete response into a complete one with additional treatment such as dose-escalation with endoluminal RT from a theoretical perspective, it seems important to treat all remaining microscopic tumor cells after CRT. In this setting, residual tumor extension beneath normal appearing mucosa (microscopic intramural spread - MIS) becomes relevant for accurate tumor volume and margin estimation. With the goal of providing evidence-based guidelines that define an appropriate treatment volume and patient selection, we present results from a meta-analysis based on individual patient data of studies that have assessed the extent or range of MIS of rectal cancers after neoadjuvant CRT. This meta-analysis should provide an estimate of the residual tumor volume/extension that needs to be targeted by any additional radiation therapy boost in order to achieve complete tumor eradication after initial incomplete or near-complete response following standard CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A PubMed search was performed. Additional articles were selected based on identification from reference lists. Papers were eligible when reporting MIS in patients who were treated by total mesorectal excision or local excision/transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) after neo-adjuvant long-course CRT. The mean MIS was calculated for the entire group along with the 70th until 95th percentiles. Additional exploratory subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 349 patients with residual disease from five studies were analyzed. 80% of tumors showed no MIS. In order to appropriately treat MIS in 95% of rectal cancer patients after CRT, a margin of 5.5 mm around the macroscopic tumor would suffice. An exploratory subgroup analysis showed that T-stage after CRT (ypT) and time interval between neoadjuvant CRT and surgery are significant factors predicting the extent of MIS (p < 0.001.) The group of ypT1 had the smallest MIS, followed by the ypT3-4 group, while the ypT2 group had the largest MIS (p < 0.001). Regarding time interval between CRT and surgery, a statistically significant difference was seen when comparing the three time-interval groups (less than 8 weeks, 8-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks), where waiting more than 12 weeks after CRT resulted in the largest MIS (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Based on this meta-analysis, in order to treat the MIS for 95% of rectal cancer patients after CRT, a Clinical Target Volume (CTV) margin of 5.5 mm from the lateral most edge of the macroscopic tumor would suffice. 80% of tumors showed no MIS and would not require an extra CTV margin for treatment. These findings support the feasibility of localized radiotherapy boosts for dose-escalation to improve response among patients with incomplete response after standard CRT and can also be applied in the surgical setting.

The TRENDY multi-center randomized trial on hepatocellular carcinoma - Trial QA including automated treatment planning and benchmark-case results.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The TRENDY trial is an international multi-center phase-II study, randomizing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients between transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with a target dose of 48-54 Gy in six fractions. The radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) program, including prospective plan feedback based on automated treatment planning, is described and results are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scans of a single patient were used as a benchmark case. Contours submitted by nine participating centers were compared with reference contours. The subsequent planning round was based on a single set of contours. A total of 20 plans from participating centers, including 12 from the benchmark case, 5 from a clinical pilot and 3 from the first study patients, were compared to automatically generated VMAT plans. RESULTS: For the submitted liver contours, Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) with the reference delineation ranged from 0.925 to 0.954. For the GTV, the DSC varied between 0.721 and 0.876. For the 12 plans on the benchmark case, healthy liver normal-tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) ranged from 0.2% to 22.2% with little correlation between NCTP and PTV-D95% (R2 < 0.3). Four protocol deviations were detected in the set of 20 treatment plans. Comparison with co-planar autoVMAT QA plans revealed these were due to too high target dose and suboptimal planning. Overall, autoVMAT resulted in an average liver NTCP reduction of 2.2 percent point (range: 16.2 percent point to -1.8 percent point, p = 0.03), and lower doses to the healthy liver (p < 0.01) and gastrointestinal organs at risk (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delineation variation resulted in feedback to participating centers. Automated treatment planning can play an important role in clinical trials for prospective plan QA as suboptimal plans were detected.

Endorectal Brachytherapy Boost After External Beam Radiation Therapy in Elderly or Medically Inoperable Patients With Rectal Cancer: Primary Outcomes of the Phase 1 HERBERT Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by high-dose-rate endorectal brachytherapy (HDREBT) boost in elderly and medically inoperable patients with rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A phase 1 dose-escalation study was performed. Treatment consisted of EBRT (13 × 3 Gy) followed by 3 weekly brachytherapy applications 6 weeks later. The HDREBT dose started at 5 Gy per fraction, increasing with 1 Gy per fraction if dose-limiting toxicity (DLT, defined as grade ≥3 proctitis <6 weeks after HDREBT) occurred in ≤2 patients per dose level. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose, defined as 1 dose level below the dose at which 3 patients experienced DLT. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, clinical tumor response, freedom from local progression, and local progression-free and overall survival (L-PFS and OS). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with a median age of 83 years were included in the study. Thirty-two were evaluable for DLT and late toxicity and 33 for response evaluation. Maximum delivered dose was 8 Gy per fraction, resulting in a recommended dose of 7 Gy per fraction. Response occurred in 29 of 33 patients (87.9%), with 60.6% complete response (CR). The L-PFS and OS rates were 42% and 63%, respectively, at 2 years. Patients with CR showed a significantly improved L-PFS (60% at 2 years, P=.006) and a trend in improved OS (80% at 2 years, P=.11). Severe late toxicity occurred in 10 of 32 patients. CONCLUSION: We found that HDREBT after EBRT results in a high overall response rate, with improved L-PFS for patients with a CR. The high observed rate of severe late toxicity requires further evaluation of the risks and benefits of an HDREBT boost.

Considerable interobserver variation in delineation of pancreatic cancer on 3DCT and 4DCT: a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: The delineation of pancreatic tumors on CT is challenging. In this study, we quantified the interobserver variation for pancreatic tumor delineation on 3DCT as well as on 4DCT. METHODS: Eight observers (radiation oncologists) from six institutions delineated pancreatic tumors of four patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer. The study consisted of two stages. In the 3DCT-stage, the gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated on a contrast-enhanced scan. In the 4DCT-stage, the internal GTV (iGTV) was delineated, accounting for the respiratory motion. We calculated the volumes of the (i)GTV, the overlap of the delineated volumes (expressed as generalized conformity index: CIgen), the local observer variation (local standard deviation: SD) and the overall observer variation (overall SD). We compared these results between GTVs and iGTVs. Additionally, observers were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the difficulty of the delineation and their experience in delineating pancreatic tumors. RESULTS: The ratios of the largest to the smallest delineated GTV and iGTV within the same patient were 6.8 and 16.5, respectively. As the iGTV incorporates the GTV during all respiratory phases, the mean volumes of the iGTV (40.07 cm3) were larger than those of the GTV (29.91 cm3). For all patients, CIgen was larger for the iGTV than for the GTV. The mean overall observer variation (root-mean-square of all local SDs over four patients) was 0.63 cm and 0.80 cm for GTV and iGTV, respectively. The largest local observer variations were seen close to biliary stents and suspicious pathological enlarged lymph nodes, as some observers included them and some did not. This variation was more pronounced for the iGTV than for the GTV. The observers rated the 3DCT-stage and 4DCT-stage equally difficult and treated on average three to four pancreatic cancer patients per year. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable interobserver variation in delineation of pancreatic tumors was observed. This variation was larger for 4D than for 3D delineation. The largest local observer variation was found around biliary stents and suspicious pathological enlarged lymph nodes.