Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Significantly Increases Complete Clinical Response.

BACKGROUND: Increased experience with total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer suggests significantly more tumor regression and increased rates of complete clinical response as measured by pathological complete response and clinical complete response. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess outcomes after total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: A database of patients with rectal cancer from 2015 to 2019 at a large integrated health care system was reviewed. PATIENTS: Demographics of the 2 groups revealed no significant difference in clinical stage or patient characteristics. Of 465 patients, 66 patients underwent total neoadjuvant therapy and 399 underwent standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Fifty-six patients underwent consolidation chemotherapy, and 10 underwent induction chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete clinical response, disease-free survival, proctectomy-free survival, and organ preservation rates were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Complete clinical response was achieved in 36 patients (58.1%) versus 59 patients (14.8%; p < 0.001), favoring the total neoadjuvant therapy group. Three-year overall survival was similar between groups (85.6% standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus 86.0% total neoadjuvant therapy). Three-year distant metastasis-free survival was 67.4% in the total neoadjuvant therapy group compared to 77.7% in the standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group. Three-year proctectomy-free survival was 44% in the total neoadjuvant therapy group compared to 6% in the standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group. Twenty-two patients (37.3% of complete clinical responders) in the standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group elected to pursue organ preservation, whereas 31 patients (86.1% of complete clinical responders) from the total neoadjuvant therapy group chose organ preservation. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective nature with a shorter follow-up of 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer significantly increased complete clinical response. This allowed patients to have greater organ preservation with no significant difference in overall survival or disease control. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B934 . LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL AUMENTA SIGNIFICATIVAMENTE LA RESPUESTA CLNICA COMPLETA: ANTECEDENTES:La mayor experiencia con la terapia neoadyuvante total para el cáncer de recto sugiere una regresión tumoral significativamente mayor y mayores tasas de respuesta clínica completa, medidas por respuesta patológica completa y respuesta clínica completa.OBJETIVO:Este estudio evaluó los resultados después de la terapia neoadyuvante total versus la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar para pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Se revisó una base de datos de pacientes con cáncer de recto de 2015 a 2019 en un sistema de salud integrado grande.PACIENTES:La demografía de los dos grupos no revela diferencias significativas en el estadio clínico o las características de los pacientes. De 465 pacientes, 66 pacientes recibieron terapia neoadyuvante total y 399 quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar. Cincuenta y seis se sometieron a quimioterapia de consolidación mientras que 10 pacientes a quimioterapia de inducción.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se midieron la respuesta clínica completa, la sobrevida libre de enfermedad, la sobrevida libre de proctectomía y las tasas de preservación de órgano.RESULTADOS:Se logró una respuesta clínica completa en 36 pacientes (58.1 %) frente a 59 pacientes (14.8 %) (p < 0,001) a favor del grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total. La sobrevida general a tres años fue similar entre los grupos (85.6 % quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar frente a 86.0 % terapia neoadyuvante total). La sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia a los tres años fue del 67.4 % en el grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total y del 77.7 % en el grupo de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar. La sobrevida sin proctectomía a los tres años fue del 44 % en el grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total frente al 6 % en el grupo de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar. Veintidós pacientes (37.3 % con respuesta clínica completa) en el grupo de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante estándar optaron por la preservación de órgano, mientras que 31 pacientes (86.1 % respuesta clínica completa) del grupo de terapia neoadyuvante total eligieron la preservación de órgano.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio es un estudio retrospectivo con un seguimiento más corto de 3 años.CONCLUSIONES:La terapia neoadyuvante total para el cáncer de recto aumentó significativamente la respuesta clínica completa. Esto permitió a los pacientes tener una mayor preservación de órgano sin diferencias significativas en la sobrevida general o el control de la enfermedad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B934 . (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Watch-and-Wait Compared to Operation for Patients with Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is evidence that surgery can be deferred in patients with complete response (CR) to nCRT, a strategy termed "watch-and-wait" (WW). We compare WW to surgery in patients with CR to nCRT. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed records of patients treated with nCRT for nonmetastatic rectal cancer at our institution. Complete endoscopic response (CER) was defined as negative digital rectal exam and negative endoscopy at the end of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Clinical complete response (cCR) was defined as CER with negative rectal MRI. Patients with CER refusing surgery were offered WW, which included strict surveillance with digital rectal exam and endoscopy. RESULTS: From January 2015 through February 2019, 465 patients completed nCRT; 406 patients had response assessment, of which 95 (23%) had CER. Of these patients, 53 patients underwent WW and 42 patients had surgery. Median follow-up was 35 months. In the WW group, 3-year freedom from local regrowth was 85%. In the surgical and WW groups, 3-year overall survival, rectal cancer-specific survival, and freedom from nonregrowth recurrence were 100% vs 88% (p = 0.03), 100% vs 95% (p = 0.16), and 92% vs 85% (p = 0.36), respectively. Of the 6 WW patients with local regrowth, 5 (83%) eventually developed distant recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: WW in lieu of surgery appears to be a safe and feasible treatment approach for patients achieving CR to nCRT. Careful evaluation to confirm cCR after nCRT is valuable in selecting patients for WW.

Triweekly carboplatin as a potential de-intensification agent in concurrent chemoradiation for early-stage HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We compared high-dose cisplatin (HDC) vs. triweekly carboplatin (TC)-based chemoradiation in patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted from 2006 to 2015 of 421 patients with locally advanced p16-positive OPSCC receiving definitive radiotherapy concurrent with 3 cycles of HDC (100 mg/m2, n = 230) or TC (AUC = 5, n = 191). Three-year locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), overall recurrence rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and cause-specific survival (CSS) are reported. HDC and TC were compared accounting for age, sex, comorbidity index score, smoking history, T stage, and N stage. RESULTS: For all-comers, no difference was observed between HDC and TC for any outcome except for ORR which was lower in patients receiving HDC (12% vs. 17%, p = 0.03). On stage-based analysis, no difference was observed between agents for any outcome for stage I or II disease. However, patients with stage III disease receiving HDC had lower rates of LRR (9% vs. 21%, p = 0.03), DM (7% vs. 28%, p = 0.006), and ORR (14% vs. 40%, p = 0.002), and superior OS (89% vs. 78%, p = 0.04) and CSS (95% vs. 80%, p = 0.02). Patients receiving HDC experienced higher rates of grade 3 leukopenia (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), weight loss ≥20% from baseline (21% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), and gastrostomy-tube placements (66% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TC demonstrated comparable outcomes to HDC for stage I or II HPV-associated OPSCC but was inferior to HDC for stage III disease. TC was associated with less toxicity and may be a potential de-intensification agent for early-stage disease.