Highlights
-
•
The lengthening of the surgical interval has a positive impact on pathological complete response (pCR) rate.
-
•
Lengthening the surgical interval from the end of preoperative chemoradiation is not detrimental to survival outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer.
-
•
Prospective validation of the impact of surgical interval lengthening on complete response and survival outcomes in a randomized trial.
Keywords: Rectal cancer, Surgical Interval, Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, Personalized treatment
Abstract
Design
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).
Several studies have shown a correlation between a longer interval between the end of nCRT and surgery (surgical interval - SI) and an increased pathological complete response (pCR) rate, with a maximum obtained between 10 and 13 weeks.
The primary endpoint of this multicenter, 2-arm randomised trial is to investigate SI lengthening, evaluating the difference in terms of complete response (CR) and Tumor Regression Grade (TRG)1 rate in the two arms. Secondly, the impact of SI lengthening on survival outcomes and quality of life (QoL) will be investigated.
Methods
Intermediate-risk LARC patients undergoing nCRT will be prospectively included in the study. nCRT will be administered with a total dose of 55 Gy in 25 fractions on Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) plus the corresponding mesorectum of 45 Gy in 25 fractions on the whole pelvis. Chemotherapy with oral capecitabine will be administered continuously.
The patients achieving a clinical major or complete response assessed at clinical-instrumental re-evaluation at 7–8 weeks after treatment completion, will be randomized into two groups, to undergo surgery or local excision at 9–11 weeks (control arm) or at 13–16 weeks (experimental arm). Pathological response will be assessed on the surgical specimen using the AJCC TNM v.7 and the TRG according to Mandard. Patients will be followed up to evaluate toxicity and QoL.
The promoter center of the trial will conduct the randomization process through an automated procedure to prevent any possible bias.
For sample size calculation, using CR difference of 20% as endpoint, 74 patients per arm will be enrolled.
Conclusions
The results of this study may prospectively provide a new time frame for the clinical re-evaluation for complete/major responders patients in order to increase the CR rate to nCRT.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581344.
Introduction/rationale
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery is the standard treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) [1], since it has been demonstrated to significantly increase local control (LC) [2], [3], [4]. Neoadjuvant CRT (nCRT) treatment leads to a high response rate, characterized by a pathological complete response (pCR) rate of about 15%- 38 [5], [6]. Several meta-analyses and pooled analyses have shown a clear correlation between pCR and long-term clinical outcomes such as LC, metastasis free survival (MFS), disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) [7], [8], [9].
Several factors may influence pCR after neoadjuvant treatment: among these, studies have particularly examined chemotherapy (CHT) intensification with the addition of a second drug to fluoropyrimidines during nCRT [10], [11], [12], the impact of the radiotherapy (RT) boost on the macroscopic tumor lesion [5], [13], [14], [15] and the interval between the end of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery [6], [16], [17].
CHT intensification has been investigated in several phase 2 studies, while randomized trials have evaluated the combination of 5-fluoracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin concomitance with preoperative RT [5], [12], [18], [19], [20].
The CAO/ARO/AIO-04 is the only study that demonstrated an increase in DFS with the addition of oxaliplatin to CRT treatment [10].
Dose escalation, especially after the introduction of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and the growing interest in protocols based on the introduction of brachytherapy, has been tested in several phase 2 studies. Data from the Italian multicenter INTERACT study showed that intensified RT (55 Gy in 5 weeks + 5FU) produced the same results in terms of pCR as intensified CHT (50.4 Gy in 5 weeks and 3 days + 5FU and oxaliplatin), but with statistically lower toxicity [5]. A dose–response model developed by Appelt et al. showed a clear correlation between the RT dose and tumor response [13]. In support of this model, a meta-analysis confirmed that a significant increase in pCR is obtained with RT doses greater than or equal to 60 Gy, without a significant increase in toxicity [14].
