Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO: ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Watch and Wait for rectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease.

Colorectal cancer is currently the third most frequently diagnosed type of cancer and the second cause of cancer death in the western world. Inflammatory bowel disease patients are 2-6 times more likely to develop CRC than the general population. Patients with CRC arising through Inflammatory Bowel Disease have an indication for surgery. However, in patients without Inflammatory Bowel Disease, the use of organ (rectum) preservation strategies after neoadjuvant treatment is on the rise, which means that patients are able to keep the organ without the need for complete excision, either by treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or in combination with endoscopic or surgical techniques that allow local excision without the need for resection of the entire organ. The patient management approach known as the Watch and Wait programme was first introduced in 2004 by a team from São Paulo, Brazil. This approach suggested that patients who had an excellent or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment could defer surgery and instead undergo Watch and Wait. This organ preservation technique became popular because it allowed patients to avoid the complications associated with major surgery while achieving similar oncological outcomes to those who underwent both neoadjuvant therapy and radical surgery. Following completion of neoadjuvant treatment, a decision to defer surgery is made based on whether a clinical Complete Response can be achieved, which means there is no evidence of tumour in clinical and radiological examination. The International Watch and Wait Database has published long-term oncological outcomes for patients treated with this strategy, and more patients are showing interest in this treatment option. However, it is important to note that up to 1/3 of patients selected for Watch and Wait may eventually require surgery for local regrowth (also known as 'deferred definitive surgery') at any time during follow-up after an initial 'apparent' clinical Complete Response. Compliance with a strict surveillance protocol ensures early detection of regrowth, which is usually amenable to R0 surgery and provides excellent long-term local disease control. Nonetheless, it is crucial to assess the perioperative consequences of having surgery for regrowth later and whether there are any negative effects from deferring surgery. Currently, the Watch and Wait strategy is recommended in the NCCN guidelines for clinical complete responders and only in specialised multidisciplinary centres.There is no case in the literature that portrays the use of the Watch and Wait programme for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rectal cancer.The authors intend to present a case that demonstrates the difficulties in the assessment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the risks of using radiotherapy in this patients and the challenges of surveillance for patients with colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.

Watch and wait after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: comparison of outcomes in patients with and without a complete response at first reassessment in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD).

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and management of a near-cCR. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients who achieved a cCR at first reassessment versus later reassessment. METHODS: This registry study included patients from the International Watch & Wait Database. Patients were categorized as having a cCR at first reassessment or at later reassessment (that is near-cCR at first reassessment) based on MRI and endoscopy. Organ preservation, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Subgroup analyses were done for near-cCR groups based on the response evaluation according to modality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients were identified. At first reassessment, 608 patients had a cCR; 402 had a cCR at later reassessment. Median follow-up was 2.6 years for patients with a cCR at first reassessment and 2.9 years for those with a cCR at later reassessment. The 2-year organ preservation rate was 77.8 (95 per cent c.i. 74.2 to 81.5) and 79.3 (75.1 to 83.7) per cent respectively (P = 0.499). Similarly, no differences were found between groups in distant metastasis-free survival or overall survival rate. Subgroup analyses showed a higher organ preservation rate in the group with a near-cCR categorized exclusively by MRI. CONCLUSION: Oncological outcomes for patients with a cCR at later reassessment are no worse than those of patients with a cCR at first reassessment.

Zebrafish Avatars of rectal cancer patients validate the radiosensitive effect of metformin.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by surgery represents the standard of care in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Increasing radiotherapy (RT) doses and chemotherapy cycles with 5FU have been associated with increased rates of complete response, however these strategies imply significant toxicity. In the last years, epidemiologic findings have demonstrated that metformin is associated with significantly higher rates of pathological complete response to nCRT. Also, pre-clinical studies using cell lines provide evidence for the radiosensitive effect of metformin. However, no studies have been performed using rectal cancer patient samples to test this radiosensitive effect of metformin and compared it to the standard 5FU. Here, we designed an experimental study to compare both radiosensitizers in the zebrafish xenograft model (zAvatar), using rectal cancer surgical specimens and diagnostic biopsies. Patient zAvatars confirmed that metformin has indeed a powerful in vivo radiosensitizer effect, similar to 5FU. Our work confirms that metformin constitutes a promising less toxic alternative to the standard 5FU, which could be game changing in elderly/frail patients to optimize tumor regression.

