scholarly journals Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Necessary Paradigm Change at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 687-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Romesser ◽  
Abraham J. Wu ◽  
Andrea Cercek ◽  
J. Joshua Smith ◽  
Martin Weiser ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Rohit Kumar ◽  
Shruti Bhandari ◽  
Phuong Ngo ◽  
Sunny R K Singh ◽  
Sindhu Janarthanam Malapati ◽  
...  

81 Background: With cancer care changing at a rapid pace, patients are becoming increasingly involved with their management and oftentimes migrating to a different facility to seek better care. Our study evaluated the characteristics of such patients who were initially diagnosed at a community cancer center (CCC) and how this affects clinical outcomes. Methods: The National Cancer Database identified 11,977 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer initially diagnosed at a CCC between 2005 and 2015. Clinical characteristics and outcomes between patients who received all of their treatments at the CCC versus those who received part or all of their treatments elsewhere were compared using rank-sum and X2 tests where appropriate. Cox model was used for survival analysis. Results: Of the total population, 51% were stage II and 49% were stage III. Gender and ethnic distributions were similar between the groups. Approximately 44 % of patients received all their treatment at the CCC and 56% had part or all of their care elsewhere. Patients who migrated were younger (63 vs 65 years, p<0.001) and had govt insurance (43.5 vs 35.8%, p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, age <65 years (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.24), govt insurance (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.29), Charlson/Deyo comorbid score <2 (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11-1.49), higher income (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.16-1.27) and Stage III (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.24) were associated with higher probability of migration. The treatment characteristics and outcomes are shown in Table. The 5y-OS rate was better in patients who received part or all of their treatment at other institutions (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86, p<0.001). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to provide direction for future strategies to reduce the apparent survival disparities in patients who migrate from CCC. [Table: see text]


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 683-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopi Kesaria Prithviraj ◽  
Kun Jiang ◽  
Xiuhua Zhao ◽  
Dung-Tsa Chen ◽  
Tiffany Campos ◽  
...  

683 Background: The standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (T3, T4, or N1) is preoperative treatment with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Sorafenib works synergistically with radiation (RT), and inhibits ras/raf, PDFGR and VEGFR. This phase I study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib with infusional 5-FU and RT in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: Patients with confirmed stage II or III rectal cancer were recruited in 4 cohorts of 3 patients per dose level (DL), with an expansion cohort at the MTD. A 3+3 dose escalation design was used. RT was given in 25 fractions at 1.8Gy (45 Gy) day 1-5 at all dose levels. 6-10 weeks following neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent surgery. Results: 17 patients were enrolled at Moffitt Cancer Center, including 10 females and 7 maleswith a median age of 54years (range: 31-72).After observing toxicity in the first cohort (2 patients with G2 and G3 skin toxicity and 1 patient with G2 mucositis) requiring dose interruptions, an amendment was made to change the schedule of chemotherapy and sorafenib to days 1-5 instead of daily.Following this, the primary G3 toxicity was hypertension, in 2 patients at 200 mg adjusted DL (day 1-5) and 1 patient at the 400 mg PO BID DL. 1 patient had G3 ALT elevation at the 400 mg PO BID DL, and no grade IV toxicities were observed. G1 and G2 toxicities included diarrhea, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, proctitis, and thrombocytopenia. No perioperative complications were seen. One patient is awaiting surgery. Due to patient refusal, 2 patients did not undergo surgery.The pCR rate was 35.7% and downstaging was observed in 85.7% of patients.KRAS status was available for 12 patients. The pCR was 40% in those with KRASmutant tumors (2/5 pts). Median NAR (neoadjuvant rectal cancer) score was 8.4. Conclusions: This regimen was very well tolerated after changing the dosing schedule. The pCR and downstaging rate is encouraging, and supports further clinical investigation of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT01376453. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document