Finally, the surgical interval (SI), also explored in a randomized trial [16], allows the tumor to respond to treatment and surgery to be performed when the treatment- related inflammation is no longer present and the late fibrotic processes caused by RT have not yet developed. The standard interval between the end of CRT and surgery currently is about 6–8 weeks. Phase II, retrospective studies, meta-analyses and pooled analyses report that extending the SI beyond 12 weeks leads to an increase in pCR without a corresponding increase in perioperative morbidity [6], [17], [21], [22], with the exception of the GRECCAR 6 trial, which showed no benefit in oncological outcomes after extension of SI by an additional 4 weeks compared to standard [23]. The impact of SI was evaluated in an Italian pooled analysis conducted by the AIRO Study Group for Gastro-Intestinal Diseases, conducted on>2000 patients, which showed a significantly higher pCR rate in patients undergoing surgery after 13 weeks [17].
A prospective non-randomized phase II study investigated the effect of increasing cycles of CHT in the pause between CRT and surgery on SI prolongation [6]. After undergoing CRT, patients were divided into 4 groups. Group 1 underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) at 6–8 weeks after CRT while patients in groups 2–4 received two, four, or six cycles of mFOLFOX6 in the pre-surgical break, respectively. The authors reported an increasing pCR rate from group 1 to group 4, with a statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 4, (18% vs 38% p = 0.01). This result confirms that lengthening with the addition of CHT in the pre-surgical break increases pCR rates, but leaves the question of whether this result can be attributed to lengthening time or to the addition of neoadjuvant CHT.
Furthermore, a recent pooled analysis of 3085 patients from 7 randomised trials investigated the optimal SI to achieve the highest rate of pCR and the impact on survival outcomes [24]. This interval was found to be 10 weeks and to have no detrimental effect in terms of local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), DFS and OS.
The possibility of increasing complete response (CR) rates through different strategies makes it possible to implement personalized approach for organ preservation strategies. Conservative surgical approaches, such as full-thickness local excision (LE) of the scar or tumor remnant and watch and wait (W&W), have recently been applied in patients who achieve clinical major (cMR) or clinical complete response (cCR) after nCRT [25], [26]. This approach appears to be feasible and advantageous for the reduction of morbidity and toxicities that may result from TME after successful nCRT. Currently there are no studies of the superiority of one approach over the other in case of cCR. The most recent studies compare both approaches with TME, demonstrating the advantages of organ preservation and organ function with comparable oncological outcomes [25], [27], [28].
Taking into account the evidence reported in the literature derived from retrospective or non-randomized trials, the present study aims to compare in a prospective scenario the impact of SI on CR. This will be carried out by randomizing a selected group of LARC patients, without high risk factors, who have achieved cCR or cMR at 7–8 weeks after nCRT to undergo surgery or a conservative approach, at 9–11 weeks (control arm) or at 13–16 weeks (experimental arm). The exclusion of LARC patients with high-risk features who achieve partial response, stable disease or disease progression after nCRT may provide a different perspective compared to the design and results provided by the GRECCAR-6 trial, based on the assumption that these types of patients could not benefit from an organ-preservation approach [29].
The results of the BReak Interval Delayed surgery for Gastrointestinal Extraperitoneal rectal cancer (BRIDGE −1) trial could prospectively confirm a new SI after nCRT in LARC patients, in order to detect the highest response rate. Furthermore, based on the data reported in the literature [24], the evidence obtained will be able to clearly define the characteristics of patients who can benefit from this approach. Collaterally, the correlation between clinical and pathological response and the impact of SI lengthening on survival outcomes and quality of life (QoL) will be investigated.
Design
The proposed study is a multicentre randomised phase III trial. The study design is reported in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Study design. LARC: locally advanced rectal cancer; nCRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; R: randomization; TAMIS transanal minimally invasive surgery; TEM: transanal endoscopic microsurgery.
All patients included in the study will receive nCRT.
Patients will undergo clinical-instrumental restaging at 7–8 weeks and, in case of major or complete clinical response, will be randomized into two groups:
-
1.
surgery or LE at an interval of 9–11 weeks after completion of nCRT;
-
2.
clinical-instrumental re-evaluation at 11–12 weeks followed by surgery or LE at 13–16 weeks after the end of nCRT.