Health-related quality of life of salvage prostate reirradiation using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with urethral-sparing.

Purpose: To explore whether prostate motion mitigation using the rectal distension-mediated technique is safe and effective in stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) salvage treatment of intraprostatic cancer recurrences following initial radiotherapy for primary prostate cancer. Materials and methods: Between July 2013 and December 2020, 30 patients received salvage SABR for 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT-detected intra-prostatic relapses. Median time from primary RT to salvage reirradiation was 70.2 (IQR, 51.3-116.0) months. Median PSA at retreatment was 3.6 ng/mL (IQR, 1.9-6.2). Rectal distension-mediated SABR was achieved with a 150-cm3 air-inflated endorectal balloon and a Foley catheter loaded with 3 beacon transponders was used for urethra visualization and on-line tracking. MRI-based planning employed a 2-mm expansion around the planned target volume (PTV), reduced to 0-mm at the interface with critical organs at risk (OARs). Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) permitted a 20% dose reduction of the urethra. VMAT simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) of the dominant intraprostatic lesion was deployed when indicated. Median SABR dose was 35 Gy (7 Gy per fraction over 5 consecutive days; range 35-40 Gy). Toxicity assessment used CTCAE v.4 criteria. Results: Median follow-up was 44 months (IQR, 18-60). The actuarial 3- and 4-year biochemical relapse free survival was 53.4% and 47.5%, respectively. Intraprostatic post-salvage relapse by PSMA PET/CT was 53.3%. Acute grade 2 and 3 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 20% and 0%, respectively. There were no instances of acute grade ≥2 rectal (GI) toxicity. Late grade 2 and 3 GU toxicities occurred in 13.3% and 0% of patients, respectively. There were no instances of grade ≥2 late rectal toxicity. Patient-reported QOL measures showed an acute transient deterioration in the urinary domain 1 month after treatment but returned to baseline values at 3 months. The median IPSS scores rose over baseline (≥5 points in 53% of patients) between month 6 and 12 post-treatment as a result of urinary symptoms flare, eventually receding at 18 months. The bowel domain metrics had no appreciable changes over time. Conclusion: Pursuit of local control in intraprostatic failures is feasible and can be achieved with an acceptably low toxicity profile associated with effective OAR sparing.

Development and validation of prognostic models for anal cancer outcomes using distributed learning: protocol for the international multi-centre atomCAT2 study.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer is a rare cancer with rising incidence. Despite the relatively good outcomes conferred by state-of-the-art chemoradiotherapy, further improving disease control and reducing toxicity has proven challenging. Developing and validating prognostic models using routinely collected data may provide new insights for treatment development and selection. However, due to the rarity of the cancer, it can be difficult to obtain sufficient data, especially from single centres, to develop and validate robust models. Moreover, multi-centre model development is hampered by ethical barriers and data protection regulations that often limit accessibility to patient data. Distributed (or federated) learning allows models to be developed using data from multiple centres without any individual-level patient data leaving the originating centre, therefore preserving patient data privacy. This work builds on the proof-of-concept three-centre atomCAT1 study and describes the protocol for the multi-centre atomCAT2 study, which aims to develop and validate robust prognostic models for three clinically important outcomes in anal cancer following chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-centre cohort study, investigating overall survival, locoregional control and freedom from distant metastasis after primary chemoradiotherapy for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Patient data will be extracted and organised at each participating radiotherapy centre (n = 18). Candidate prognostic factors have been identified through literature review and expert opinion. Summary statistics will be calculated and exchanged between centres prior to modelling. The primary analysis will involve developing and validating Cox proportional hazards models across centres for each outcome through distributed learning. Outcomes at specific timepoints of interest and factor effect estimates will be reported, allowing for outcome prediction for future patients. DISCUSSION: The atomCAT2 study will analyse one of the largest available cross-institutional cohorts of patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. The analysis aims to provide information on current international clinical practice outcomes and may aid the personalisation and design of future anal cancer clinical trials through contributing to a better understanding of patient risk stratification.

Urethra Sparing With Target Motion Mitigation in Dose-Escalated Extreme Hypofractionated Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: 7-Year Results From a Phase II Study.

