Abstract
Background and Objectives
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) appears in a few clinical studies as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) in selected patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of nCT with or without nCRT in patients with LARC and to identify patients who may be suitable for nCT alone.
Materials and Methods
A total of 155 patients with LARC who received neoadjuvant treatment (NT) were retrospectively analysed from January 2016 to June 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: nCRT (n = 101) and nCT (n = 54). More patients with locally advanced disease (cT4, cN+ and magnetic resonance imaging‐detected mesorectal fascia [mrMRF] positive [+]) were found in the nCRT group. Patients in the nCRT group received a dose of 50 Gy/25 Fx irradiation with concurrent capecitabine, and the median number of nCT cycles was two. In the nCT group, the median number of cycles was four.
Results
The median follow‐up duration was 30 months. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in the nCRT group was significantly higher than that in the nCT group (17.5% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.047). A significant difference was observed in the locoregional recurrence rate (LRR); 6.9% in the nCRT group and 16.7% in the nCT group (p = 0.011). Among patients with initial mrMRF (+) status, the LRR in the nCRT group was significantly lower than that in the nCT group (6.1% vs. 20%, p = 0.007), but not in patients with initial mrMRF negative (−) (10.5% in each group, p = 0.647). Compared with the nCT group, a lower LRR was observed in patients in the nCRT group with initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after NT (5.3% vs. 23%, p = 0.009). No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding acute toxicity and overall and progression‐free survivals. Multivariate analysis showed that nCRT and ypN stage were independent prognostic factors for the development of LRR.
Conclusion
Patients with initial mrMRF (−) may be suitable for nCT alone. However, patients with initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT are still at high risk of LRR, and radiotherapy is recommended. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
Keywords: neoadjuvant chemoradiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy, rectal cancer
This study analyzed the relationship between the status of mesoretal fascia and local recurrence rate in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.
1. INTRODUCTION
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world and the fifth most common cancer in China. 1 , 2 Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is the standard treatment modality for Stage II/III rectal cancer. 3 In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), (total) neoadjuvant therapy is preferred if the circumferential resection margin (CRM) is negative and highly recommended if positive. Although there are numerous trials on nCRT combined with medication therapy, 5‐FU or capecitabine alone is suggested at present. 3 , 4 , 5
A phase II trial by Ishii showed that nCT comprising a combination of drugs, such as irinotecan and fluorouracil with leucovorin, resulted in an acceptable down‐staging effect. 6 The multicentre phase III FOWARC trial showed no significant difference in the 3‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) or locoregional recurrence rate (LRR) with perioperative mFOLFOX6 with or without radiation plus fluorouracil. 7 Based on these results, nCT alone has become a potential therapeutic strategy for selected patients. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, 8 nCT of FOLFOX or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin alone could be an option for pT3N0M0 margin‐negative tumours, high in the rectum or at the rectosigmoid junction. However, many clinical problems associated with local recurrence have not been resolved. The choice of nCRT or nCT alone remains a research focus in the field of rectal cancer.
Clinically, the involvement of mesorectal fascia (MRF) is a prognostic factor for local recurrence. 9 with a sensitivity and specificity of up to 94% and 76%, respectively, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is particularly accurate in estimating the distance between the tumour and the MRF. 10 The assessment of MRI‐MRF before surgery plays a key role in LRR. The relevant research demonstrated that the ADC value could predict response of rectal tumour to nCRT. 11 Besides, dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI parameters such as Wash‐out and K ep could predict tumour aggressiveness and nCRT efficacy. 12 According to the MERCURY study, the local recurrence hazared ratio for MRI‐involved MRF was 3.50 (95% CI, 1.53–8.00; p < 0.05). 13 However, the proportion and risk factors for developing LRR among LARC patients with varying MRF status treated with nCT alone remain unknown. In addition, data regarding whether nCT alone can be used in patients with initial magnetic resonance imaging‐detected mesorectal fascia (mrMRF) (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT is limited. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes in patients with LARC who received nCT or nCRT and to define a potential subgroup of these patients who might be candidates for nCT alone.
