Search

Background: Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and patient groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation, improve quality of life for patients and improve survival outcomes., Methods: In this NCI-sponsored multi-group randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N +) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N + vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 3-4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Patients will undergo assessment 8-12 (± 4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 evaluable patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between treatment arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse event rates. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, plasma and buffy coat, and serial rectal MRIs will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and had accrued 330 patients as of May 2024. Study support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ., Discussion: Building on data from modern day rectal cancer trials and patient input from national advocacy groups, we have designed The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial studying chemotherapy intensification via a consolidation chemotherapy approach with the intent to enhance cCR and DFS rates, increase organ preservation rates, and improve quality of life for patients with rectal cancer., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163; Support includes U10CA180868 (NRG) and U10CA180888 (SWOG)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Abstract: Recently, organ preservation with total neoadjuvant therapy resulted in substantial progress in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The PROSPECT trial showed noninferiority of de-escalation of radiotherapy for patients with low-risk LARC who do not need abdominoperineal resection. Although these escalation and de-escalation approaches offer more personalized therapeutic approaches, the current state of care for patients with rectal cancer is far from individualized management. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is known to be one of the most powerful prognostic factors for early relapse and has been investigated in several interventional clinical trials to offer more precise treatment algorithms. In this review article, we discuss recent updates from studies examining the role of ctDNA for the prediction of treatment response and recurrence for patients with rectal cancer. We also elaborate on the future potential use of ctDNA in treatment escalation and de-escalation approaches for more personalized therapeutic interventions., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: I.H.S. received advisory board fees in Seattle Genetics, GSK, Guardant Health, and Lumanity and research grants from BAYER and GSK. A.N.D received grants or contracts from HUTCHMED, Guardant Health, Natera, AAA/Novartis, Eisai, and Crinetics and payment or honoraria from HUTCHMED, Personalis, AAA/Novartis, Crinetics, and Voluntis. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite therapeutic advancements, disease-free survival and overall survival of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer have not improved in most trials as a result of distant metastases. For treatment decision-making, both long-term oncologic outcomes and impact on quality-of-life indices should be considered (for example, bowel function). Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), comprised of chemotherapy and radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, is now a standard treatment approach in patients with features of high-risk disease to prevent local recurrence and distant metastases. In selected patients who have a clinical complete response, subsequent surgery might be avoided through non-operative management, but patients who do not respond to TNT have a poor prognosis. Refined molecular characterization might help to predict which patients would benefit from TNT and non-operative management. Specifically, integrated analysis of spatiotemporal multi-omics using artificial intelligence and machine learning is promising. Three prospective trials of TNT and non-operative management in Japan, the USA and Germany are collaborating to better understand drivers of response to TNT. Here, we address the future direction for TNT., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer., Methods: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting., Findings: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group)., Interpretation: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population., Funding: HUTCHMED., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AD reports support for the present manuscript from HUTCHMED; grants or contracts from HUTCHMED, Guardant Health, Natera, AAA/Novartis, Eisai, and Crinetics; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from HUTCHMED, Personalis, AAA/Novartis, Crinetics, and Voluntis. SL reports support for the present manuscript from HUTCHMED; grants or contracts from Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting or advisory fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, and MSD; and speakers' bureau fees from Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and MSD. RG-C reports support for the present manuscript to their institution from HUTCHMED; grants for investigator-initiated clinical trials from Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD; consulting fees from AAA/Novartis, Advanz Pharma, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boerhringer Ingelheim, Esteve, HUTCHMED, Ipsen, Merck, Midatech Pharma, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Servier; and support for attending meetings or travel from AAA/Novartis, Esteve, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. EE reports grants