Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Versus Definitive Chemoradiotherapy With Salvage Surgery as Needed: The Study Protocol for the Randomized Controlled NEEDS Trial.

Background: The globally dominant treatment with curative intent for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with subsequent esophagectomy. This multimodal treatment leads to around 60% overall 5-year survival, yet with impaired post-surgical quality of life. Observational studies indicate that curatively intended chemoradiotherapy, so-called definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) followed by surveillance of the primary tumor site and regional lymph node stations and surgery only when needed to ensure local tumor control, may lead to similar survival as nCRT with surgery, but with considerably less impairment of quality of life. This trial aims to demonstrate that dCRT, with selectively performed salvage esophagectomy only when needed to achieve locoregional tumor control, is non-inferior regarding overall survival, and superior regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL), compared to nCRT followed by mandatory surgery, in patients with operable, locally advanced ESCC. Methods: This is a pragmatic open-label, randomized controlled phase III, multicenter trial with non-inferiority design with regard to the primary endpoint overall survival and a superiority hypothesis for the experimental intervention dCRT with regard to the main secondary endpoint global HRQOL one year after randomization. The control intervention is nCRT followed by preplanned surgery and the experimental intervention is dCRT followed by surveillance and salvage esophagectomy only when needed to secure local tumor control. A target sample size of 1200 randomized patients is planned in order to reach 462 events (deaths) during follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04460352.

Re-irradiation for recurrent rectal cancer - a single-center experience.

Background: There is no clear consensus on the use of re-irradiation (reRT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of the present study was to investigate all reRT administered for rectal cancer at a large referral institution and to evaluate patient outcomes and toxicity.Material and methods: All patients with rectal cancer were identified who had received previous pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and underwent reRT during 2006-2016. Medical records and RT details of the primary tumor treatments and rectal cancer recurrence treatments were registered, including details on reRT, chemotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and long-term outcomes.Results: Of 77 patients who received ReRT, 67 had previously received pelvic RT for rectal cancer and were administered reRT for LRRC. Re-irradiation doses were 30.0-45.0 Gy, most often given as hyperfractionated RT in 1.2-1.5 Gy fractions twice daily with concomitant capecitabine. The median time since initial RT was 29 months (range, 13-174 months). Of 36 patients considered as potentially resectable, 20 underwent surgery for LRRC within 3 months after reRT. Operated patients had better 3-year overall survival (OS) (62%) compared to those who were not operated (16%; HR 0.32, p = .001). The median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 107 cm3, and 3-year OS was significantly better in patients with GTV <107 cm3 (44%) compared to patients with GTV ≥107 cm3 (21%; HR 0.52, p = .03).Conclusion: Three-year survival was significantly better for patients who underwent surgery after reRT or who had small tumor volume. Prospective clinical trials are recommended for further improvements in patient selection, outcomes, and toxicity assessment.

Target volume delineation of anal cancer based on magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography.

PURPOSE: To compare target volume delineation of anal cancer using positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with respect to inter-observer and inter-modality variability. METHODS: Nineteen patients with anal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy were prospectively included. Planning computed tomography (CT) images were co-registered with 18F-fluorodexocyglucose (FDG) PET/CT images and T2 and diffusion weighted (DW) MR images. Three oncologists delineated the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) according to national guidelines and the visible tumor tissue (GTVT). MRI and PET based delineations were evaluated by absolute volumes and Dice similarity coefficients. RESULTS: The median volume of the GTVs was 27 and 31 cm3 for PET and MRI, respectively, while it was 6 and 11 cm3 for GTVT. Both GTV and GTVT volumes were highly correlated between delineators (r = 0.90 and r = 0.96, respectively). The median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.75 when comparing the GTVs based on PET/CT (GTVPET) with the GTVs based on MRI and CT (GTVMRI). The median Dice coefficient was 0.56 when comparing the visible tumor volume evaluated by PET (GTVT_PET) with the same volume evaluated by MRI (GTVT_MRI). Margins of 1-2 mm in the axial plane and 7-8 mm in superoinferior direction were required for coverage of the individual observer's GTVs. CONCLUSIONS: The rather good agreement between PET- and MRI-based GTVs indicates that either modality may be used for standard target delineation of anal cancer. However, larger deviations were found for GTVT, which may impact future tumor boost strategies.