2. PATIENTS AND METHODS
2.1. Patient population
This retrospective clinical study analysed 155 patients with LARC who were treated between January 2016 and June 2021 at a single centre. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) histologically confirmed rectal cancer with no clinical evidence of distant metastasis, (2) Stage II or III cancer evaluated by computed tomography and MRI in accordance with the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer, and (3) those receiving nCRT or nCT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) special histological types such as neuroendocrine carcinoma and melanoma. (2) Lack of baseline MRI data and (3) a stage IV initial diagnosis. In total, 250 patients were retrospectively enrolled.
2.2. Study period
The study period was from 1 August 2020 to 22 March 2022.
2.3. Treatment method
Both groups received a standard CAPEOX or FOLFOX regimen as nCT. In the nCRT group, nCT was delivered in two (range, 1–8) cycles before and after radiotherapy. The median number of nCT cycles in the nCT group was four (range, 2–6). Capecitabine 825 mg/m2 bid daily 5 days/week was delivered concurrently with radiotherapy in the nCRT group. The irradiation technique was performed using a linear accelerator with a 6 MV photon beam‐based intensity‐modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy. The delineation of the clinical target volume was referred to as the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group atlas, 14 which included the primary tumour and at‐risk nodal areas. The irradiation regimen consisted of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, administered for 5 weeks. Surgery was planned within 12 weeks (median 8.9 weeks, range 6–20 weeks) after radiotherapy in the nCRT group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered in 4 (range, 2–7) cycles in the nCRT group and 3 (range, 1–6) cycles in the nCT group. The median cycle of chemotherapy (including neoadujvant and adjuvant chemotherapy) in the nCRT group was 5 (range 1–8 cycles), while in the nCT group was 6 cycles (range 3–8 cycles). Thirteen patients in the nCT group received adjuvant radiotherapy.
2.4. Data collection
All patients' clinical records, including MRI images, neoadjuvant treatment (NT), clinicopathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, recurrence and survival information, were retrospectively reviewed. Tumour node metastasis classification and tumour regression grade (TRG) were in accordance with the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union for Cancer Control (eighth edition). 15 The mrMRF images were assessed by two senior radiologists. Adverse events were described using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (version 3.0). Overall survival was defined as the time interval between the date of diagnosis and the date of death or the latest follow‐up date. DFS was defined as the interval between the date of NT and the date of the first recurrence, last follow‐up, or death, whichever occurred first.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The chi‐square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare clinical information, chemotherapy regimens, acute toxicity of the preoperative regimens and pathologic complete response (pCR) rates between the two groups. Variable Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to compare recurrence events, OS and DFS. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to investigate independent factors predicting the achievement of locoregional recurrence‐free survival. Statistical significance was defined at p < 0.05. All p‐values were two‐sided. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism (version 9.0; GraphPad Software).
To reduce bias of cT stage, cN stage and initial mrMRF, we conducted a propensity score matching analysis. The propensity score was calculated by using a logistic regression model including cT stage, cN stage and mrMRF. We then formed matched pairs between nCT and nCRT group patients using the nearest neighbour matching method with a calliper of 0.03, and one to one matching algorithm was performed within default calliper (0.03) in R version 3.4.2 software (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.r‐project.org).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Baseline characteristics
Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in this study. In total, 101 and 54 patients received nCRT and nCT, respectively. Compared with the nCT group, patients in the nCRT group presented with more locally advanced diseases, such as the cT4 stage, cN stage and initial mrMRF (+). Lesions greater in the rectum (i.e. a length of >10 cm between the tumour and the anal verge) were observed in the nCT group.
TABLE 1.
