scholarly journals Overall Survival Benefit in Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy and Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity-Matched Population-Based Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiju Chen ◽  
Shaowei Li ◽  
Yehong Wang ◽  
Zhiming Fu ◽  
Ning Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy ◽  
Log Rank Test

BackgroundIt is well known that neoadjuvant radiotherapy could reduce local recurrence followed by surgical resection. However, evidence about oncologic efficacy of radiotherapy and survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant radiotherapy is still lacking.MethodsThis retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study identified patients with pathologically confirmed rectal cancer and receiving surgery with curative intent from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2004 through 2014. Overall survival was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used for identifying risk factor and developing prediction nomogram.ResultsA total of 22,008 (11,004 for each group) propensity-matched patients were identified. In the context of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after surgical resection, there was no significant difference in terms of overall survival between surgery alone group and neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery group, whether for stage I (log-rank test p = 0.467), stage II (log-rank test p = 0.310), or stage III (p = 0.994). In case of receiving a prior combination therapy of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery, the following adjuvant chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival for patients with stage I (log-rank test p <0.001), stage II (log-rank test p = 0.038), and stage III (log-rank test p = 0.014). Nomogram integrating clinicopathologic factors was developed to predict survival benefit associated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Calibration and ROC curves validated promising performance for the nomogram.ConclusionPatients with rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy yield acceptable outcomes and are more likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of overall survival. These data would be evidential for advocating consistency in guideline adherence to the use of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant radiotherapy.

Nationwide incidence, treatment, and outcomes of patients 80 years and older with rectal adenocarcinomas: Analysis of 5,076 patients.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 723-723
Author(s):  
Richard John Cassidy ◽  
En Cheng ◽  
Jeffrey M. Switchenko ◽  
Renjian Jiang ◽  
Jaymin Jhaveri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Cancer Data

723 Background: Elderly patients have been underrepresented in randomized clinical trials of rectal cancer, and the value and tolerance of treatment options in this population remain unclear. We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to assess the incidence, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) outcomes of patients 80 years or older with newly diagnosed non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinomas. Methods: 5076 patients 80 years and older diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinomas from 2004 to 2013 were identified. Univariable and multivariable (MVA) analysis were performed to identify patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics associated with receipt of standard of care therapy (SOCT) and factors predictive of OS. SOCT was defined as surgical resection for Stage I patients and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection for Stage II/III patients. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess the effect of stage and treatment received on overall survival. Results: At presentation, 935 (18.5%) were TXN0, 1557 (30.8%) were Stage I, 1552 (30.6%) were Stage II, and 1,032 (20.1%) were Stage III. The rates of patients receiving no therapy were: 29.6% for TXN0, 22.6% for Stage I, 16.5% for Stage II, and 12.2% for Stage III. The rates of patients not receiving SOCT were: 22.6% for Stage I, 51.4% for Stage II and 39.4% for Stage III cases. Survival was significantly worse for patients not receiving standard of care therapy: Stage I (52.1% receiving SOCT vs. 7.6% not receiving SOCT; p < 0.01), Stage II (49.8% receiving SOCT vs. 14.5% not receiving SOCT; p < 0.01), and Stage III (47.5% receiving SOCT vs. 10.2% not receiving SOCT; p < 0.01). On MVA of patient, tumor, and treatment variables, receipt of SOCT was associated with improved OS for the entire cohort (p < 0.01) and when examined by stage (p < 0.01). Conclusions: In this nationwide sample of patient’s ≥ 80 years old with rectal cancer, there was a high rate of patients receiving no therapy. Those that did receive standard therapy achieved reasonable outcomes, suggesting avoidance of guideline care in this population should not be advised.

Survival Outcomes for Induction vs Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Maxillary Sinus

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe Kuo ◽  
Sina J. Torabi ◽  
Dennis Kraus ◽  
Benjamin L. Judson
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Maxillary Sinus ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Kaplan Meier

