Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 41(4 Supplement):10, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2278701


Background: Interest in organ preservation (OP) strategies for rectal cancer (RC) patients persists. The efficacy of long course chemoradiation (LCRT) vs. short course radiation therapy (SCRT) relative to OP is unknown. We compared OP rates between SCRT and LCRT total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategies. Method(s): During the COVID-19 pandemic we established an institutional SCRT mandate with no exceptions. For comparison, we identified RC patients treated with LCRT immediately before and after the mandate period. After completion of TNT, patients were restaged by clinical exam, endoscopy, and MRI. A watch and wait (WW) approach was recommended for patients with a clinical complete response (cCR), defined by the MSK regression schema. Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for non-cCR patients. OP was defined as alive, TME-free, and with no evidence of disease in the pelvis. We performed survival analysis for: local regrowth rate, OP, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Result(s): We identified 563 consecutive patients with RC treated with TNT, of whom 231 were excluded due to either metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or non-adenocarcinoma histology (Jan. 2018-Jan. 2021). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar in the LCRT (n = 256) and SCRT (n = 76) cohorts. No significant differences in high-risk features were noted. Most patients had clinical stage III disease (82% in LCRT vs. 83% in SCRT). Induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation was the most common treatment order (78% (LCRT) vs. 70% (SCRT)). The median interval from end of TNT to clinical restaging was 8 weeks (LCRT) and 9 weeks (SCRT). The cCR rate was 46% in both cohorts. The cCR rate was numerically higher in patients treated with radiation first, as compared to chemotherapy first (53% vs. 44% (LCRT) and 52% vs. 43% (SCRT)). Among patients with a cCR, the likelihood of WW management was similar (98% (LCRT) vs. 94% (SCRT)). From start of TNT, the median follow-up was 32 and 28 months respectively for LCRT and SCRT. The 2-year OS (95% vs. 92%), DFS (78% vs 70%), and distant recurrence (20% vs. 21%) rates were similar. Among all patients, the 2-year OP rate was 40% (95% CI 35-47%) for LCRT and 29% (95% CI 20-42%) with SCRT. In those patients managed by WW, the 2-year local regrowth rate was 20% (95% CI 12-27%) with LCRT vs. 36% (95% CI 16-52%) with SCRT. Conclusion(s): In this nonrandomized comparison, while cCR rates were similar, we observed a numerically higher OP rate with LCRT-TNT than with SCRT-TNT. The ongoing ACO/ARO/AIO-18.1 trial, hypothesizing that LCRT-TNT will increase OP rates relative to SCRT-TNT, should definitively answer this question.

BMB reports ; 09:09, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173250


Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may increase the risk of adverse outcomes in lung cancer patients. In this study, we investigated the expression and function of mucin 1 (MUC1) after SARS-CoV-2 infection in the lung epithelial cancer cell line Calu-3. MUC1 is a major constituent of the mucus layer in the respiratory tract and contributes to pathogen defense. SARS-CoV-2 infection induced MUC1 C-terminal subunit (MUC1-C) expression in a STAT3 activation-dependent manner. Inhibition of MUC1-C signaling increased apoptosis-related protein levels and reduced proliferation-related protein levels;however, SARS-CoV-2 replication was not affected. Together, these results suggest that increased MUC1-C expression in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may trigger the growth of lung cancer cells, and COVID-19 may be a risk factor for lung cancer patients.