or contracts to their institution from Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, HUTCHMED, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, and Taiho Pharma USA; consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Bayer, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Servier; support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Amgen, Bayer, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Servier; and a paid or unpaid leadership or fiduciary role with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica. TY reports grants or contracts to their institution from Ono Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, PAREXEL International, Pfizer Japan, Taiho Pharmaceutical, MSD, Amgen, Genomedia, Sysmex Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly Japan, Merck Biopharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Ono Pharmaceutical, and MSD. ASo reports consulting fees and attending meetings or travel support from HUTCHMED; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Servier, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, HUTCHMED, MSD, and Servier. JY reports support for the present manuscript and consulting fees from HUTCHMED, Ipsen, Crinetics, Amgen, Chiasma, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Novartis. PG-A reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; and support for attending meetings or travel from and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Amgen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. AS-B reports lecture or educational event fees from Amgen, Bayer, Guardant Health, Merck, Sanofi, and Servier; and advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, and Servier. TS reports grants or contracts from Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Yakult Honsha; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. VR reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Servier, and Pierre Fabre; and meetings or travel support from Merck, Bayer, Amgen, Vifor Pharma, and Accord Healthcare. JTo reports consulting fees and honoraria for lectures and presentations from Eisai, Roche, Merck, Servier, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, and Bristol Myers Squibb. GC reports consulting fees to their institution from and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel from HUTCHMED; and research funding to their institution from HUTCHMED, Servier, Bayer, Isofol, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Morphosys, and Incyte. ASP reports support for the present manuscript to the institution from HUTCHMED; grants or contracts for clinical trials to their institution from Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, HUTCHMED, Taiho, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Deciphers, G1 Therapeutics, Zentalkis, Tempus, Camurus, Relay Therapeutics, Nucana, Merck, Bayer, Sotio, and Innovations Cellular Therapeutics; educational event fees from Ideo Oncology, and MJH Life Sciences; travel support from Pfizer; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, AAA, Exelixis, Pfizer, QED, Lilly, Mirati, HUTCHMED, Astellas, Incyte, AADi, Stromatis, EMD, and Serono; holding stock or stock options in Aptose, Actinium, and Alexion; and payment for medical writing services from Bayer, Ipsen, HUTCHMED, and Exelixis. TM reports grants or contracts to the institution from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono, Novartis, Amgen, Syneos Health Clinical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Cimic Shift Zero, and Eli Lilly; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Chugai, Merck Bio Pharma, Taiho, Bayer, Lilly Japan, Yakult Honsha, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono, and Bristol Myers Squibb. CC reports consulting fees from Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Amgen, and Nordic Pharma; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Roche, Servier, MSD, Merck, and Pierre Fabre; payment for expert testimony from Bayer, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Amgen and Mirati. FG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events to their institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, and MSD; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD. ASh reports grants or contracts to their institution from HUTCHMED, Merck, INHIBRx, Verastem Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Gritstone, Bolt Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Astellas, Oncologie, Macogenics, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Jacobio; advisory board fees from Regeneron/Sanofi, Pfizer, and Catalyst Pharmaceuticals; and speaker fees from OncLive, OSCO/ASCO Direct, ACPMP, Cholangiocarcinoma Summit, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and ASCO Advantage. HSH reports consulting fees from Merck, Processa, and TRIGR; lecture fees from Natera; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Genentech and Seattle Genetics. JKr reports support for the present manuscript to their institution from Syneos Health/HUTCHMED; grants or contracts to their institution from Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Isofol Medical, Novartis, Tempest Therapeutics, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, AbbVie, MedImmune, Icon, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for Amgen (Codebreak 300 trial, NCT05198934). MD reports support for the present manuscript from HUTCHMED; research grants from Roche, Keocyt, and Bayer; advisory board consulting fees from Boehringer, Roche, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Rafael, Bayer, Agenus, Terumo, Pierre Fabre, and Servier; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Merck Serono, Bayer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Roche, Merck Serono, and MSD; support for attending meetings from Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Roche and Pancan; and a personal conflict of interest with Sandoz. AE reports payments for advisory boards from Amgen, Merck, and Ewopharma; and lectures or educational events from Amgen, Merck, Ipsen, and Ewopharma. SK reports personal and institutional grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and Roche; consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Servier, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, MSD, and Pierre Fabre; consulting fees from Novartis and Incyte; support for attending meetings or travel from Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merch Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis. EVC reports grants or contracts to their institution from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Servier; and consulting fees from AbbVie, ALX, Array, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Takeda, Terumo, Taiho, and Zymeworks. DA reports support for the present manuscript from his institution; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex, and Terumo; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex, Terumo, and CME providers Art Tempi, PriME Oncology, Medscape, and TRM Oncology; congress travel support from AstraZeneca; remunerated advisory board fees from Sanofi; non-remunerated advisory board fees from Oncolytics; and a paid or unpaid role with the European Society for Medical Oncology, European Organisation for Research in Treatment of Cancer, and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie of the German Cancer Society. SN, ZY, WRS, and MK report employment and holding stock or stock options with HUTCHMED. JTa reports consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, HUTCHMED, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc; educational collaboration fees from Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, and PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource; and holding stock or stock options in Oniria Therapeutics. CE reports support for the present manuscript from HUTCHMED; grants or contracts from Elevar, Merck, Pfizer, and Gritstone; and consulting fees from Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Halio Dx, and Boston Scientific. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastases are an important cause of preventable local failure in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes following magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed surgical selection for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT)., Methods: A retrospective consecutive cohort analysis was performed of rectal cancer patients with enlarged LPLN on pretreatment MRI. Patients were categorized as LPLND or non-LPLND. The main outcomes were lateral local recurrence rate, perioperative and oncological outcomes and factors associated with decision making for LPLND., Results: A total of 158 patients with enlarged pretreatment LPLN and treated with TNT were identified. Median follow-up was 20 months (interquartile range 10-32). After multidisciplinary review, 88 patients (56.0%) underwent LPLND. Mean age was 53 (SD±12) years, and 54 (34.2%) were female. Total operative time (509 vs 429 minutes; P =0.003) was greater in the LPLND group, but median blood loss ( P =0.70) or rates of major morbidity (19.3% vs 17.0%) did not differ. LPLNs were pathologically positive in 34.1%. The 3-year lateral local recurrence rates (3.4% vs 4.6%; P =0.85) did not differ between groups. Patients with LPLNs demonstrating pretreatment heterogeneity and irregular margin (odds ratio, 3.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.65-8.82) or with short-axis ≥5 mm post-TNT (odds ratio 2.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-6.08) were more likely to undergo LPLND., Conclusions: For rectal cancer patients with evidence of LPLN metastasis, the appropriate selection of patients for LPLND can be facilitated by a multidisciplinary MRI-directed approach with no significant difference in perioperative or oncologic outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Identification of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) following curative intent therapies is a surrogate for microscopic residual disease for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Preclinically, in micrometastatic microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC, increased TGF-β signaling results in exclusion of anti-tumor cytotoxic T cells from the tumor microenvironment. Bintrafusp alfa (BA) is a bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the TGF-βRII receptor ("TGF-β trap") and anti-PD-L1 antibody., Methods: Patients with liver-limited, MSS mCRC and with detected ctDNA after complete resection of all known tumors and standard-of-care therapy were treated with 1200 mg of BA intravenously every 14 days for six doses. The primary endpoint was ctDNA clearance. Radiographic characteristics at recurrence were compared using independent t-tests to historical data from a similar cohort of patients with liver-limited mCRC who underwent observation., Results: Only 4 of 15 planned patients received BA before the study was stopped early for loss of equipoise. There was no grade ≥3 AE. None of the patients cleared ctDNA. All patients developed radiographic recurrence by the first planned restaging. Although not detectable at prior to treatment, TGFβ3 was found in circulation in all patients at cycle 2 day 1. Compared to a historical cohort, patients administered BA developed more metastases (15 versus 2, p=0.005) and greater tumor volumes (9 cm vs 2 cm, p=0.05)., Conclusions: Treatment with BA in patients with ctDNA-detected, liver-limited mCRC did not clear ctDNA and was associated with large-volume recurrence, highlighting the potential context-specific complexity of dual TGF-β and PD-L1 inhibition.