Objective In advanced maxillary sinus cancers treated with surgery and radiotherapy, poor local control rates and the potential for organ preservation have prompted interest in the use of systemic therapy. Our objective was to present outcomes for induction compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in the maxillary sinus. Study Design Secondary database analysis. Setting National Cancer Database (NCDB). Subjects and Methods In total, 218 cases of squamous cell maxillary sinus cancer treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy between 2004 and 2012 were identified from the NCDB and stratified into induction chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy cohorts. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analyses were compared by log-rank test, and multivariate Cox regression was performed to evaluate overall survival when adjusting for other prognostic factors. Propensity score matching was also used for further comparison. Results Twenty-three patients received induction chemotherapy (10.6%) and 195 adjuvant chemotherapy (89.4%). The log-rank test comparing induction to adjuvant chemotherapy was not significant ( P = .076). In multivariate Cox regression when adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidity, grade, insurance, and T/N stage, there was a significant mortality hazard ratio of 2.305 for adjuvant relative to induction chemotherapy (confidence interval, 1.076-4.937; P = .032). Conclusion Induction chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival in comparison to adjuvant chemotherapy in a relatively small cohort of patients (in whom treatment choice cannot be characterized), suggesting that this question warrants further investigation in a controlled clinical trial before any recommendations are made.

Benefit of fluorouracil and folinic acid adjuvant in colon cancer elderly patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13564-13564 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Lonardi ◽  
M. Stefani ◽  
A. Jirillo ◽  
C. Ghiotto ◽  
L. M. Pasetto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tnm Stage ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Unselected Population

13564 Background: Retrospective analyses on elderly people enrolled in clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer indicated the maintenance of the efficacy in that subset of patients (pts). However, data on the benefit of the routinely used adjuvant treatment in an unselected population of pts aged more than 65 years are few. Methods: All the charts of pts radically operated for colon cancer from 1996–2001 at Medical Oncology, Padua Hospital, were retrospectively analysed. 147 out of 330 pts consecutively treated with fluorouracil (FU)-based chemotherapy was aged 65 years or more at the time of diagnosis. Kaplan-Meyer progression-free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of stage II and III pts were calculated. Results: Pts characteristics were: males/females: 87/60, median age 71 (range 65–87), ECOG PS 0/1: 124/23, right/left colon primary tumor: 62/85, TNM stage: 24/63/60. 86 out of 147 pts were treated with the following regimen of adjuvant chemotherapy: FU 370 mg/mq + leucovorin (LV) 20 mg/mq day 1–5 q 28 for 6 cycles (Machover regimen, n=69), or FU 500 mg/mq + LV 250 mg/mq weekly × 6 q 56 for 4 cycles (Roswell Park regimen, n=17). Treated pts were staged as follows: TNM stage I/II/III: 1/38/47. No toxic death were observed and only nine of 86 pts (10.4%) stopped the treatment due to acute grade III gastrointestinal toxicity. At a median follow-up of 73.2 months, 19 out of 86 pts (22%) developed cancer recurrence (3-y PFS: 82.2%, 5-y PFS: 80.3%). Seventeen pts (19.7%) died, 13 (15.1%) due to tumor progression, 3 (3.4%) due to acute heart failure, and 1 (1.1%) due to chronic pulmonary disease (3-y OS: 88.8%, 5-y OS: 82.4%). No statistically significant difference in survival was observed comparing pts aged 65–70 (n=41) with pts more than 70 years old (n=45): 5-y OS 84.1% vs 77.8%, respectively (p=2.23, log rank test). A separate survival analysis on stage II pts was performed (n=63). 5 of 38 (13.1) treated pts dead, compared to 9 of 25 (36%) non treated pts; 5-y survival in the two groups were 86.6% and 60.8%, respectively (p= 0.03, log-rank test). Conclusions: The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy appears maintained in an unselected population of elderly pts. Surprisingly, our retrospective analysis suggest that even stage II pts may benefit of a fluorouracil-based well tolerated chemotherapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Effect of postoperative chemotherapy (CT) on survival in patients (pts) with resected rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14535-e14535
Author(s):  
Christina Sing-Ying Wu ◽  
Lai Wei ◽  
Katherine Glass ◽  
John Wilson ◽  
Sherif Abdel-Misih ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference

e14535 Background: Pts with stage II/III rectal cancers are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical resection followed by adjuvant CT per practice guidelines. It is unclear whether adjuvant CT provides survival benefit, and the purpose of this study was to measure outcome in pts who did and did not receive adjuvant CT. Methods: We used a prospectively collected database for pts treated at The Ohio State University and analyzed overall survival (OS), time to recurrence (TTR), pt characteristics, tumor features, and treatments. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Age was compared using the Wilcoxon test, and other categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: Between August, 2005 to July, 2011, 110 pts were identified and 71 pts had received adjuvant CT. There was no significant difference in sex, race, pathologic tumor (T) stage, and pathologic complete response between the two groups. Pts receiving adjuvant CT were significantly younger (median age 54.3 vs. 62 years, p=0.01) and had more advanced pathologic nodal (N) stage (43 vs. 19% N1 or N2, p=0.02). Median OS was 72.6 months with CT vs. 36.4 months without CT (p=0.0003). Median TTR has not yet been reached. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, adjuvant CT was associated with a longer OS despite more advanced pathologic nodal staging. Prospective randomized studies are warranted to determine whether adjuvant CT provides a survival benefit for pts across the spectrum of stage II and III rectal cancer. [Table: see text]

