Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Low-Lying Adenocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Rectum.

PURPOSE: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the rectum is a unique entity that lacks definitive guidelines regarding prognosis and treatment. This study aimed to analyze patterns of care and survival for SCC and adenocarcinoma (AC) of the rectum. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients with stage I-III SCC or AC of the rectum treated from 2004 to 2016 from the National Cancer Database. The treatment groups analyzed were surgery alone (S), chemoradiation followed by surgery (CRT + S), surgery followed by chemoradiation (S + CRT), and definitive chemoradiation (CRT). Patient- and clinical-related factors were compared. Overall survival was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional regression models. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 21,587 (97.1%) were AC and 640 (2.9%) were SCC. Among patients with AC, most (n = 8549, 59.4%) received chemoradiation followed by surgery; those with SCC (n = 305, 66.4%) received definitive chemoradiation. Among patients who received surgery, the majority (69.2%) with AC histology had a low anterior resection while the majority (52.1%) of SCC had an abdominoperineal resection. Five-year overall survival of AC versus SCC in the entire cohort was 61.6% versus 56.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis for AC, CRT + S (HR 0.61, p < 0.001), or S + CRT (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) had improved survival compared to S alone while those who had definitive CRT (HR 1.55, p < 0.001) had worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: SCC of the rectum tends to be treated like anal cancers with definitive chemoradiation, with similar survival to historical reports of anal cancer. AC of the rectum is most commonly treated under the rectal cancer paradigm.

Patterns of Care and Comparison of Outcomes Between Primary Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Anal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The management of adenocarcinoma of the anus can be challenging because there are few data on outcomes and trends in its treatment to date. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and analyze the patterns of care and survival outcomes of patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma and anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTING: This study was performed by utilizing the National Cancer Database. PATIENTS: We selected a total of 19,539 patients between 2004 and 2014 with stage II to III squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the anus. INTERVENTION: The treatment groups analyzed were surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery, surgery followed by adjuvant chemoradiation, or definitive chemoradiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient- and clinical-related factors were compared between the 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess overall survival. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 18,346 (93.9%) had primary squamous cell carcinoma and 1193 (6.1%) had primary adenocarcinoma of the anus. The 5-year overall survival for stage II squamous cell carcinoma was 69.2%, and, for stage II adenocarcinoma, 5-year overall survival was 54.2% (p < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival for stage III squamous cell carcinoma was 55.2%, and, for stage III adenocarcinoma, 5-year overall survival was 32.9% (p < 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression, treatment with chemoradiation alone (HR, 0.67; p = 0.008) was associated with improved survival in squamous cell carcinoma. For the adenocarcinoma group, stage III disease (HR, 2.26; p < 0.001) and high tumor grade (HR, 1.59; p < 0.011) had a negative impact on survival, but there were no differences in survival based on the type of treatment received. LIMITATIONS: The National Cancer Database does not include information on specific chemotherapeutic or immunotherapy agents given to patients, nor does it provide the exact cause of death. CONCLUSIONS: Anal adenocarcinoma in comparison to anal squamous cell carcinoma had a lower 5-year overall survival stage for stage. Anal adenocarcinoma appears to be treated similarly to the rectal cancer paradigm, with frequent use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B50. PATRONES DE EL CUIDADO Y COMPARACIÓN DE RESULTADOS ENTRE EL CARCINOMA DE CÉLULAS ESCAMOSAS ANAL PRIMARIO Y EL ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: El tratamiento del adenocarcinoma del ano puede ser un desafío ya que hasta la fecha, hay pocos datos sobre los resultados y las tendencias en su tratamiento.Comparar y analizar los patrones de el cuidado y resultados de supervivencia de pacientes con carcinoma anal de células escamosas y adenocarcinoma anal.Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.Este estudio se realizó utilizando la Base de Datos Nacional de Cancer (National Cancer Database, NCB).Seleccionamos un total de 19,539 pacientes entre el 2004-2014 con carcinoma de células escamosas en estadio II-III o adenocarcinoma del ano.Los grupos de tratamiento analizados fueron solo cirugía, quimiorradiación neoadyuvante seguida por cirugía, cirugía seguida por quimiorradiación adyuvante o quimiorradiación definitiva.Se compararon los factores clínicos y de pacientes entre los dos grupos. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión de riesgos proporcionales de Kaplan-Meier y Cox para evaluar la supervivencia general.18,346 (93.9%) tenían carcinoma primario de células escamosas y 1,193 (6.1%) tenían adenocarcinoma primario del ano. La supervivencia global a 5 años para el carcinoma de células escamosas en estadio II fue del 69.2% y para el adenocarcinoma en estadio II fue del 54.2% (p < 0.001). La supervivencia global a cinco años para el carcinoma de células escamosas en estadio III fue del 55.2% y para el adenocarcinoma en estadio III fue del 32.9% (p < 0.001). En la regresión de Cox multivariable, el tratamiento con quimiorradiación sola (proporción de riesgo 0.67, p = 0.008) se asoció con una mejor supervivencia en el carcinoma de células escamosas. Para el grupo de adenocarcinoma, la enfermedad en estadio III (proporción de riesgo 2.26, p < 0.001) y el alto grado tumoral (proporción de riesgo 1.59, p < 0.011) tuvieron un impacto negativo en la supervivencia, pero no hubo diferencias en la supervivencia según el tipo de tratamiento recibido.La Base de Datos Nacional de Cancer no incluye información sobre agentes quimioterapéuticos o de inmunoterapia específicos que se administran a los pacientes, ni proporciona la causa exacta de la muerte.El adenocarcinoma anal en comparación con el carcinoma anal de células escamosas tuvo una supervivencia general inferior a 5 años, etapa por etapa. El adenocarcinoma anal parece tratarse de manera similar al paradigma del cáncer rectal, con el uso frecuente de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Vea el video del resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B50.

Patterns of care and outcomes of intensity modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for anal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiation is the standard of care for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Compared to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly becoming the preferred technique in order to reduce treatment related toxicity. The objective of this study is to evaluate practice patterns and total radiation treatment times of two radiation modalities. METHODS: A total of 6,966 patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anus who received definitive chemoradiation were queried from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004-2013. Logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of IMRT receipt. The Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 3,868 (55.5%) received 3DCRT and 3,098 (44.5%) received IMRT. Total radiation treatment time was <7 weeks for 54.3% of patients treated with 3DCRT versus 63.8% of patients treated with IMRT. On multivariable logistic regression, positive clinical nodes (OR =1.20, P=0.001) and treatment at an academic facility (OR =1.23, P<0.001) were associated with increased likelihood of receiving IMRT. The 5-year OS was 73.0% for 3DCRT and 73.9% for IMRT (P=0.315). On multivariable analysis, total radiation treatment time ≥7 weeks (HR =1.33, P<0.001) was associated with worse survival while radiation modality (3DCRT vs. IMRT) did not impact survival (HR =0.98, P=0.763). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT has dramatically increased in utilization from 2% to 65% during the study time period. IMRT was less likely than 3DCRT to have prolonged radiation treatment times, which was associated with worse survival.