Purpose: To explore whether the rectal distension-mediated technique, harnessing human physiology to achieve intrafractional prostate motion mitigation, enables urethra sparing by inverse dose painting, thus promoting dose escalation with extreme hypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between June 2013 and December 2018, 444 patients received 5 × 9 Gy SABR over 5 consecutive days. Rectal distension-mediated SABR was employed via insertion of a 150-cm3 air-inflated endorectal balloon. A Foley catheter loaded with 3 beacon transponders was used for urethra visualization and online tracking. MRI-based planning using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy - Image Guided Radiotherapy (VMAT-IGRT) with inverse dose painting was employed in delivering the planning target volume (PTV) dose and in sculpting exposure of organs at risk (OARs). A 2-mm margin was used for PTV expansion, reduced to 0 mm at the interface with critical OARs. All plans fulfilled Dmean ≥45 Gy. Target motion ≥2 mm/5 s motions mandated treatment interruption and target realignment prior to completion of the planned dose delivery. Results: Patient compliance to the rectal distension-mediated immobilization protocol was excellent, achieving reproducible daily prostate localization at a patient-specific retropubic niche. Online tracking recorded ≤1-mm intrafractional target deviations in 95% of treatment sessions, while target realignment in ≥2-mm deviations enabled treatment completion as scheduled in all cases. The cumulative incidence rates of late grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 5.3% and 1.1%, respectively. The favorable toxicity profile was corroborated by patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir by 5 years was 0.19 ng/ml. The cumulative incidence rate of biochemical failure using the Phoenix definition was 2%, 16.6%, and 27.2% for the combined low/favorable-intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, and high-risk categories, respectively. Patients with a PSA failure underwent a 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) scan showing a 20.2% cumulative incidence of intraprostatic relapses in biopsy International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥3. Conclusion: The rectal distension-mediated technique is feasible and well tolerated. Dose escalation to 45 Gy with urethra-sparing results in excellent toxicity profiles and PSA relapse rates similar to those reported by other dose-escalated regimens. The existence of intraprostatic recurrences in patients with high-risk features confirms the notion of a high α/ß ratio in these phenotypes resulting in diminished effectiveness with hypofractionated dose escalation.

Early PSA density kinetics predicts biochemical and local failure following extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The present study explores PSA density (PSA-D) as predictor of biochemical and local failure in organ-confined prostate cancer at 3-6 months after hypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A cohort of 219, hormone-naïve, NCCN intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were derived from a phase 2 study of 5 × 9 Gy prostate cancer SABR. PSA-D was calculated at 3 and 6 months by dividing serum PSA by the MR-derived prostate CTV, while the slope of the 3-6 months curve was used to express the kinetics of PSA-D decay. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 60.3 (range 46-76) months, and the actuarial 7-year bRFS was 98.0% for intermediate-risk favorable (FIR) patients versus 84.5% for the unfavorable (UIR) subgroup (P = 0.02). Fourteen patients developed a Phoenix-defined biochemical PSA relapse (bRFS) at a median of 34.2 months, 11 confirmed with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan that revealed tracer uptake at the site of dominant intraprostatic pretreatment lesion in 8 patients. The 3-month PSA-D concertation (cut-off 0.08 ng/ml2) and 3-6 months decay slope (cut-off -0.45) values were predictive of long-term bRFS. A dual adverse PSA-D permutation was detected in 25/148 UIR patients, exhibiting 47.5% 7-year bRFS compared with 94.1% for the remaining 123 UIR patients with favorable PSA-D kinetics (P = 0.0006). Intraprostatic local relapse in patients with a 3-month PSA-D > 0.080 ng/ml2 was 11.0% vs. 1.7% for patients with PSA-D ≤ 0.080 ng/ml2 (P = 0.01) and 2.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively, for nodal progression (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Early post-treatment PSA-D kinetics transcends pre-treatment risk stratification of tumor relapse and adds a nuance in the biological characterization of intermediate-risk prostate cancer phenotypes. The dual adverse PSA-D algorithm may serve as a tool to validate current search of classifiers of radioresistance in prostate cancer with therapeutic implications.