Clinical characteristics of 155 patients with rectal cancer.
| nCRT group (n = 101) | nCT group (n = 54) | p‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | 0.623 | ||
| Male | 73 (72.3) | 41 (75.9) | |
| Female | 28 (27.7) | 13 (24.1) | |
| Age, median year (range) | 68 (range 31–75) | 60 (range 34–75) | |
| AJCC Stage, n (%) | |||
| II | 7 (6.9) | 7 (13.0) | 0.211 |
| III | 94 (93.1) | 47 (87.0) | |
| cT stage, n (%) | 0.003 | ||
| T3 | 40 (39.6) | 35 (64.8) | |
| T4 | 61 (60.4) | 19 (35.2) | |
| cN stage, n (%) | 0.043 | ||
| N0 | 7 (6.9) | 7 (13.0) | |
| N1 | 27 (26.7) | 20 (37.0) | |
| N2 | 67 (66.3) | 27 (50.0) | |
| Distance of tumour from the anal verge, n (%) | 0.059 | ||
| 0–5 cm | 41 (40.6) | 22 (40.7) | |
| 6–10 cm | 40 (39.6) | 7 (13.0) | |
| >10 cm | 20 (19.8) | 25 (46.3) | |
| ECOG Performance Status, n (%) | |||
| 0 | 7 (6.9) | 5 (9.3) | 0.605 |
| 1 | 94 (93.1) | 49 (90.7) | |
| Histologic type, n (%) | 0.495 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 93 (92.1) | 52 (96.3) | |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 8 (7.9) | 2 (3.7) | |
| mrMRF, n (%) | 0.031 | ||
| + | 82 (81.2) | 35 (64.8) | |
| − | 19 (18.8) | 19 (35.2) | |
| nCT cycle, median (range) | 2 (1–8) | 4 (2–6) | 0.013 |
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
3.2. Surgery and pathology
No differences were observed in the surgical procedures. The overall sphincter preservation rate was 67.7%, and there was no significant difference between the nCRT and nCT groups. The pCR rate was significantly higher in the nCRT group than in the nCT group (17.5% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.047). In addition, more patients in the nCT group presented with TRG 3 than those in the nCRT group (40.7% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of poor‐differentiation was observed in the nCT group (10.8% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.001). Patients in the nCRT group had a significantly higher ypN0 stage rate than those in the nCT group (70.3% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.001). The surgical and pathological information is listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
Surgical procedures and pathologic staging.
| nCRT group (n = 101) | nCT group (n = 54) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of surgery, n (%) | 0.556 | ||
| Anterior resection | 66 (65.3) | 38 (70.3) | |
| Abdominoperineal resection | 33 (32.7) | 15 (27.8) | |
| Other | 29 (2.0) | 1 (1.9) | |
| Sphincter preservation, n (%) | 67 (66.3) | 38 (70.3) | 0.609 |
| TRG score, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 18 (17.8) | 3 (5.6) | |
| 1 | 36 (35.6) | 5 (9.3) | |
| 2 | 44 (43.6) | 24 (44.4) | |
| 3 | 3 (3.0) | 22 (40.7) | |
| pCR, n (%) | 18 (17.8) | 3 (5.6) | 0.047 |
| Pathological differentiation, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Well‐differentiation | 9 (8.9) | 3 (5.6) | |
| Moderate differentiation | 63 (62.4) | 31 (57.4) | |
| Poor differentiation | 11 (10.8) | 17 (31.5) | |
| Neural invasion, n (%) | 11 (10.9) | 7 (13.0) | 0.703 |
| EMVI, n (%) | 12 (11.9) | 5 (9.3) | 0.619 |
| ypT stage | 0.070 | ||
| T0–2 | 47 (46.5) | 17 (31.5) | |
| T3–4 | 54 (53.5) | 37 (68.5) | |
| yN stage | <0.001 | ||
| N0 | 79 (70.3) | 18 (33.3) | |
| N1–2 | 22 (28.7) | 36 (66.7) |
Abbreviations: EMVI, extramural venous invasion; pCR, pathologic complete response; TRG, tumour regression grade.
