[Lymph node metastases in ypT1/2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy : The Achilles heel of organ-preserving operative procedures?]. / Lymphknotenmetastasen beim ypT1/2-Rektumkarzinom nach neoadjuvanter Radiochemotherapie : Die Achillesferse organerhaltender Operationsverfahren?

BACKGROUND: For patients with rectal cancer and complete remission (ypT0) or with good response and residual tumor restricted only to the bowel wall (ypT1-2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), local excision has been suggested as an alternative to avoid the significant morbidity and functional deficits associated with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this investigation was to investigate the incidence, distribution and tumor-related localization of mesorectal lymph node (LN) metastases in TME specimens with complete remission (ypT0), intramural (ypT1-2) and extramural (ypT3-4) residual tumor tissue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Specimens of TME from 81 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UICC II-III) undergoing neoadjuvant CRT within the phase III German rectal cancer trial CAO/ARO/AIO-04 were prospectively evaluated. The entire mesorectal compartment was microscopically screened after complete paraffin embedding. The number and localization of all detectable LN metastases were documented in relation to the primary tumor. RESULTS: Whereas 50 patients (62 %) had ypT3-4 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT, 20 patients (25 %) presented with residual tumor within the bowel wall (ypT1-2), 11 patients (14 %) had pathological complete remission (ypT0), an average of 28 ± 13.7 LN were detected per specimen and 25 patients (31 %) had residual LN metastases after CRT. Although the incidence of LN metastases was higher in the ypT3-4 group (40 %), 25 % of patients in the ypT1-2 group with intramural residual tumor had a mean number of 2.2 residual LN metastases of which 55 % were located far from the primary lesion in the proximal mesorectum. None of the patients with ypT0 status (complete response) had residual LN metastases. CONCLUSION: Even in patients with good response and post-CRT tumor tissue restricted only to the bowel wall (ypT1-2), there is still a considerable risk for residual LN metastases. Local excision of residual rectal cancer was accompanied by a higher rate of local failure and radical surgery with TME should remain the standard treatment in these patients. To date, valid selection criteria for patients eligible for organ-sparing surgery are still lacking.

Discrepancies between medical oncologists and surgeons in assessment of resectability and indication for chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary discussion of the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is advocated currently. The aim of this study was to investigate medical oncologists' and surgeons' assessment of resectability and indication for chemotherapy, and the effect of an educational intervention on such assessment. METHODS: Medical histories of 30 patients with CRLM were presented to ten experienced medical oncologists and 11 surgeons at an initial virtual tumour board meeting (TB1). Treatment recommendations were obtained from each participant by voting for standardized answers. Following lectures on the potential of chemotherapy and surgery, assessment was repeated at a second virtual tumour board meeting (TB2), using the same patients and participants. RESULTS: Overall, 630 answers (21 × 30) were obtained per tumour board meeting. At TB1, resectability was expected more frequently by surgeons. Participants changed 56·8 per cent of their individual answers at TB2. Assessment shifted from potentially resectable to resectable CRLM in 81 of 161 and from unresectable to (potentially) resectable CRLM in 29 of 36 answers. Preoperative chemotherapy was indicated more often by medical oncologists, and overall was included in 260 answers (41·3 per cent) at TB1, compared with only 171 answers (27·1 per cent) at TB2. Medical oncologists more often changed their decision to primary resection in resectable patients (P = 0·006). Postoperative chemotherapy was included in 51·9 and 52·4 per cent of all answers at TB1 and TB2 respectively, with no difference in changes between medical oncologists and surgeons (P = 0·980). CONCLUSION: Resectability and indication for preoperative chemotherapy were assessed differently by medical oncologists and surgeons. The educational intervention resulted in more patients deemed resectable by both oncologists and surgeons, and less frequent indication for chemotherapy.

Metastatic recurrence after complete resection of colorectal liver metastases: impact of surgery and chemotherapy on survival.

PURPOSE: Surgery is the standard of care for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRC-LM). Unfortunately, 60% of patients develop secondary metastatic recurrence (SMR) after R0-resection of CRC-LM. We investigated the impact of surgical re-intervention and chemotherapy (Ctx) on survival in a consecutive series of patients with SMR. METHODS: From 01/2001 to 11/2011, 104 out of 178 consecutive patients with R0-resection of CRC-LM developed SMR and were evaluated. The impact of surgical and Ctx re-interventions on recurrence free (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was analyzed. Median follow-up was 28.0 (95%CI: 19.4-37.4) months. RESULTS: SMR occurred in 81 patients at a single site (49× liver, 18× lung, 14× other) and in 23 patients at multiple sites. Forty-two patients were scheduled for primary surgery. Fifty-three patients were classified as non-resectable and treated with median 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-10.0] cycles of Ctx, combined with an EGFR/VEGF-antibody in 27 patients. Nine patients received best supportive care only. R0/R1 resection could be achieved in 35 patients primarily and even in 8 patients secondarily after Ctx. Surgical morbidity and mortality were 16 and 0%, respectively. The 5-year RFS rates for patients with R0 versus R1-resection were 22 and 24% (p = 0.948). The 5-year CSS rate for R0/R1-resected patients was 38% versus 10% for those patients treated by Ctx alone (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In SMR, surgical re-intervention is feasible and safe in a remarkable number of patients and offers significantly longer CSS compared to patients without resection.

Bilobar spreading of colorectal liver metastases does not significantly affect survival after R0 resection in the era of interdisciplinary multimodal treatment.

PURPOSE: Bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are often considered incurable or associated with poor prognosis even after R0 resection. In this single-center study, we evaluate the impact of CRLM spreading on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific overall survival (CSS) after R0 resection of CRLM with respect to multimodal treatment strategies including perioperative chemotherapy and multistep resections. METHODS: Between January 2001 and December 2010, R0 resection could be achieved in 70 patients with bilobar and 100 with unilobar CRLM. Extent of disease, perioperative chemotherapy, surgical procedures, adjuvant treatment, histopathological workup, RFS, and CSS were compared between both cohorts. RESULTS: Forty-six (66 %) patients with bilobar and 26 (26 %) patients with unilobar CRLM received preoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.001). For bilobar CRLM, more extended and multistep resection including portal vein occlusion were performed (29 % versus 3 %; p < 0.001). Morbidity (39 % versus 28 %, p = 0.183) and mortality (1 % versus 3 %, p = 0.644) rates were comparable in both patients' cohorts. Postoperative therapy was applied in adjuvant intent to 42 (60 %) versus 51 (51 %) patients (p = 0.275). The 5-year RFS and CSS rates were 24 % versus 31 % (p = 0.169) and 42 % versus 55 % (p = 0.131), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To our single-center experience, there is no significant effect of CRLM spreading (bilobar versus unilobar) on RFS and CSS rates. Bilobar CRLM are more likely to require extended multimodal efforts to achieve R0 resection.