Treatment description
Patients selection
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion criteria | |
|---|---|
| General |
ECOG 0–1 |
| Age over 18 years | |
| Written informed consent | |
| Primary tumor characteristics | Histological proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum located between 0 and 12 cm above the internal anal sphincter |
| Clinical stage cT2N1-2, M0; cT3, N0-N2, M0 | |
| cMR or cCR | |
| Exclusion criteria | |
| General | Contraindications for MR and/or endoscopy |
| Pregnancy or lactating female patients | |
| Psychological, familial, sociological or geographical condition potentially hampering compliance with the oncological treatment, the study protocol and follow-up schedule | |
| No other malignancies in the last 5 years of previous history (except skin and initial cervical cancer) | |
| Absolute contraindications to RT, CHT and surgery. | |
| Patients discontinuing treatment. | |
| Primary tumor characteristics | Mesorectal fascia involvement for tumor |
| Clinical stage cT4 | |
| Extramesorectal nodes involvement | |
| Extramural venous invasion (EMVI) | |
| Tumor located at a distance > 12 cm from the internal anal sphincter | |
| Presence of distant metastases | |
| Partial response, no-change or disease progression at re-evaluation 7–8 weeks after completion of nCRT | |
ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; MR: Magnetic Resonance; cMR: clinical major response; cCR: clinical complete response; RT: radiation therapy; CHT: chemotherapy; nCRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Clinical evaluation, staging and re-staging
The treatment strategy of all patients will be discussed in the context of the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT), consisted of core group of surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, radiologists, pathologists to share the best therapeutic options, both at the diagnosis and at presurgical restaging. Table 2 shows the schedule and procedures used for initial staging and restaging. TNM clinical and pathological stage are determined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer [30], and the histological grade of adenocarcinoma according to WHO.
Table 2.
Staging and re-staging procedures.
| Staging and baseline clinical assessment | Restaging at 7–8 weeks (control arm) |
Re-staging at 11–12 weeks (experimental arm) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical history | x | ||
| DRE | x | x | x |
| Recto-colonoscopy + biopsy* | x | ||
| Pelvic MR | x | x | x |
| Thorax-abdominal CT | x | ||
| 18F-FDG PET-CT | optional | if previously performed | if previously performed |
| Proctoscopy | in case of major or complete clinical response | x |
DRE: digital rectal examination; MR: magnetic resonance; CT: computed tomography; 18F-FDG PET-CT: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed tomography.
if colonoscopy cannot be performed because the lesion is stenosing, rectoscopy + biopsy and double contrast opaque enema or colon CT scan or colonoscopy within 6 months of surgery is recommended.
Definition of response
Clinical complete response [31] is defined when all of the criteria listed below are present:.
-
-
objective examination: no palpable mass on digital rectal examination (DRE);
-
-
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [32]: no evidence of lymph nodes or lymph nodes with short axis less than 5 mm. No detectable residual tumor on either morphological examination or diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences with re-appearance of rectal wall layers. Hypointense parietal thickening in T2-weighted (T2w) sequences with no evidence of residual, hyperintense in DWI sequences/hypointense in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map.
-
-
endoscopy: absence of any endoscopic lesions. A flat scar should be considered as absence of endoscopic lesion.
Clinical major response [33] is defined when 1 or more of the above criteria are present:
-
-
objective examination: palpable mass at DRE
-
-
MRI [32]: no evidence of residual lymph nodes or residual lymph nodes with short axis less than 5 mm. Hypointense parietal thickening in T2w sequences but with small residual hyperintense areas in DWI sequences.
-
-
endoscopy: absence of deep or superficial ulcer > 2 cm in diameter.
Pathological Complete response is defined as anatomo-pathological absence of tumor cells in the rectum and mesorectal lymph nodes examined on the surgical specimen [7].
Radiotherapy: Treatment volumes
Gross tumor volume (GTV) includes clinically evident disease (both T and N) on clinical and instrumental diagnostic examinations.
The CTV1 includes the GTV and the corresponding mesorectum, defined as the axial section of mesorectum extending from the cranial to the caudal pole of the tumor.
The CTV2 includes the CTV1, the total mesorectum and selected lymphatic drainage stations, which will be delineated manually according to the international guidelines for rectal cancer [34].
Planning target volume (PTV) 1 and 2 will correspond to CTV1 and CTV2 respectively with a variable margin at the discretion of the center and image guided RT (IGRT) technique used.
The organs at risk (OARs) will be bladder, small bowel (as bowel bag), single intestinal loops in particular clinical conditions (loops with diverticula or fixed loops in the Douglas cavity or posterior pelvi), anal canal and femoral heads.