3.3. Toxicities
Table 3 shows the incidence of acute toxicity during NT. No statistical differences were observed in any adverse events or Grade ≥3 toxicities between the groups. The most common Grade 3–4 toxicities were leukopenia and radiation‐related dermatitis. Compared with the nCRT group, significantly higher Grade 1–2 levels of thrombocytopenia (3.0% vs. 29.6%) and Grade 3–4 levels of leukopenia (1.0% vs. 9.3%) were observed in the nCT group. Regarding non‐haematological toxicity, more patients experienced nausea in the nCT group (9.9% vs. 27.8%). Meanwhile, the frequency of radiation dermatitis was significantly higher in patients in the nCRT group.
TABLE 3.
Acute toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.
| All grades, n (%) | Grade 3 or 4, n (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nCRT group (n = 101) | nCT group (n = 54) | p | nCRT group (n = 101) | nCT group (n = 54) | p | |
| Any adverse event | 75 (74.3%) | 47 (87.0%) | 0.064 | 19 (18.8%) | 8 (14.8%) | 0.532 |
| Leukopenia | 57 (56.4%) | 36 (66.7%) | 0.220 | 1 (1.0%) | 5 (9.3%) | 0.020 |
| Anaemia | 7 (6.9%) | 2 (3.7%) | 0.497 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NS |
| Thrombocytopenia | 3 (3.0%) | 16 (29.6%) | <0.001 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NS |
| Diarrhoea | 55 (54.5%) | 10 (18.5%) | 0.035 | 8 (7.9%) | 1 (1.9%) | 0.163 |
| Nausea | 10 (9.9%) | 15 (27.8%) | 0.006 | 1 (1.0%) | 2 (3.7%) | 0.290 |
| Vomiting | 16 (15.8%) | 10 (18.5%) | 0.673 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NS |
| Radiation dermatitis | 32 (31.7%) | ‐ | NS | 9 (8.9%) | ‐ | NS |
| Cystitis | 8 (7.9%) | ‐ | NS | 0 (0%) | ‐ | NS |
3.4. Survival outcomes
The median follow‐up period was 30 months. The 2‐year DFS (79.2% vs. 75.9%, p = 0.752) and OS (89.1% vs. 94.4%, p = 0.866) were comparable between the nCRT and nCT groups, respectively. The cumulative total recurrence rate did not differ between groups. A significantly lower LRR rate was observed in the nCRT group (6.9% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.011; Table 4). The failure pattern of LRR in the nCRT group was observed in three cases with anastomotic recurrence, three with pelvic lymph node metastasis, and one with a pelvic mass. In the nCT group, six patients developed pelvic lymph node metastasis and three patients experienced anastomotic recurrence and pelvic mass. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with distant metastases (p = 0.752).
TABLE 4.
Recurrence information during follow‐up.
| Pattern of recurrence | nCRT group (n = 101) | nCT group (n = 54) | p | RT group (n = 114) | Non‐RT group (n = 41) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Locoregional recurrence LRR | 7 (6.9%) | 9 (16.7%) | 0.011 | 8 (7.0%) | 8 (19.5%) | 0.040 |
| Distance metastasis | 22 (21.8%) | 10 (18.5%) | 0.752 | 23(20.2%) | 9 (22.0%) | 0.303 |
| Total recurrence | 27 (26.7%) | 13 (24.1%) | 0.848 | 28 (24.6%) | 12 (29.3%) | 0.555 |
Abbreviations: Non‐RT, non‐radiation group; RT, radiation group.
Note: (1) Thirteen patients received adjuvant radiotherapy in the nCT group. (2) Two and six patients had both locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis in the nCRT and nCT groups, respectively.
Thirteen patients in the nCT group received adjuvant radiotherapy, and all patients were regrouped according to treatment with perioperative pelvic radiation. A total of 114 (73.5%) patients received radiotherapy between treatments, whereas 41 (26.5%) did not. Table 4 illustrates the significant differences in LRR rates between the radiation and non‐radiation groups (p = 0.040).