Introduction: Rectal neuroendocrine carcinomas (rNECs) are poorly characterized and, given their aggressive nature, optimal management is not well-established. We therefore sought to describe clinicopathologic traits, treatment details, and survival patterns for patients with rNECs., Methods: Patients captured in the National Cancer Database (NCDB; 2004-2016) with rNECs managed with observation, chemotherapy, or proctectomy ± chemotherapy were considered for analysis., Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 777 patients. Mean age was 62.4 years, 45% were male, 80% were Caucasian, 40% presented with lymph nodes metastases, and 49% presented with distant metastases. Chemotherapy and surgical resection were administered in 72 and 19% of cases, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 0.83 years (1 year, 41%; 3 years, 13%; 5 years, 10%). During the study interval, 659 (85%) patients died, with a median follow-up of 0.79 years. On multivariable analysis, age ≥60 years, male sex, and distant metastases were associated with worse survival; surgical resection and administration of chemotherapy were associated with a reduced risk of death. Among non-metastatic patients treated with surgical resection, administration of chemotherapy was protective, while a positive lymph node ratio (LNR) ≥42% (median value) was associated with an increased risk of death. There was no difference in the number of examined lymph nodes between LNR cohorts., Conclusions: Patients with rNECs experience dismal survival outcomes, including those with non-metastatic disease treated with curative-intent surgical resection. Neoadjuvant therapy can serve as a useful biologic test, and surgical resection should be judiciously employed., (© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Purpose: There has been an increase in the incidence of rectal cancer diagnosed in young adults (age < 50 years). We evaluated outcomes among young adults treated with pre-operative long course chemoradiation (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME)., Methods: The medical records of 219 patients, age 18-49, with non-metastatic, cT3-4, or cN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma treated from 2000 to 2017 were reviewed for demographic and treatment characteristics, as well as pathologic and oncologic outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier test, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate survival outcomes., Results: The median age at diagnosis was 44 years. CRT followed by TME and post-operative chemotherapy was the most frequent treatment sequence (n = 196), with FOLFOX (n = 115) as the predominant adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no difference in sex, stage, MSS/pMMR, or pCR by age (< 45 years [n = 111] vs. ≥ 45 years [n = 108]). The 5-year rates of DFS were 77.2% for all patients, 69.8% for age < 45 years and 84.7% for age ≥ 45 years (P = .01). The 5-year rates of OS were 89.6% for all patients, 85.1% for patients with age < 45 years and 94.3% for patients with age ≥ 45 years (P = .03). Age ≥ 45 years was associated with a lower risk of disease recurrence or death on multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, P = .04)., Conclusion: Among young adults, patients with age < 45 years had lower rates of DFS and OS, compared to those with age ≥ 45 years. These outcomes could serve as a benchmark by which to evaluate newer treatment approaches., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

An increasing number of studies are describing potential uses of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. Owing to this rapidly developing area of research, the Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces of the United States National Cancer Institute convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to summarize current data on the utility of ctDNA in the management of colorectal cancer and to provide guidance in promoting the efficient development and integration of this technology into clinical care. The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments. The panel also provides general guidelines with relevance for ctDNA-related research efforts, irrespective of indication.