In the case of IMRT: bone marrow in the pelvis, penile bulb, vagina (at least the lower 1/3), testes, uterus and ovaries (pre-menopausal women) should be considered.
Technique and treatment doses
The prescribed dose is 55 Gy at the level of PTV1 with a daily fractionation of 2.2 Gy and 45 Gy at the level of PTV2 with a daily fractionation of 1.8 Gy, over 5 weeks.
In case of 3D treatment: the 55 to PTV1 dose will be given with a concomitant boost of 1 Gy twice a week (total dose/fraction on PTV1 twice a week of 2.8 Gy) and 45 Gy to PTV2 with daily fractionation of 1.8 Gy/day, over 5 weeks.
A linear accelerator with minimum energy of 6MV is required and image verification, with digitally reconstructed radiography (DRR) or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) should be performed prior to treatment.
The simulation CT can be performed with different patient positioning (supine vs prone +/- bowel loop dislocators) according to the Centre’s discretion. Pelvic organ filling protocols are recommended for greater reproducibility of the treatment.
In case of IMRT technique, the dose should be reported according to the ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) report 83 [35].
In case of 3D technique, the dose should be reported according to the ICRU report 50–62 recommendations and a treatment with 3 or more beams is recommended [36].
The dose to OARs will be assessed according to the dose constraints reported in the QUANTEC report [37].
In case of grade ≥ 3 gastro-intestinal toxicity (excluding stomatitis which is exclusively due to CHT) or ≥ 3 grade hematological toxicity (excluding the combination white blood cells G3 and neutrophils < G3), radiation treatment will be discontinued until toxicity decreases to a grade G2 or lower.
The fraction dose and total dose will not be reduced. In case of RT interruption, concomitant CHT will be stopped accordingly.
Concomitant chemotherapy
Two concomitant CHT schedules are allowed: oral chronomodulated capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 (25% h 8:00, 25% h 18:00, 50% h 23:00) or oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily.
Surgical treatment and anatomopathological assessment
Surgery will be performed according to standard technique using the open, laparoscopic or robotic approach, at the surgeon’s discretion. It includes either anterior resection of the rectum, abdominoperineal resection of the rectum using the TME technique, or conservative surgery approaches, such as transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). These evaluations will be shared within the multidisciplinary team.
The histopathological assessment of the response will be graded according to the following classifications: Mandard [38]; Washington MK et al/College of American Pathologists [39]; in case of positive lymph nodes, the Nottingham Rectal Cancer Prognostic Index (NRPI) score [40] will also be used.
Toxicity and quality of life assessment
Acute and late toxicity and QoL, bowel function, rectal continence and sexual activity will be assessed as part of the study.
Grading of acute and late toxicity will be performed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0 scale [41].
These assessments will be performed by administering grading scales and questionnaires at various times:
T0: before the start of radiation treatment.
T1: at first restaging.
T2: after surgery.
T3: at 6 months follow-up.
T4: at 12 months follow-up.
QoL questionnaires will be: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) bowel function instrument [42], Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale (FIQL) [43], European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 [44] and EORTC QLQ-CR29 [45].
Adjuvant chemotherapy
The protocol does not include criteria for the administration of adjuvant systemic treatment. The choice is at the discretion of the individual center in relation to clinical and pathological features.
Follow-up
The follow up surveillance will be performed with clinical and instrumental assessment; toxicity, and QoL will be evaluated during follow-up as reported in Table 3, Table 4.
Table 3.
Follow-up after neoadjuvant treatment in case of total mesorectal excision (TME).
| Follow up time (months) |
|||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 36 | 42 | 48 | 54 | 60 | |
| Objective examination and DRE | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Blood sample and CEA | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Thorax-abdomen-pelvis CT | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
| Colonoscopy | x | x | x | ||||||||||
| QoL questionnaires | x | x | x | ||||||||||
| Abdomen US | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
DRE: Digital rectal examination; CT: Computed tomography; QoL: Quality of life; US: Ultrasound.
Table 4.
Follow-up after neoadjuvant treatment in case of minimally invasive surgery approach.
| Follow up time (months) |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 24 | 30 | 36 | 42 | 48 | 54 | 60 | |
| Objective examination and DRE | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Blood sample and CEA | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Proctoscopy | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| MRI | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
| Thorax-abdomen-pelvis CT | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
| Colonoscopy | x | x | |||||||||||||
| Abdomen US | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
| QoL questionnaires | x | x | |||||||||||||
DRE: Digital rectal examination; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; CT: Computed tomography; QoL: Quality of life.
