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.

Waiting times and treatment following cancer diagnosis: comparison between immigrants and the Norwegian host population.

Background: There are concerns about timely access to appropriate cancer treatment for the growing immigrant population in Norway. This study aims to compare waiting times between cancer diagnosis and start of cancer treatment, as well as treatment patterns between immigrants in Norway and the host population.Material and methods: We performed a nationwide, registry-based study with individual-level data, including 213,320 Norwegians and 8324 immigrants diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer in 1990-2014. Differences in time from diagnosis to treatment and in treatment patterns were described for the selected cancer sites. The Cox and logistic regressions were used to adjust for patient and tumour characteristics.Results: After adjustment for covariates, hazard ratios for time from diagnosis to treatment for non-Western immigrants compared to Norwegians were 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.95) for breast cancer and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95) for lung cancer, indicating longer waiting times. Treatment patterns in the four major cancer sites were similar among immigrants and the Norwegian host population, except for breast cancer, where women from East and South Asia received less breast-conserving surgery than the Norwegian host population (adjusted odds ratios 0.65 (95% CI: 0.46-0.93) for East Asians and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.50-1.13) for South Asians).Conclusions: The present study reports delayed treatment for lung and breast cancer among immigrants from non-Western countries in Norway. Systematic differences in cancer treatment were not detected. However, less breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer patients from Asia compared to Norwegians was observed.