3.5. Correlation between MRF status and LRR
Of all the patients, 82 and 35 were confirmed to have initial mrMRF (+) status before treatment in the nCRT and nCT groups, respectively. After NT, 44 patients in the nCRT group and 22 in the nCT group were consistently confirmed to be mrMRF (+). The cumulative LRR in patients with initial mrMRF (+) status was 6.1% (5/82) in the nCRT group and 20% (7/35) in the nCT group (log‐rank p = 0.007; Figure 1A). For patients with mrMRF (+) status after NT, the LRR rate was 6.8% (3/44) in the nCRT group and 22.7% (5/22) in the nCT group (p = 0.063; Figure 1C). In both groups, patients with initial mrMRF (−) had the same rate of LRR (10.5%, p = 0.647; Figure 1B). The rate of LRR in patients with mrMRF (−) after nCT in the nCT group was 12.5%, and no difference in LRR was observed after NT (p = 0.089; Figure 1D). Further analyses showed that 46.3% (38/82) of patients with initial mrMRF (+) were converted to mrMRF (−) post nCRT; 37.1% (13/35) of patients were similarly converted in the nCT group. In patients whose mrMRF status changed, the LRR rate was significantly lower in the nCRT group (5.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.009; Figure 1E).
FIGURE 1.
A‐1E: The relationship between MRF status and LRR. Cumulative incidence of LRR in patients with; 1A initial mrMRF (+); 1B with initial mrMRF (−); 1C mrMRF (+) after NT; 1D mrMRF (−) after NT; 1E initial mrMRF (+) were converted to mrMRF (−) post NT.
3.6. Risk factor analysis
In univariate analyses of demographics, clinical stage and histological features of biopsy specimens, nCRT and ypN stage were risk factors for LRR. In multivariate analyses, the ypN2 stage and nCT were associated with a higher LRR. The findings from the univariate and multivariate analyses of LRR are described in Table 5.
TABLE 5.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for LRR.
| Factors | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | HR | 95%CI | p | HR | 95%CI | |||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| LRR | ||||||||
| Age | ||||||||
| <65 | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| ≥65 | 0.766 | 0.860 | 0.319 | 2.317 | ||||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Men | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| Women | 0.621 | 1.306 | 0.453 | 3.766 | ||||
| Type of NT | ||||||||
| nCT | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| nCRT | 0.02 | 0.307 | 0.114 | 0.827 | 0.025 | 0.305 | 0.108 | 0.859 |
| ypN stage | 0.014 | 0.008 | ||||||
| 0 | Ref. | 1 | Ref | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 0.019 | 3.395 | 1.226 | 9402 | 0.03 | 3.1 | 1.119 | 8.588 |
| 2 | 0.024 | 11.656 | 1.378 | 98.567 | 0.01 | 17.696 | 1.965 | 159.322 |
| cT stage | ||||||||
| cT3 | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| cT4 | 0.329 | 0.625 | 0.243 | 1.606 | ||||
| cN stage | 0.494 | |||||||
| N0 | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| N1 | 0.329 | 2.887 | 0.344 | 24.210 | ||||
| N2 | 0.597 | 1.747 | 0.221 | 13.801 | ||||
| Distance of tumour from the anal verge | 0.186 | |||||||
| 0–5 cm | Ref. | 1 | ||||||
| 6–10 cm | 0.339 | 0.596 | 0.206 | 1.721 | ||||
| >10 cm | 0.075 | 0.245 | 0.245 | 1.155 | ||||
Abbreviation: LRR, local recurrence rate.
3.7. Propensity score‐matched analysis
Through the propensity matching analysis, 50 cases were successfully matched, including 25 cases in the nCRT group and 25 cases in the nCT group. The median follow‐up time was 33.2 months. The cumulative LRR between the two groups was 2/25(8%) in the nCRT group and (6/25)24% in the nCT group (p = 0.0418, Figure 2), the clinical characteristics of 50 patients after propensity score‐matched analysis was listed in Table 6.
FIGURE 2.
LRR of 50 patients with propensity score‐matched analysis.
TABLE 6.