Positron Emission Tomography-Derived Metrics Predict the Probability of Local Relapse After Oligometastasis-Directed Ablative Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Early positron emission tomography-derived metrics post-oligometastasis radioablation may predict impending local relapses (LRs), providing a basis for a timely ablation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Positron emission tomography data of 623 lesions treated with either 24 Gy single-dose radiation therapy (SDRT) (n = 475) or 3 ×  9 Gy stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) (n = 148) were analyzed in a training data set (n = 246) to obtain optimal cutoffs for pretreatment maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and its 3-month posttreatment decline (ΔSUVmax) in predicting LR risk, validated in a data set unseen to testing (n = 377). RESULTS: At a median of 21.7 months, 91 lesions developed LRs: 39 of 475 (8.2%) after SDRT and 52 of 148 (35.1%) after SBRT. The optimal cutoff values were 12 for SUVmax and -75% for ΔSUVmax. Bivariate SUVmax/ΔSUVmax permutations rendered a 3-tiered LR risk stratification of dual-favorable (low risk), 1 adverse (intermediate risk) and dual-adverse (high risk). Actuarial 5-year local relapse-free survival rates were 93.9% versus 89.6% versus 57.1% (P < .0001) and 76.1% versus 48.3% versus 8.2% (P < .0001) for SDRT and SBRT, respectively. The SBRT area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.79) and the high-risk subgroup yielded a 76.5% true positive LR prediction rate. CONCLUSIONS: The SBRT dual-adverse SUVmax/ΔSUVmax category LR prediction power provides a basis for prospective studies testing whether a timely ablation of impending LRs affects oligometastasis outcomes.

Re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients with MR imaging when "Watch-and-Wait" is an option: a practical guide.

In the past nearly 20 years, organ-sparing when no apparent viable tumour is present after neoadjuvant therapy has taken an increasingly relevant role in the therapeutic management of locally-advanced rectal cancer patients. The decision to include a patient or not in a "Watch-and-Wait" program relies mainly on endoscopic assessment by skilled surgeons, and MR imaging by experienced radiologists. Strict surveillance using the same modalities is required, given the chance of a local regrowth is of approximately 25-30%, almost always surgically salvageable if caught early. Local regrowths occur at the endoluminal aspect of the primary tumour bed in almost 90% of patients, but the rest are deep within it or outside the rectal wall, in which case detection relies solely on MR Imaging. In this educational review, we provide a practical guide for radiologists who are, or intend to be, involved in the re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients in institutions with an established "Watch-and-Wait" program. First, we discuss patient preparation and MR imaging acquisition technique. Second, we focus on the re-staging MR imaging examination and review the imaging findings that allow us to assess response. Third, we focus on follow-up assessments of patients who defer surgery and confer about the early signs that may indicate a sustained/non-sustained complete response, a rectal/extra-rectal regrowth, and the particular prognosis of the "near-complete" responders. Finally, we discuss our proposed report template.

Early conformational changes at tumour bed and long term response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally-advanced rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how changes in tumour scar depth angle and thickness in the post-neoadjuvant period relate to long-term response in locally-advanced rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Informed consent was obtained from all patients and institutional review board approved this retrospective study. Sixty-nine consecutive locally-advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and were selected for "Watch-and-Wait" were enrolled. Two radiologists, O1 and O2, blindly and independently reviewed the 1st and 2nd post-neoadjuvant therapy pelvic MRI T2-weighted images and recorded depth angle and thickness of the tumour scar. Value changes were calculated by simple subtraction (2nd-1st). Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess for significant differences between sustained clinical complete responders (SCR), defined as patients with pathologic complete response or clinical complete response with a minimum follow-up of 1 year; and non-sustained complete responders (non-SCR). Interobserver agreement was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data on mrTRG, DWI and endoscopy at 1st and 2nd timepoints were retrieved for comparison. RESULTS: In SCR, depth angle change between 1st (med = 10 weeks after end of radiotherapy) and 2nd (med = 23 weeks after end of radiotherapy) timepoints was significantly different (O1:p = 0.004; O2:p = 0.010): the SCR group showed a depth angle reduction (O1:med=-4.45; O2:med=-2.35), whereas non-SCRs showed a depth angle increase (O1:med=+2.60; O2:med=+7.40). Also, at 2nd timepoint, SCR scars were significantly thinner both for O1 (p = 0.003; SCR:med = 7.05 mm; non-SCR:med = 9.4 mm) and O2 (p = 0.006; SCR:med = 6.45 mm; non-SCR:med = 8.2 mm). A depth angle increase >21º between 1st and 2nd timepoints and a scar thickness >10 mm at 2nd timepoint were not sensitive but were highly specific for a non-SCR (91/94 %) for both observers. Interobserver agreement was good for scar depth angle change (ICC = 0.65) and excellent for scar thickness at 2nd timepoint (ICC = 0.84). Of the retrieved data, only DWI at 2nd timepoint was discriminative (p = 0.043) providing a similar sensitivity (33 %) and a slightly lower specificity (87.5 %). CONCLUSION: Tumour scar expansion >21° between 1st and 2nd post-neoadjuvancy MRI and a scar thickness >10 mm at 2nd post-neoadjuvancy MRI may consistently indicate a non-SCR with high specificity in locally-advanced rectal cancer patients.