Background: Despite the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, lateral pelvic lymph node recurrence is still an important problem., Objective: This study aimed to determine the indication for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in post neoadjuvant chemoradiation rectal cancer., Design: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected institutional database., Settings: This study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center from January 2006 through December 2017., Patients: Patients who had rectal cancer with suspected lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis, who underwent total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, were included., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measured was pathologic lateral pelvic lymph node positivity., Interventions: The associations between lateral pelvic lymph node size on post-neoadjuvant chemoradiation imaging and pathologic lateral pelvic lymph node positivity and recurrence outcomes were evaluated., Results: A total of 64 patients were analyzed. The mean lateral pelvic lymph node size before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation was 12.6 ± 9.5 mm and 8.5 ± 5.4 mm. The minimum size of positive lateral pelvic lymph node was 5 mm on post neoadjuvant chemoradiation imaging. Among 13 (20.3%) patients who had a <5 mm lateral pelvic lymph node after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, none were pathologically positive. Among 51 (79.7%) patients who had a ≥5 mm lateral pelvic lymph node after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, 33 patients (64.7%) were pathologically positive. Five-year overall survival and disease-specific survival were higher in the histologic lateral pelvic lymph node negative group than in the lateral pelvic lymph node positive group (overall survival 79.6% vs 61.8%, p = 0.122; disease-specific survival 84.5% vs 66.2%, p= 0.088). After a median 39 months of follow-up, there were no patients in the <5 mm group who died of cancer. There were no lateral compartment recurrences in the entire cohort., Limitations: Being a single-center retrospective study may limit generalizability., Conclusions: Post-neoadjuvant chemoradiation lateral pelvic lymph node size ≥5 mm was strongly associated with pathologic positivity. No patients with size <5 mm had pathologically positive lymph nodes. Following lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, no patients with a positive lateral pelvic lymph node developed lateral compartment recurrence. Therefore, patients who have rectal cancer with clinical evidence of lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis and post-neoadjuvant chemoradiation lateral pelvic lymph node size ≥5 mm should be considered for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B3. ¿QUIéN DEBE RECIBIR LINFADENECTOMíA PéLVICA LATERAL DESPUéS DE LA QUIMIORRADIACIóN NEOADYUVANTE?: A pesar del uso de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante y la escisión total de mesorectao para el cáncer de recto, la recurrencia en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales sigue siendo un problema importante., Objetivo: Determinar la indicación para la disección de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en el cáncer rectal post quimiorradiación neoadyuvante. DISEÑO:: Análisis retrospectivo de la base de datos institucional prospectivamente recopilada., Escenario: Centro de cáncer de atención terciaria, de enero de 2006 hasta diciembre de 2017., Pacientes: Pacientes con cáncer de recto con sospecha de metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales, que se sometieron a escisión total mesorectal con disección de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales., Principales Medidas De Resultados: Positividad de ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en histopatología., Intervenciones: Se evaluaron las asociaciones entre el tamaño de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en imagenología postquimiorradiación neoadyuvante y la positividad y recurrencia en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en histopatología., Resultados: Se analizaron un total de 64 pacientes. La media del tamaño de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales antes y después de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante fue de 12.6 ± 9.5 mm y 8.5 ± 5.4 mm, respectivamente. El tamaño mínimo de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales positivos fue de 5 mm en las imágenes postquimiorradiación neoadyuvante. Entre 13 (20.3%) pacientes que tenían <5 mm de ganglio linfático lateral pélvico después de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante; ninguno fue positivo en histopatología. Entre 51 (79.7%) pacientes con ganglio linfático pélvico lateral ≥ 5 mm después de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante; 33 pacientes (64.7%) fueron positivos en histopatología. La supervivencia general a 5 años y la supervivencia específica de la enfermedad fueron mayores en el grupo histológico de ganglio linfático pélvico lateral negativo que en el grupo de ganglio linfático pélvico lateral positivo (Supervivencia general 79.6% vs 61.8%, p = 0.122; Supervivencia específica de la enfermedad 84.5% vs 66.2%, p = 0.088). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 39 meses, no hubo pacientes en el grupo de <5 mm que hayan fallecido por cáncer. No hubo recurrencias en el compartimento lateral en toda la cohorte., Limitaciones: Al ser un estudio retrospectivo en un solo centro puede limitar la generalización., Conclusiones: El tamaño de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales postquimiorradiación neoadyuvante ≥ 5 mm se asoció fuertemente con la positividad histopatológica. Ningún paciente con tamaño <5 mm tuvo ganglios linfáticos histopatológicamente positivos. Después de la disección de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales, ningún paciente con ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales positivos desarrolló recurrencia del compartimiento lateral. Por lo tanto, los pacientes con cáncer rectal con evidencia clínica de metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales y tamaño de ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales postquimiorradiación neoadyuvante ≥ 5 mm deben considerarse para disección de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en el momento de la escisión total de mesorrecto. Vea el Abstract en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B3.