Clinical characteristics of 50 patients with propensity score‐matched analysis.
| nCRT group n = 25 | nCT group n = 25 | T/χ 2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n | 0.117 | 0.733 | ||
| Male | 19 | 20 | ||
| Female | 6 | 5 | ||
| Age (average ± SD) | 54.7 ± 2.5 | 60.7 ± 2.0 | 0.252 | 0.066 |
| cT, n | 0 | NS | ||
| T3 | 13 | 13 | ||
| T4 | 12 | 12 | ||
| cN, n | 0 | NS | ||
| 0 | 7 | 7 | ||
| 1 | 18 | 18 | ||
| Distance, n | ||||
| ≥5 cm | 12 | 18 | 3 | 0.083 |
| <5 cm | 13 | 7 | ||
| Initial MRF, n | 0.5 | 0.480 | ||
| Positive | 6 | 4 | ||
| Negaitve | 19 | 21 |
4. DISCUSSION
(Total) nCRT is currently the standard treatment for LARC. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 However, nCT alone has been occasionally used by certain surgeons because of the increased difficulty of surgical operations caused by radiotherapy. The NCCN guidelines do not mention whether radiation should be administered to patients with mrMRF status changes after NT. 8 The LRR rate of the initial mrMRF (+) status converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT remains unclear. Therefore, we retrospectively analysed relevant data from our centre. Based on the results of our analysis, patients treated with nCT alone had a poorer pCR rate and higher LRR than those treated with nCRT. Patients with initial mrMRF (−) may be eligible for nCT alone. Patients with initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT are still at high risk for LRR, and radiotherapy is recommended.
Consistent with previous results of randomised controlled clinical studies, the pCR rate and TRG 0–1 were much higher in the nCRT group. 4 , 18 , 21 , 22 A higher proportion of TRG 0–1 was found in the nCRT group than in the nCT group, which indicated that nCRT had a positive effect on tumour regression in LARC. Generally, the pCR rate of patients with LARC who receive nCT is <10%. 23 Despite the CONVERT trial's suggestion that nCT alone can achieve an 11% pCR rate, patients enrolled in the nCT arm had a low burden. 24 Another phase II trial treated patients with mFOLFOXIRI for five cycles as a neoadjuvant regimen. 25 The pCR rate was only 4.3%. The objective of modern treatment for LARC is organ preservation, particularly in patients with lower rectal cancer. According to reported data, pCR rate and TRG are associated with organ preservation. 26 Therefore, the addition of radiotherapy during NT can increase the pCR and organ preservation rates.
LRR rates of 5%–10% have been reported in other studies following nCRT. 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 Notably, the baselines of the two groups in our study were not balanced. Although more patients with locally advanced diseases were observed in the nCRT group than in the nCT group, a higher pCR rate and lower LRR were achieved in the nCRT group. Afterwards, we performed propensity score‐matched analysis to eliminate the initial imbalance between cT stage and cN stage. The LRR rate was still significantly lower in the nCRT group (8% vs 24%, p = 0.0418). Multivariate analysis revealed that nCRT or nCT and ypN stage were independent factors for LRR. Patients with the ypN2 stage had nearly 17 times higher odds of LRR than those with the ypN0 stage. The most common local failure pattern in the nCT group was pelvic lymph node metastasis (6/9, 66%), which appeared at a significantly higher rate than in the nCRT group (3/7, 42.9%). Therefore, according to the results of the multivariate analysis and local failure pattern, patients with the ypN2 stage have a high risk of LRR. In such patients, standard treatment may be insufficient. Therefore, more aggressive treatment may be required, and specific treatment regimens should be developed.
MRF is considered an important predictor of LRR and may help identify patients for preoperative radiotherapy. 31 In the RAPIDO trial, 60% of patients in the nCRT group had baseline MRF (+), and 6% had local relapse. 32 Our data suggest that 81.2% of patients with initial MRF (+) in the nCRT group benefited from loco‐regional radiation (LRR 6.1% in nCRT vs. 20% in nCT, p = 0.007). However, no statistical difference was observed in LRR in patients with an initial mrMRF (−). Another study revealed that mrMRF (+) post‐NT was an independent risk factor for LRR, OS and DFS. 33 This result emphasises the need to add radiotherapy to patients with initial MRF (+) and may select nCT alone for those with initial MRF (−). In addition, no available data have elucidated whether radiotherapy is necessary for patients with MRF (+) who have successfully converted to MRF (−) after nCT. Compared with the nCT group, a significant reduction in LRR was observed in patients with initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) in the nCRT group (5.3% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). This indicates that nCRT is still required for patients with an initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT. Prospective studies (e.g. the PROSPECT and NCT02288) of nCT without routine radiation in selected patients may determine the effects of nCT alone and provide more clinical evidence.