Reproducibility and accuracy of a target motion mitigation technique for dose-escalated prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To quantitate the accuracy, reproducibility and prostate motion mitigation efficacy rendered by a target immobilization method used in an intermediate-risk prostate cancer dose-escalated 5×9Gy SBRT study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An air-inflated (150 cm3) endorectal balloon and Foley catheter with three electromagnetic beacon transponders (EBT) were used to mitigate and track intra-fractional target motion. A 2 mm margin was used for PTV expansion, reduced to 0 mm at the interface with critical OARs. EBT-detected ≥ 2 mm/5 s motions mandated treatment interruption and target realignment prior to completion of planned dose delivery. Geometrical uncertainties were measured with an in-house ESAPI script. RESULTS: Quantitative data were obtained in 886 sessions from 189 patients. Mean PTV dose was 45.8 ± 0.4 Gy (D95 = 40.5 ± 0.4 Gy). A mean of 3.7 ± 1.7 CBCTs were acquired to reach reference position. Mean treatment time was 19.5 ± 12 min, 14.1 ± 11 and 5.4 ± 5.9 min for preparation and treatment delivery, respectively. Target motion of 0, 1-2 and >2 mm/10 min were observed in 59%, 30% and 11% of sessions, respectively. Temporary beam-on hold occurred in 7.4% of sessions, while in 6% a new reference CBCT was required to correct deviations. Hence, all sessions were completed with application of the planned dose. Treatment preparation time > 15 min was significantly associated with the need of a second reference CBCT. Overall systematic and random geometrical errors were in the order of 1 mm. CONCLUSION: The prostate immobilization technique explored here affords excellent accuracy and reproducibility, enabling normal tissue dose sculpting with tight PTV margins.

Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Ultra-high single-dose radiotherapy (SDRT) represents a potential alternative to curative extreme hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in organ-confined prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare toxic effect profiles, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses, and quality-of-life end points of SDRT vs extreme hypofractionated SBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The PROSINT single-institution phase 2 randomized clinical trial accrued, between September 2015 and January 2017, 30 participants with intermediate-risk prostate cancer to receive SDRT or extreme hypofractionated SBRT. Androgen deprivation therapy was not permitted. Data were analyzed from March to May 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 5 × 9 Gy SBRT (control arm) or 24 Gy SDRT (test arm). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was toxic effects; the secondary end points were PSA response, PSA relapse-free survival, and patient-reported quality of life measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 30 men were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 66.3 (61.2-69.9) and 73.6 (64.7-75.9) years for the SBRT and SDRT arms, respectively. Time to appearance and duration of acute and late toxic effects were similar in the 2 trial arms. Cumulative late actuarial urinary toxic effects did not differ for grade 1 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 90% CI, 0.13-1.27) and grade 2 or greater (HR, 1.07; 90% CI, 0.21-5.57). Actuarial grade 1 late gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects were comparable (HR, 0.37; 90% CI, 0.07-1.94) and there were no grade 2 or greater late GI toxic effects. Declines in PSA level to less than 0.5 ng/mL occurred by 36 months in both study arms. No PSA relapses occurred in favorable intermediate-risk disease, while in the unfavorable category, the actuarial 4-year PSA relapse-free survival values were 75.0% vs 64.0% (HR, 0.76; 90% CI, 0.17-3.31) for SBRT vs SDRT, respectively. The EPIC-26 median summary scores for the genitourinary and GI domains dropped transiently at 1 month and returned to pretreatment scores by 3 months in both arms. The IPSS-derived transient late urinary flare symptoms occurred at 9 to 18 months in 20% (90% CI, 3%-37%) of patients receiving SDRT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, SDRT was safe and associated with low toxicity, and the tumor control and quality-of-life end points closely match the SBRT arm outcomes. Further studies are encouraged to explore indications for SDRT in the cure of prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02570919.

MRI of rectal cancer-relevant anatomy and staging key points.

