Luke C Peng1, Jeffrey Milsom2, Kelly Garrett2, Govind Nandakumar2, Shana Coplowitz1, Bhupesh Parashar1, Dattatreyudu Nori1, K S Clifford Chao1, A G Wernicke3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stich Radiation Center, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States. 2. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stich Radiation Center, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: gaw9008@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiation has been established as standard of care for T3/T4 node-positive rectal cancer. Recent work, however, has called into question the overall benefit of radiation for tumors with lower risk characteristics, particularly T3N0 rectal cancers. We retrospectively analyzed T3N0 rectal cancer patients and examined how outcomes differed according to the sequence of treatment received. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to analyze T3N0 rectal cancer cases diagnosed between 1998 and 2008. Treatment consisted of surgery alone (No RT), preoperative radiation followed by surgery (Neo-Adjuvant RT), or surgery followed by postoperative radiation (Adjuvant RT). Demographic and tumor characteristics of the three groups were compared using t-tests for the comparison of means. Survival information from the SEER database was utilized to estimate cause-specific survival (CSS) and to generate Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Multivariate analysis (MVA) of features associated with outcomes was conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression models with Adjuvant RT, Neo-Adjuvant RT, No RT, histological grade, tumor size, year of diagnosis, and demographic characteristics as covariates. RESULTS: 10-Year CSS estimates were 66.1% (95% CI 62.3-69.6%; P=0.02), 73.5% (95% CI 68.9-77.5%; P=0.02), and 76.1% (95% CI 72.4-79.4%; P=0.02), for No RT, Neo-Adjuvant RT, and Adjuvant RT, respectively. On MVA, Adjuvant RT (HR=0.688; 95% CI, 0.578-0.819; P<0.001) was associated with significantly decreased risk for cancer death. By contrast, Neo-Adjuvant RT was not significantly associated with improved cancer survival (HR=0.863; 95% CI, 0.715-1.043; P=0.127). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT was associated with significantly higher CSS when compared with surgery alone, while the benefit of Neo-Adjuvant RT was not significant. This indicates that surgery followed by Adjuvant RT may still be an important treatment plan for T3N0 rectal cancer with potentially significant survival advantages over other treatment sequences.
PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiation has been established as standard of care for T3/T4 node-positive rectal cancer. Recent work, however, has called into question the overall benefit of radiation for tumors with lower risk characteristics, particularly T3N0 rectal cancers. We retrospectively analyzed T3N0 rectal cancerpatients and examined how outcomes differed according to the sequence of treatment received. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to analyze T3N0 rectal cancer cases diagnosed between 1998 and 2008. Treatment consisted of surgery alone (No RT), preoperative radiation followed by surgery (Neo-Adjuvant RT), or surgery followed by postoperative radiation (Adjuvant RT). Demographic and tumor characteristics of the three groups were compared using t-tests for the comparison of means. Survival information from the SEER database was utilized to estimate cause-specific survival (CSS) and to generate Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Multivariate analysis (MVA) of features associated with outcomes was conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression models with Adjuvant RT, Neo-Adjuvant RT, No RT, histological grade, tumor size, year of diagnosis, and demographic characteristics as covariates. RESULTS: 10-Year CSS estimates were 66.1% (95% CI 62.3-69.6%; P=0.02), 73.5% (95% CI 68.9-77.5%; P=0.02), and 76.1% (95% CI 72.4-79.4%; P=0.02), for No RT, Neo-Adjuvant RT, and Adjuvant RT, respectively. On MVA, Adjuvant RT (HR=0.688; 95% CI, 0.578-0.819; P<0.001) was associated with significantly decreased risk for cancer death. By contrast, Neo-Adjuvant RT was not significantly associated with improved cancer survival (HR=0.863; 95% CI, 0.715-1.043; P=0.127). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT was associated with significantly higher CSS when compared with surgery alone, while the benefit of Neo-Adjuvant RT was not significant. This indicates that surgery followed by Adjuvant RT may still be an important treatment plan for T3N0 rectal cancer with potentially significant survival advantages over other treatment sequences.
Authors: Olga A Lavryk; Elena Manilich; Michael A Valente; Arshiya Miriam; Emre Gorgun; Matthew F Kalady; Sherief Shawki; Conor P Delaney; Scott R Steele Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Valerio Nardone; Alfonso Reginelli; Fernando Scala; Salvatore Francesco Carbone; Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Lucio Sebaste; Tommaso Carfagno; Giuseppe Battaglia; Pierpaolo Pastina; Pierpaolo Correale; Paolo Tini; Gianluca Pellino; Salvatore Cappabianca; Luigi Pirtoli Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Francisco Carrasco-Peña; Eloisa Bayo-Lozano; Miguel Rodríguez-Barranco; Dafina Petrova; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Maria Carmen Carmona-Garcia; Josep Maria Borras; Maria-José Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 3.390