In this study, the adverse effects of neoadjuvant therapy were acceptable. The overall incidence of Grade 3–4 toxicity was <20%. The rate of radiotherapy‐related adverse reactions was similar to those reported in other clinical studies. 34 , 35 High haematological toxicities (any grade of thrombocytopenia and Grade 3–4 leukopenia) were observed in the nCT group.
The strength of this study is that it explores some treatment principles that are not included in the current clinical guidelines through retrospective analysis and makes up for the blank in this regard through data analysis. The limitations of this study were as follows: this was a single‐centre, retrospective analysis with small sample size; therefore, potential selection bias could not be avoided. Adjuvant chemotherapy of the two groups might be not balanced. There were 4 (range, 2–7) cycles in the nCRT group and 3 (range, 1–6) cycles in the nCT group. It is debatable to administer additional adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Stage II/III rectal cancer who received nCRT. 36 , 37 However, there was no statistically significant difference in the total cycles of chemotherapy (neoadujvant and adjuvant chemotherapy) between the two groups in our study (p = 0.508). Furthermore, the median follow‐up time of the study was limited, and long‐term outcomes with the two neoadjuvant regimens remain undetermined. In the future, we will conduct prospective clinical studies based on existing data to further confirm the current conclusions.
In conclusion, in view of the gaps in the current guidelines, we found that patients with initial mrMRF (+) converted to mrMRF (−) after nCT are still at high risk for LRR. For patients with an initial mrMRF (−), nCT alone might be appropriate. In clinical practice, patients with MRF (−) following nCT cannot be treated in the same manner as patients with initial MRF (−). Further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Yimin Han: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); resources (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Wei xiang Qi: Methodology (supporting); supervision (supporting); validation (supporting). Shu bei Wang: Formal analysis (supporting); software (supporting). Wei guo Cao: Conceptualization (supporting). Jia Yi Chen: Conceptualization (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Gang Cai: Conceptualization (equal); writing – review and editing (lead).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This research received no external funding.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Ruijin Hospital. This study is a retrospective study, which only collects clinical data of patients and does not interfere with the treatment plan of patients.
Han Y‐m, Qi W‐x, Wang S‐b, Cao W‐g, Chen J‐y, Cai G. Identification of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer eligible for neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone: Results of a retrospective study. Cancer Med. 2023;12:13309‐13318. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6029
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Zheng R, Zhang S, Zeng H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2016. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;2(1):1‐9. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2022.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209‐249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Musio D. Neoadjuvant‐intensified treatment for rectal cancer: time to change? World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(20):3052‐3061. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i20.3052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rödel C, Liersch T, Becker H, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO‐04 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):679‐687. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70187-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Zhu J, Liu A, Sun X, et al. Multicenter, randomized, phase III trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with capecitabine and irinotecan guided by UGT1A1 status in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(36):4231‐4239. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ishii Y, Hasegawa H, Endo T, et al. Medium‐term results of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy using irinotecan, 5‐fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2010;36(11):1061‐1065. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Deng Y, Chi P, Lan P, et al. Modified FOLFOX6 with or without radiation versus fluorouracil and leucovorin with radiation in neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the Chinese FOWARC multicenter, open‐label, randomized three‐arm phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(27):3300‐3307. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) .Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Rectal Cancer, Version 2. 2021. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):303‐312. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Caruso D, Zerunian M, de Santis D, et al. Magnetic resonance of rectal cancer response to therapy: an image quality comparison between 3.0 and 1.5 tesla. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1‐8. doi: 10.1155/2020/9842732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Musio D, de Felice F, Magnante AL, et al. Diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance application in response prediction before, during, and after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in primary rectal cancer carcinoma. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:1‐5. doi: 10.1155/2013/740195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ciolina M, Caruso D, de Santis D, et al. Dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in locally advanced rectal cancer: role of perfusion parameters in the assessment of response to treatment. Radiol Med. 2019;124(5):331‐338. doi: 10.1007/s11547-018-0978-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Taylor FGM, Quirke P, Heald RJ, et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease‐free survival and local recurrence: 5‐year follow‐up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(1):34‐43. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Myerson RJ, Garofalo MC, el Naqa I, et al. Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(3):824‐830. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Springer; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Sebag‐Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC‐CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. The Lancet. 2009;373(9666):811‐820. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60484-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Rödel C, Graeven U, Fietkau R, et al. Oxaliplatin added to fluorouracil‐based preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer (the German CAO/ARO/AIO‐04 study): final results of the multicentre, open‐label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):979‐989. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00159-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Roh MS, Colangelo LH, O'Connell MJ, et al. Preoperative multimodality therapy improves disease‐free survival in patients with carcinoma of the rectum: NSABP R‐03. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(31):5124‐5130. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.0467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Ludmir EB, Palta M, Willett CG, Czito BG. Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: an emerging option. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1497‐1506. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Azin A, Khorasani M, Quereshy FA. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer: the surgeon's perspective. J Clin Pathol. 2019;72(2):133‐134. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Schou JV, Larsen FO, Rasch L, et al. Induction chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by chemoradiotherapy before total mesorectal excision in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(10):2627‐2633. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Tseng MSF, Zheng H, Ng IWS, et al. Outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: a single‐institution experience. Singapore Med J. 2018;59(6):305‐310. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2017105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Uehara K, Hiramatsu K, Maeda A, et al. Neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and capecitabine and bevacizumab without radiotherapy for poor‐risk rectal cancer: N‐SOG 03 phase II trial. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(10):964‐971. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyt115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ding P, Wang X, Li Y, Sun Y. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and capecitabine versus chemoradiation with capecitabine for locally advanced rectal cancer with uninvolved mesorectal fascia (CONVERT): initial results of a multicenter randomised, open‐label, phase III trial. 2021;32:1283‐1346. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Zhang W, Zhou H, Jiang J, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with modified FOLFOXIRI for locally advanced rectal cancer: a single center phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(3_suppl):69. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.3_suppl.69 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Minsky BD, Cohen AM, Enker WE, Paty P. Sphincter preservation with preoperative radiation therapy and coloanal anastomosis. IJROBP. 1995;31(3):553‐559. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)00375-U [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(17):1731‐1740. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, et al. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(11):1114‐1123. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa060829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Wawok P, Polkowski W, Richter P, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy and local excision of rectal cancer: long‐term results of a randomised study. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127(3):396‐403. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CAM, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(9):638‐646. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Simunovic M, Grubac V, Zbuk K, Wong R, Coates A. Role of the status of the mesorectal fascia in the selection of patients with rectal cancer for preoperative radiation therapy: a retrospective cohort study. Can J Surg. 2018;61(5):332‐338. doi: 10.1503/cjs.009417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Bahadoer RR, Dijkstra EA, van Etten B, et al. Short‐course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO): a randomised, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(1):29‐42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30555-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Song KS, Lee DW, Kim B, et al. Differences in prognostic relevance of rectal magnetic resonance imaging findings before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10059. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46499-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Jin J, Tang Y, Hu C, et al. Multicenter, randomized, phase III trial of short‐term radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus long‐term chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (STELLAR). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:1681‐1692. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Conroy T, Bosset JF, Etienne PL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER‐PRODIGE 23): a multicentre, randomised, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):702‐715. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00079-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hong YS, Kim SY, Lee JS, et al. Oxaliplatin‐based adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (ADORE): long‐term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(33):3111‐3123. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Breugom AJ, Swets M, Bosset JF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and surgery for patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(2):200‐207. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71199-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.