Survival differences in patients (pts) with resected rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy with or without postoperative chemotherapy (CT).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 518-518
Author(s):  
Christina Sing-Ying Wu ◽  
Lai Wei ◽  
Katherine Glass ◽  
John Wilson ◽  
Sherif Abdel-Misih ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference

518 Background: Pts with stage II/III rectal cancers are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical resection followed by adjuvant CT per practice guidelines. It is unclear whether adjuvant CT provides survival benefit, and the purpose of this study was to measure outcome in pts who did and did not receive adjuvant CT. Methods: We used a prospectively collected database for pts treated at The Ohio State University, and analyzed overall survival (OS), time to recurrence (TTR), pt characteristics, tumor features, and treatments. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Age was compared using the Wilcoxon test, and other categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: Between August 2005 to July 2011, 110 pts were identified and 71 pts had received adjuvant CT. There was no significant difference in sex, race, pathologic tumor (T) stage, and pathologic complete response between the two pt groups. Pts receiving adjuvant CT were significantly younger (median age 54.3 vs. 62 years, p=0.01) and had more advanced pathologic nodal (N) stage (43 vs. 19%, p=0.02). Median OS was 72.6 months with CT vs. 36.4 months without CT (p=0.0003). Median TTR has not yet been reached. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, adjuvant CT was associated with a longer OS despite more advanced pathologic nodal staging. Prospective randomized studies are warranted to determine whether adjuvant CT provides a survival benefit for pts across the spectrum of stage II and III rectal cancer. [Table: see text]

Subset of patients with unfavorable T1N2-3M0 gastric cancer for whom surgery alone is the standard treatment.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 105-105
Author(s):  
Yukio Maezawa ◽  
Tsutomu Sato ◽  
Toru Aoyama ◽  
Kazuki Kano ◽  
Kenki Segami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tumor Diameter ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Macroscopic Tumor

105 Background: ACTS-GC trial demonstrated that S-1 is effective as adjuvant chemotherapy for Japanese patients who have undergone curative D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer and were diagnosed with pathological stage II disease. However, stages T1N2M0 and T1N3M0, which are classified as part of Stage II, were excluded from the ACTS-GC trial. The aim of the present study was to identify the unfavorable subset of patients with T1N2M0 and T1N3M0 gastric cancer for whom surgery alone is the standard treatment. Methods: The present study examined 59 patients who were diagnosed with T1N2M0 or T1N3M0 gastric cancer at Kanagawa Cancer Center and Yokohama City University Hospital between January 2000 and June 2010. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for overall survival using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: When overall survival was compared by the log-rank test, a significant difference was observed with regard to macroscopic tumor diameter. A macroscopic tumor diameter greater than 30mm was regarded as a critical point of classification considering the survival. Mulitivariate Cox’s proportional hazard analyses demonstrated that macroscopic tumor diameter was the only significant independent prognosticator. The five-year survival was 60.0% in patients with a macroscopic tumor diameter < 30mm, and 84.6% in those with a macroscopic tumor diameter > 30mm (P = 0.027). Conclusions: Among T1N2M0 and T1N3M0 gastric cancer patients for whom surgery alone is the standard treatment, having a small T1N2-3 tumor of less than 30 mm in diameter was the sole risk factor for gastric cancer survival. These tumors might be another target for adjuvant chemotherapy.

scholarly journals Adjuvant treatment for patients with FIGO stage I uterine serous carcinoma confined to the endometrium