Rectal cancer has the eighth highest cancer incidence worldwide, and it is increasing in young individuals. However, in countries with a high human development index, mortality is decreasing, which may reflect better patient management, imaging being key. We rely on imaging to establish the great majority of clinical tumour features for therapeutic decision-making, namely tumour location, depth of invasion, lymph node involvement, circumferential resection margin status and extramural venous invasion. Despite major improvements in technique resulting in better image quality, and notwithstanding the dissemination of guidelines and examples of standardised reports, rectal cancer staging is still challenging on the day-to-day practice, and we believe there are three reasons. First, the normal posterior pelvic compartment anatomy and variants are not common knowledge to radiologists; second, not all rectal cancers fit in review paper models, namely the very early, the very low and the mucinous; and third, the key clinical tumour features may be tricky to analyse. In this review, we discuss the normal anatomy of the rectum and posterior compartment of the pelvis, systematise all rectal cancer staging key points and elaborate on the particularities of early, low and mucinous tumours. We also include our suggested reporting templates and a discussion of its comparison to the reporting templates provided by ESGAR and SAR.

Salvage Surgery With Organ Preservation for Patients With Local Regrowth After Watch and Wait: Is It Still Possible?

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer who achieve complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been managed nonoperatively. Thirty percent of these patients may develop a local regrowth, and salvage resection with radical surgery is usually recommended. However, selected patients could be offered additional organ preservation by local excision. We hypothesized that patients with baseline T2 who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (for the specific purpose of achieving a complete clinical response) were more likely to harbor recurrent disease at an earlier stage and amenable to organ preservation strategies (local excision) when compared with T3/T4 (undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncologic reasons). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with local regrowth requiring salvage resection according to their baseline stage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. SETTINGS: The study included 2 independent tertiary centers with institutional watch-and-wait organ preservation programs. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer (cT2-4N1-2M0) managed by watch and wait and local regrowth from 2 institutions were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Final pathologic features and surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared according to baseline staging. RESULTS: A total of 73 of 257 patients experienced local regrowth. cT2 presented similar to ypT, ypN, R0, and abdominal perineal resection rates (p > 0.05) at the time of salvage when compared with cT3 to cT4. Patients with cT2 at baseline were more likely to undergo an organ preservation procedure for salvage (56.2% vs 26.5%; p = 0.03). Overall and disease-free survival after salvage were similar between groups irrespective of the type of surgery for the regrowth. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size, and possible inaccurate baseline staging. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with baseline cT2 rectal cancer had similar pathologic stage at the time of recurrence, these patients were more likely to continue an organ preservation pathway after local regrowth through transanal local excision when compared with cT3 to cT4. Despite differences in the use of radical salvage resection, there were no differences in oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254. CIRUGÍA DE RESCATE CON PRESERVACIÓN DE ORGANO PARA PACIENTES CON RECIDIVA LOCAL LUEGO DE WATCH & WAIT: ¿SIGUE SIENDO POSIBLE?: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal que logran una respuesta clínica completa luego de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante han sido tratados de forma no quirúrgica. El treinta por ciento de estos pacientes pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local y generalmente se recomienda la resección de rescate con cirugía radical. Sin embargo, en pacientes seleccionados se podría ofrecer la posibilidad de preservación de órgano mediante escisión local. Se formuló la hipótesis de que los pacientes con estadio clinico inicial T2 y sometidos a terapia neoadyuvante (con el propósito específico de lograr una respuesta clínica completa) tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recurrencia local en una etapa más temprana y suceptibles de estrategias de preservación de órgano (escisión local) en comparación con T3 / T4 (sometidos a nCRT por razones oncológicas).Comparar los pacientes con recidiva local que requirieron cirugia de rescate de acuerdo con su estadio inicial.Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto distal no metastásico sometidos a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.Dos centros terciarios independientes con programas institucionales de preservación de órgano - Watch & Wait.Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer rectal distal (cT2-4N1-2M0) manejados por Watch & Wait y recidiva local.Las características patológicas finales, los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos se compararon de acuerdo con la estadificación inicial.Un total de 73 de 257 pacientes presentaron recidiva local. cT2 presentaron similares ypT, ypN, R0 y tasas de resección abdominoperineal (p>0,05) en el momento del rescate en comparación con cT3-4.Los pacientes con cT2 de base tuvieron más probabilidades de someterse a un procedimiento de preservación de órgano durante el rescate (56,2% frente a 26,5%; p = 0,03). Supervivencia general y DFS después del rescate fueron similares entre los grupos, independientemente del tipo de cirugía para la recidiva.Estudio retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño, la posible estadificación basal inexacta.Aunque los pacientes con cáncer rectal cT2 de base presentaron estadio patologico similar en el momento de la recidiva, estos pacientes tuvieron más probabilidades de continuar una vía de preservación de órgano luego de una recidiva local a través de la escisión local transanal en comparación con cT3-4. A pesar de las diferencias en el uso de la resección radical de rescate, no hubo diferencias en los resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254.

