Should radiotherapy be avoided or delivered differently in elderly patients with rectal cancer?

Purpose is to give an overview of treatment possibilities of rectal cancer over time, but also of the real management of rectal cancer especially in relation to age. From literature search representative randomised studies on patients with resectable rectal cancer, comparing only surgery, post- and preoperative radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy, are reviewed. We also reviewed the literature regarding radiotherapy for rectal cancer described in population-based studies. The overview of the trials showed that preoperative radiotherapy improves local control in relation to no or postoperative radiotherapy. Adding chemotherapy did not significantly improve survival. No relations were seen between age and complications. All population-based studies showed that increasing age is associated with less (neo)adjuvant treatment. To avoid local recurrence, the best possible treatment, being preoperative RT, should be given to all patients with resectable rectal cancer, irrespective of age.

Clinical epidemiology of breast cancer in the elderly.

Breast cancer will increasingly become a disease affecting the lives of older women, especially in more developed countries, the prevalence rising up to 7% over age 70 in the near future. A review of the population-based literature and an analysis of the data of the Eindhoven Cancer Registry and European data regarding the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis showed that the proportion with unstaged and advanced disease (stages III and IV) is higher among elderly patients compared to younger ones and that their treatment is generally less aggressive, although the proportion receiving chemotherapy is increasing since the early 1990s. Disease specific (or relative) survival of elderly breast cancer patients is generally lower and the prevalence of serious (life expectancy affecting) co-morbidity is higher (>50% in patients over age 70). Because of large individual variations in physical and mental conditions, limited evidence from RCTs and personal preferences prevailing in the decision-making process, treatment of older breast cancer patients seems difficult to fit into guidelines. Therefore, alternative research strategies are needed to understand and improve the care for the elderly breast cancer population, such as descriptive (registry-based) studies and a qualitative, individual-based approach.

A population based study of radiotherapy in a cohort of patients with breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000.

We studied the use of radiotherapy (RT) (especially secondary RT) in a cohort of 6561 patients in southern Netherlands with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 (median follow-up: 66 months, range 0-107 months). Radiation within 6 months of diagnosis was considered primary RT (PRT). RT given 6 months or later after diagnosis or after PRT was considered secondary RT (SRT). Of all patients, 67% received RT, 3554 only PRT, 323 only SRT and 503 both. The cumulative use of SRT at 100 months was 17%. The 826 patients receiving SRT underwent 1846 courses 0-105 months (median 36) after diagnosis; the retreat rate was 35%. Elderly patients received SRT significantly less often (OR(age50-69)=0.7, 95%CI=0.6-0.8, OR(age> or 70)=0.4, 95%CI=0.3-0.5). The following factors increased the chance for SRT: patients from the eastern region (OR=1.3, 95%CI=1.1-1.6); patients who received PRT (OR=1.3, 95%CI=1.0-1.5) and patients who underwent mastectomy including axillary node dissection as well as unresected patients (OR=1.9, 95%CI=1.5-2.4, OR=2.6, 95%CI=1.7-3.9, respectively). Thirteen percent of all patients with breast cancer received SRT, with a large variation in age and between the 2 RT departments in the region.

A population-based study of radiotherapy in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2000.

AIMS: To study, in a population-based setting, the use of delayed radiotherapy (RT) in a cohort of 2008 unselected rectal cancer patients diagnosed between 1996 and 2000. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Radiation within 6 months of diagnosis was considered part of the primary treatment (PRT). RT given 6 months or later after diagnosis or after PRT was considered as delayed or secondary RT (SRT). Number, percentage and cumulative proportion of patients receiving SRT were calculated. The odds for receiving SRT (total and for recurrent rectal cancer only) were studied by logistic regression analysis, taking into account age, gender, co-morbidity, socio-economic status, stage, prior PRT and RT department (2 departments, each serving general hospitals only). RESULTS: Forty-six percent of all newly diagnosed patients received RT. Ten percent (n=203) received at least once SRT, either after PRT or as first RT, of which 96 patients for a relapsed rectal tumour (31 after PRT on the rectal tumour, 65 as a first radiation treatment). In a multivariate analysis of patients with rectal recurrence secondary pelvic irradiation was less often given after primary irradiation (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4-1.1). Patients with a stage III significantly more often received SRT on a recurrence (OR=2.5, 95% CI=1.4-4.5). Generally, patients in the eastern department received more often PRT and less often SRT for recurrence (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Five percent of all patients with rectal cancer received SRT on a recurrent tumour, with a large variation between the two RT departments in the region.

Hospital variation in referral for primary radiotherapy in South Netherlands, 1988-1999.

In this study, we have assessed whether referral for primary radiotherapy varied according to hospital size in a region with 1 million inhabitants served by community hospitals. We studied 20178 patients diagnosed with breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, rectal, or endometrial cancer between 1988 and 1999. We used logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, stage and period of diagnosis. Medium-sized and small hospitals referred breast cancer patients more often (OR=2.2, 95%CI: 2.0-2.5, OR=1.2, 95%CI: 1.1-1.4, respectively), and patients with prostate cancer less often (OR=0.7 (0.5-0.8) and 0.7 (0.6-0.9), respectively). Referral rates for patients with non-small cell lung and rectal cancer showed minor differences according to hospital size, referral for endometrial cancer was somewhat higher for patients from medium-sized hospitals (OR=1.5 (1.0-2.1)). Time trends in variation were shown, but differences according to hospital size only decreased over time for rectal cancer. Despite multidisciplinary oncology meetings and treatment guidelines there were large variations in rates of referral for radiotherapy.

A population-based study on the utilisation rate of primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer in 4 regions in the Netherlands, 1997-2008.

AIM: The purpose was to study variations in utilisation rates of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the proportion and number of EBRT and BT given or planned within 6 months of diagnosis in 4 Dutch regions, according to stage and age in a population-based setting including 47,259 prostate cancer patients diagnosed from 1997 until 2008. RESULTS: During this study period, the overall utilisation rate of EBRT remained stable at around 25%, while the rate of BT for non-metastasized patients increased from 1% (95% CI:0-1%) to 12% (11-13%) in 2006 and slightly decreased towards 10% (9-11%) in 2008. From 2001 on, the overall utilisation rate of EBRT decreased significantly in one region (p<0.05). In this region, a sharp rise in the utilisation rate of BT for non-metastatic patients was noted to 17% (14-20%) in 2008 after a peak of 24% (21-27%) in 2006. For localised disease, BT was used more often at the expense of EBRT while for locally advanced disease the utilisation rate of EBRT increased. In the multivariate analysis, regional differences in the utilisation rate of EBRT persisted with odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 0.9 compared to the reference region. Moreover, low rates of EBRT were associated with high BT rates. The regional differences could not be explained by differences in risk profiles. CONCLUSIONS: The utilisation rate of EBRT remained stable with limited variation between regions while BT was used increasingly with clear regional differences. To cope with this and in view of the increasing incidence of prostate cancer, adequate resources have to be planned for the optimal care of these patients.