Endpoints
The primary endpoint of this phase III trial is to evaluate the difference in terms of CR rate, reported as pCR (ypT0ypN0) in case of TME, or ypT0ycN0 in case of LE and Mandard’s TRG1, in the two arms.
The secondary endpoints are the differences in terms of OS, DFS, local recurrence free survival (LCFS), colostomy-free survival and MFS, in the two arms. Furthermore, the concordance between cMR or cCR and pCR will be assessed.
Statistics
Sample size
CR difference has been used as the end-point for sample calculation.
In order to achieve a sensitivity of 95% and a study power of 80% and considering in the experimental arm the expected CR rate is 35%, compared to 15% in the control arm, the number of patients in each arm was 70 [46].
Considering a difference in CR of 20% (15% to 35%) and a patient dropout of 5%, the sample enrolment considered 74 patients in each arm.
Randomization procedures
Patients achieving cMR or cCR at 7–8 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant CRT will be included in the study. Patients undergoing surgery 9–11 weeks after the end of nCRT represent the control arm of the BRIDGE-1 study. Patients who underwent surgery 13–16 weeks after the end of nCRT (Fig. 1) represent the experimental arm of the BRIDGE-1 study. These patients, prior to delayed surgery, will be re-evaluated clinically and instrumentally at 11–12 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant CRT.
Patients will be assigned to one of the arms according to a random assignment. Randomization will be stratified according to gender, age (≤65 years old), stage (stage II, or III) and tumor site (low and medium/high). When a patient is assigned to one arm, randomization will allow a patient with the same characteristics to be enrolled in the other arm.
The randomization process will be conducted by the promoter center through an automated dedicated in-house software by Knowledge Based Oncology (KBO) labs. These procedures should prevent any possible bias related to an unbalanced selection, even if involuntary by the researcher.
Statistical analysis
The statistical comparison of the primary endpoint between the two groups will be carried out using Fisher’s non-parametric test.
Regarding the secondary endpoints:
-
1.
Survival will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve. Comparison of the curves will be statistically evaluated using the log-rank test.
-
2.
Concordance between cMR or cCR and pCR will be determined using Fisher's non-parametric test.
-
3.
Colostomy-free survival will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve. Comparison of the curves will be statistically evaluated using the log-rank test.
Data collection procedure
Data from each center will be collected in electronic case report forms (CRFs) using BOA (Beyond Ontology Awareness) software [47], which will automatically anonymize and transfer the data into a single cloud-based database. Subsequently, the aggregated data will be processed by the promoter center.
Planned timeline
0–3 months: project organization; 18–36 months: patient enrolment; 36–48 months: statistical analysis and publication of data about primary end-point;48–60 months: statistical analysis and publication of data on survival outcomes.
