What is the significance of a microscopically positive resection margin in the curative-intent treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma? A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of patients with rectal cancer operated with a microscopic positive margin (R1) and thus avoid these situations or adapt treatment in these particular cases. METHODS: We reviewed all the pathology data of resected specimens from patients with rectal or recto-sigmoid cancer operated with curative intent at the Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta" between 2000-2011 (763 patients in 12 years) and the pathology files of patients from other institutions referred for adjuvant treatment to our hospital (318 patients). We included patients with anterior resection, Hartmann's procedure and abdomino-perineal resection, but we excluded patients with local excision and patients with R2/R1 at first, but R0 after re-resection (56 patients). We have identified 31 patients with R1, but had to exclude one case from analysis because this patient was lost to follow-up. RESULTS: With surgery alone the local relapse (LR) was unavoidable. In the neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) group 85.7% of the patients did not develop LR despite of R1. In the adjuvant CRT cohort 50% of the patients were LR-free at 2 years after conventional radiotherapy (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Based on these results it is concluded that a clear resection margin is extremely important for the local control of rectal cancer, because it cannot be always compensated by adjuvant CRT. In R1 cases neoadjuvant CRT seems to offer better prognosis than adjuvant CRT. To avoid R1 and its consequences a good quality control of total mesorectal excision (TME) is needed and CRT should be done before and not after surgery. R1 after primary surgery needs to be compensated by re-resection if possible, otherwise probably high dose radiotherapy with chemotherapy is needed.

Induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin versus the same concomitant chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomized phase II study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) with biomarker evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of radiation therapy (RT) and chemotherapy with cisplatin (CCRT) is considered standard treatment in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LA-NPC). The role of induction chemotherapy (IC) when followed by CCRT in improving locoregional control remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Totally, 141 eligible patients with LA-NPC were randomized to either three cycles of IC with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m(2) (CEP) every 3 weeks followed by definitive RT (70 Gy) and concomitant weekly infusion of cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) (investigational arm, 72 patients) or to the same CCRT regimen alone (control arm, 69 patients). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (86%) received three cycles of IC. No difference between the arms was observed in the number of patients who completed RT (61 versus 64, P = 018). Overall and complete response rates were very similar in the two arms and so were 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates. Grade III or IV toxic effects from IC were infrequent, apart of alopecia. Mucositis, weight loss and leukopenia were the most prominent side-effects from CCRT. CONCLUSION: IC with three cycles of CEP when followed by CCRT did not significantly improve response rates and/or survival compared with that of CCRT alone.