| Literature DB >> 31426827 |
Angela Y Jia1, Amol Narang1, Bashar Safar2, Atif Zaheer3, Adrian Murphy4, Nilofer S Azad4, Susan Gearhart2, Sandy Fang2, Jonathan Efron2, Tam Warczynski2, Amy Hacker-Prietz1, Jeffrey Meyer5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is continued debate regarding the optimal combinations of radiation therapy and chemotherapy in the preoperative treatment of locally advanced rectal adenocarcinomas. We report our single-institution experience of feasibility and early oncologic outcomes of short-course preoperative radiation therapy (5 Gy X 5 fractions) followed by consolidation neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: Rectal cancer; Short-course chemoradiotherapy; Watch and wait
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31426827 PMCID: PMC6700789 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1358-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient Characteristics
| Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 20 (77%) |
| Female | 6 (23%) |
| Age (years) | |
| Median | 52 |
| Range | 38–77 |
| Clinical stage | |
| T2 | 5 (19%) |
| T3 | 16 (62%) |
| T4 | 5 (19%) |
| N1–2 | 23 (88%) |
| Distance (cm) from anal verge | |
| Median | 7 |
| Low (0–5) | 10 |
| Mid (> 5–10) | 11 |
| High (> 10–15) | 5 |
| Doses* of neoadjuvant chemotherapy | |
| Median | 4 |
| Range | 3–8 |
| Surgery | |
| Surgical resection | 20 (77%) |
| Non-operative management/watch-and-wait | 6 (23%) |
*See text for definition of dose/cycle
Treatment results
| Patient | Clinical stage | Post-treatment MRI TRG | Post-treatment endoscopy response | Time to surgery (weeks) | Pathologic stage | Radial Margin | Pathologic TRG | NAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | T2 N1 | 3 | No post-treatment endoscopy | 18.1 | T3 N1 | Negative | Not assessed | 41.6 |
| 2 | T2 N1 | – | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
| 3 | T2 N2 | 3 | No post-treatment endoscopy | 12.9 | T2 N0 | Negative | 1 | 15 |
| 4 | T2 N2 | 1 | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
| 5 | T2 N2 | 3 | Not complete | 25.7 | TisN0 | Negative | 0* | 0 |
| 6 | T3 N0 | 2 | No post-treatment endoscopy | 17.3 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 7 | T3 N0 | 2 | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
| 8 | T3 N1 | – | No post-treatment endoscopy | 12.3 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 9 | T3 N1 | 2 | Not complete | 13.0 | T3 N0 | Negative | 1 | 15 |
| 10 | T3 N1 | 2 | Complete | 16.9 | T3 N1 | Negative | 1 | 30.1 |
| 11 | T3 N1 | 2 | Not complete | 13.6 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 12 | T3 N2 | 2 | Not complete | 23.4 | T3 N2 | Positive | 3 | 50.4 |
| 13 | T3 N2 | 3 | Not complete | 17.9 | T1 N0 | Negative | 2 | 3.7 |
| 14 | T3 N2 | 3 | Not complete | 17.3 | T1 N0 | Negative | 3 | 3.7 |
| 15 | T3 N2 | 1 | Not complete | 13.6 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 16 | T3 N2 | 3 | No post-treatment endoscopy | 14.1 | T2 N1 | Negative | 2 | 20.4 |
| 17 | T3 N2 | 1 | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
| 18 | T3 N2 | 2 | No post-treatment endoscopy | 13.9 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 19 | T3 N2 | 2 | Complete | 24.3 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0.9 |
| 20 | T3 N2 | 3 | Complete | 18 | T3 N1 | Negative | 2 | 30.1 |
| 21 | T3 N2 | 3 | Not complete | 13.6 | T3 N1 | Negative | 2 | 20.4 |
| 22 | T4bN0 | 1 | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
| 23 | T4aN1 | – | No post-treatment endoscopy | 13 | T0 N0 | Negative | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | T4aN2 | 3 | Not complete | 13.9 | T3 N1 | Positive | 2 | 20.4 |
| 25 | T4aN2 | 3 | Not complete | 13.1 | T3 N1 | Negative | 2 | 20.4 |
| 26 | T4bN2 | 3 | Complete | – | – | – | – | N/A |
Abbreviations: TRG treatment response grade, CCR clinical complete response, NAR neoadjuvant response score
Note: Patients without pathology assessment were those followed with watch-and-wait approach. Pathologic tumor regression of 0 represents pathologic complete response. *The patient with pTis disease is assigned a score of 0