Ethics committee approval for ongoing research
The protocol has been written according to the principles of good clinical practice (GCP). This study is conducted in accordance with the most recent version of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the Italian laws and regulations. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of promoter center (ethics committee identifier code 1908). Approval by the respective ethics committee relevant to each site will be collected before opening new sites. Written informed consent, signed and personally dated is obtained from each patient before inclusion in the trial.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Footnotes
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2022.03.002.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following are the Supplementary data to this article:
References
- 1.Sauer R., Becker H., Hohenberger W., Rödel C., Wittekind C., Fietkau R., 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]
- 2.Kapiteijn E., Marijnen C.A.M., Nagtegaal I.D., Putter H., Steup W.H., Wiggers T., 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]
- 3.Bosset J.-F., Collette L., Calais G., Mineur L., Maingon P., Radosevic-Jelic L., 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]
- 4.Gérard J.-P., Conroy T., Bonnetain F., Bouché O., Chapet O., Closon-Dejardin M.-T., et al. Preoperative radiotherapy with or without concurrent fluorouracil and leucovorin in T3–4 rectal cancers: results of FFCD 9203. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4620–4625. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.7629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Valentini V., Gambacorta M.A., Cellini F., Aristei C., Coco C., Barbaro B., et al. The INTERACT Trial: Long-term results of a randomised trial on preoperative capecitabine-based radiochemotherapy intensified by concomitant boost or oxaliplatin, for cT2 (distal)-cT3 rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2019;134:110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Garcia-Aguilar J., Chow O.S., Smith D.D., Marcet J.E., Cataldo P.A., Varma M.G., et al. Effect of adding mFOLFOX6 after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):957–966. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00004-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Martin S.T., Heneghan H.M., Winter D.C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:918–928. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Capirci C., Valentini V., Cionini L., De Paoli A., Rodel C., Glynne-Jones R., et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term analysis of 566 ypCR patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(1):99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Maas M., Nelemans P.J., Valentini V., Das P., Rödel C., Kuo L.-J., et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(9):835–844. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70172-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Rödel C., Graeven U., Fietkau R., Hohenberger W., Hothorn T., Arnold D., 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]
- 11.Aschele C., Cionini L., Lonardi S., Pinto C., Cordio S., Rosati G., et al. Primary tumor response to preoperative chemoradiation with or without oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer: pathologic results of the STAR-01 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2773–2780. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.4911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gérard J.-P., Azria D., Gourgou-Bourgade S., Martel-Laffay I., Hennequin C., Etienne P.-L., et al. Comparison of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the phase III trial ACCORD 12/0405-Prodige 2. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(10):1638–1644. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Appelt A.L., Pløen J., Vogelius I.R., Bentzen S.M., Jakobsen A. Radiation dose-response model for locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.05.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Burbach J.P.M., den Harder A.M., Intven M., van Vulpen M., Verkooijen H.M., Reerink O. Impact of radiotherapy boost on pathological complete response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2014;113(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chiloiro G., Cusumano D., Boldrini L., Romano A., Placidi L., Nardini M., et al. THUNDER 2: THeragnostic utilities for neoplastic DisEases of the rectum by MRI guided radiotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1) doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09158-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Francois Y., Nemoz C.J., Baulieux J., Vignal J., Grandjean J.-P., Partensky C., et al. Influence of the interval between preoperative radiation therapy and surgery on downstaging and on the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: the Lyon R90–01 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(8):2396. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2396. 2396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Macchia G., Gambacorta M.A., Masciocchi C., Chiloiro G., Mantello G., di Benedetto M., et al. Time to surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer: a population study on 2094 patients. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2017;4:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2017.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.O'Connell M.J., Colangelo L.H., Beart R.W., Petrelli N.J., Allegra C.J., Sharif S., et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment of rectal cancer: surgical end points from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial R-04. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18):1927–1934. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.7753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schmoll H.-J., Stein A., Van Cutsem E., Price T., Hofheinz R.D., Nordlinger B., et al. Pre- and postoperative capecitabine without or with oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer: PETACC 6 Trial by EORTC GITCG and ROG, AIO, AGITG, BGDO, and FFCD. JCO. 2021;39(1):17–29. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Deng Y., Chi P., Lan P., Wang L., Chen W., Cui L., et al. Neoadjuvant modified FOLFOX6 with or without radiation versus fluorouracil plus radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: final results of the Chinese FOWARC trial. JCO. 2019;37(34):3223–3233. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kalady M.F., de Campos-Lobato L.F., Stocchi L., Geisler D.P., Dietz D., Lavery I.C., et al. Predictive factors of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):582–589. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b91e63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Moore H.G., Gittleman A.E., Minsky B.D., Wong D., Paty P.B., Weiser M., et al. Rate of pathologic complete response with increased interval between preoperative combined modality therapy and rectal cancer resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(3):279–286. doi: 10.1007/s10350-003-0062-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lefèvre J.H., Mineur L., Cachanado M., Denost Q., Rouanet P., de Chaisemartin C., et al. Does A longer waiting period after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy improve the oncological prognosis of rectal cancer?: three years’ follow-up results of the Greccar-6 randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2019;270(5):747–754. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gambacorta M.A., Masciocchi C., Chiloiro G., Meldolesi E., Macchia G., van Soest J., et al. Timing to achieve the highest rate of pCR after preoperative radiochemotherapy in rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 3085 patients from 7 randomized trials. Radiother Oncol. 2021;154:154–160. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Chiloiro G., Meldolesi E., Giraffa M., Capocchiano N.D., Barbaro B., Coco C., et al. Could the conservative approach be considered safe in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer in case of a clinical near-complete or complete response? A retrospective analysis. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021;28:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gérard J.-P., Chamorey E., Gourgou-Bourgade S., Benezery K., de Laroche G., Mahé M.-A., et al. Clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and conservative treatment in rectal cancer. Findings from the ACCORD 12/PRODIGE 2 randomized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115(2):246–252. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wang Q.-X., Zhang R., Xiao W.-W., Zhang S., Wei M.-B., Li Y.-H., et al. The watch-and-wait strategy versus surgical resection for rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1) doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01746-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Rullier E., Vendrely V., Asselineau J., Rouanet P., Tuech J.-J., Valverde A., et al. Organ preservation with chemoradiotherapy plus local excision for rectal cancer: 5-year results of the GRECCAR 2 randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(5):465–474. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30410-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lefevre J.H., Rousseau A., Svrcek M., Parc Y., Simon T., Tiret E. A multicentric randomized controlled trial on the impact of lengthening the interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery on complete pathological response in rectal cancer (GRECCAR-6 trial): rationale and design. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:417. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM - PubMed n.d. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20180029/ (accessed December 8, 2021). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 31.Maas M., Lambregts D.M.J., Nelemans P.J., Heijnen L.A., Martens M.H., Leijtens J.W.A., et al. Assessment of clinical complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI: selection for organ-saving treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3873–3880. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Beets-Tan R.G.H., Lambregts D.M.J., Maas M., Bipat S., Barbaro B., Curvo-Semedo L., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1465–1475. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hupkens B.J.P., Maas M., Martens M.H., van der Sande M.E., Lambregts D.M.J., Breukink S.O., et al. Organ preservation in rectal cancer after chemoradiation: should we extend the observation period in patients with a clinical near-complete response? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(1):197–203. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6213-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Valentini V., Gambacorta M.A., Barbaro B., Chiloiro G., Coco C., Das P., et al. International consensus guidelines on Clinical Target Volume delineation in rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120(2):195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.The International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Journal of the ICRU 2010;10:NP.2-NP. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndq001. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 36.ICRU Report 62, Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU 50) – ICRU n.d. https://www.icru.org/report/prescribing-recording-and-reporting-photon-beam-therapy-report-62/ (accessed December 8, 2021).
- 37.Marks L.B., Yorke E.D., Jackson A., Ten Haken R.K., Constine L.S., Eisbruch A., et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3):S10–S19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Mandard A.M., Dalibard F., Mandard J.C., Marnay J., Henry-Amar M., Petiot J.F., et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathol Correlations Cancer. 1994;73:2680–2686. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940601)73:11<2680::aid-cncr2820731105>3.0.co;2-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Washington M.K., Berlin J., Branton P., Burgart L.J., Carter D.K., Fitzgibbons P.L., et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(10):1539–1551. doi: 10.5858/133.10.1539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Dhadda A.S., Bessell E.M., Scholefield J., Dickinson P., Zaitoun A.M. Mandard tumour regression grade, perineural invasion, circumferential resection margin and post-chemoradiation nodal status strongly predict outcome in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014;26(4):197–202. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) n.d.:196.
- 42.Zotti P., Del Bianco P., Serpentini S., Trevisanut P., Barba M.C., Valentini V., et al. Validity and reliability of the MSKCC Bowel Function instrument in a sample of Italian rectal cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(7):589–596. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Altomare D.F., Rinaldi M., Giardiello G.G., Donelli A., Petrolino M., Villani R.D., et al. Italian translation and prospective validation of fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) index. Chir Ital. 2005;57:153–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Aaronson N.K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., Bullinger M., Cull A., Duez N.J., et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Whistance R.N., Conroy T., Chie W., Costantini A., Sezer O., Koller M., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(17):3017–3026. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sakpal T. Sample size estimation in clinical trial. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1:67. 67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Meldolesi E., van Soest J., Damiani A., Dekker A., Alitto A.R., Campitelli M., et al. Standardized data collection to build prediction models in oncology: a prototype for rectal cancer. Future Oncol. 2016;12(1):119–136. doi: 10.2217/fon.15.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.