Target motion mitigation promotes high-precision treatment planning and delivery of extreme hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy: Results from a phase II study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While favourable long-term outcomes have been reported in organ-confined prostate cancer treated with 5 × 7-8 Gy extreme hypofractionation, dose escalation to 5 × 9-10 Gy improved local control but was associated with unacceptable rates of late rectal and urinary toxicities. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of intra-fractional prostate immobilization in reducing toxicity, to promote dose escalation with extreme hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 207 patients received 5 consecutive fractions of 9 Gy. An air-inflated (150 cm3) endorectal balloon and an intraurethral Foley catheter with 3 beacon transponders were used to immobilize the prostate and monitor intra-fractional target motion. VMAT-IGRT with inverse dose-painting was employed in delivering the PTV dose and in sculpting exposure of normal organs at risk to fulfil dose-volume constraints. RESULTS: Introduction of air-filled balloon induced repeatable rectum/prostate complex migration from its resting position to a specific retropubic niche, affording the same 3D anatomical configuration daily. Intra-fractional target deviations ≤1 mm occurred in 95% of sessions, while target realignment in ≥2 mm deviations enabled treatment completion as scheduled. Nadir PSA at median 54 months follow-up was 0.19 ng/mL, and bRFS was 100%, 92.4% and 71.4% in low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories, respectively. Late Grade 2 GU and GI toxicities were 2.9% and 2.4%, respectively. No adverse changes in patient-reported quality of life scores were observed. CONCLUSION: The unique spatial configuration of this prostate motion mitigation protocol enabled precise treatment planning and delivery that optimized outcomes of ultra-high 5 × 9 Gy hypofractionated radiotherapy of organ-confined prostate cancer.

The split scar sign as an indicator of sustained complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the diagnostic performance of a new radiologic pattern on restaging magnetic resonance (MR) high-resolution T2-weighted imaging (T2-WI)-the split scar sign-for the identification of sustained complete response (SCR) after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study and the informed consent requirement was waived. Fifty-eight consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy were enrolled. Two radiologists blindly and independently reviewed restaging pelvic MR imaging and recorded the presence/absence of the split scar sign (mrSSS). On a second round, they also assessed the relative proportion of intermediate signal intensity on T2-WI (mrT2) and of high signal intensity on high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (mrDWI). Endoscopic response grading records were retrieved. Qui-square test was employed in search for associations between SCR, defined as pathologic complete response or long-term recurrence-free clinical follow-up, and mrSSS, mrT2, mrDWI and endoscopy. Interobserver agreement for imaging parameters was estimated using Cohen's kappa (k). RESULTS: mrSSS was significantly associated with SCR, with specificity = 0.97/0.97, sensitivity = 0.52/0.64, PPV = 0.93/0.94, NPV = 0.73/0.78, and AuROC = 0.78/0.83, for observers 1/2, respectively. mrDWI was significantly associated with SCR for observer 2, with specificity = 0.76, sensitivity = 0.60, PPV = 0.65, NPV = 0.71, and AuROC = 0.69. mrT2 and endoscopy were not discriminative. Interobserver agreement was substantial for mrSSS (k = 0.69), moderate for mrDWI (k = 0.46), and poor for mrT2 (k = 0.17). CONCLUSION: The split scar sign is a simple morphologic pattern visible on restaging T2-WI which, although not sensitive, is very specific for the identification of sustained complete responders after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • The split scar sign is a morphologic pattern visible on high-resolution T2-weighted MR imaging in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy. It therefore does not require any changes to standard protocol. • At first restaging pelvic MR imaging (mean: 9.1 weeks after the end of radiotherapy), the split scar sign identified patients who sustained a complete response with very high specificity (0.97) and positive predictive value (0.93-0.94). • The split scar sign has the potential to improve patient selection for "watch-and-wait" after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.