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1089-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Nasioudis ◽  
Allison Grace Roy ◽  
Emily M Ko ◽  
Lori Cory ◽  
Robert L Giuntoli II ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Myometrial Invasion ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Survival Difference ◽  
Uterine Serous Carcinoma ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesThe role of adjuvant treatment for early-stage uterine serous carcinoma is not defined. The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of adjuvant treatment on survival of patients with tumors confined to the endometrium.MethodsPatients diagnosed with stage I uterine serous carcinoma with no myometrial invasion between January 2004 and December 2015 who underwent hysterectomy with at least 10 lymph nodes removed were identified from the National Cancer Database. Adjuvant treatment patterns defined as receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy within 6 months from surgery were investigated and overall survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves, and compared with the log-rank test for patients with at least one month of follow-up. A Cox analysis was performed to control for confounders.ResultsA total of 1709 patients were identified; 833 (48.7%) did not receive adjuvant treatment, 348 (20.4%) received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 353 (20.7%) received chemotherapy only, and 175 (10.2%) received radiotherapy only. Five-year overall survival rates for patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (n=736) was 81.9%, compared with 91.3% for those who had chemoradiation (n=293), 85.1% for those who received radiotherapy only (n=143), and 91.0% for those who received chemotherapy only (n=298) (p<0.001). After controlling for age, insurance status, type of treatment facility, tumor size, co-morbidities, and history of another tumor, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42, 0.96), or chemoradiation (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0.88) had better survival compared with those who did not receive any adjuvant treatment, while there was no benefit from radiotherapy alone (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53, 1.37). There was no survival difference between chemoradiation and chemotherapy only (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65, 2.01).ConclusionAdjuvant chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) is associated with a survival benefit for uterine serous carcinoma confined to the endometrium.

Patterns of adjuvant therapy use and survival outcomes in patients with rectal cancer not receiving neoadjuvant therapy in an Australian cohort.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 675-675
Author(s):  
Kate Jessica Wilkinson ◽  
Sharlyn Kang ◽  
Stephanie Hui-Su Lim ◽  
Cheok Soon Lee ◽  
Ray Asghari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Real World ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

675 Background: Consensus international guidelines recommend the use of neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in patients with stage II-III rectal cancer. Despite this, due to factors including inaccurate/under-staging, patient co-morbidities and acute presentations, a proportion will undergo up-front surgical resection. The survival benefit of adjuvant therapy is unclear in this real world, non-trial population. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma in South Western Sydney and Illawarra Shoalhaven Health Districts, Australia, between 2006 to 2015 was performed. Data was extracted from electronic health records, with institutional ethics approval. Treatment modalities, clinicopathological, recurrence and survival data were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) by treatment modality. Results: 549 patients were identified, of which 295 (54%) underwent up-front surgical resection without neoadjuvant therapy. Of this cohort, 137 (46%) had no adjuvant therapy (Group A), 103 (35%) had adjuvant chemotherapy alone (Group B), and 55 (19%) had adjuvant radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy (Group C). Receipt of any adjuvant treatment was significantly associated with improved OS (5 year OS 56 vs. 79%, HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.3 – 0.6, p < 0.0001) and recurrence free survival (5 yr RFS 25% vs. 47%, HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.5 – 0.9, p=0.01), but not cancer specific survival (5yr CSS 75 vs. 80%, HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.5 – 1.3, p = 0.30). Group B had improved OS compared to Group A (5 yr OS 56% vs. 80%, HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 – 0.55, p < 0.0001). There was a trend to improved OS in Group C vs. Group A (5yr OS 56.0% vs. 69.2%, HR 0.79 95% CI 0.6 – 1.01, p = 0.052). The improved OS in Group B versus Group A remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 – 0.77, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS in this real world cohort, and there was a trend to a benefit with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. However, the lack of difference in cancer specific survival suggests that this benefit may be partly driven by patient selection bias. Further exploratory analyses to identify sub-groups deriving a cancer specific survival benefit are required.

scholarly journals The Survival Effect of Radiotherapy on Stage II/III Rectal Cancer in Different Age Groups: Formulating Radiotherapy Decision-Making Based on Age

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuqiang Li ◽  
Heli Liu ◽  
Yuan Zhou ◽  
Zhongyi Zhou ◽  
Wenxue Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Cells ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy ◽  
Survival Effect

IntroductionTotal mesorectal excision (TME), chemotherapy (CT), and radiotherapy (RT) are usually integrated into the comprehensive treatment of stage II/III rectal cancer (RC). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) has become the standard treatment for stage II/III RC patients to help reduce the size of a tumor or kill cancer cells that have spread. Adjuvant RT is delivered after the resection to destroy remaining cancer cells and used mainly in stage II/III RC patients who have not received preoperative radiotherapy, such as those who suffered from a bowel obstruction before surgery. It is controversial whether radiotherapy can improve the survival of stage II/III RC patients. An increasing number of studies have reported that rectal cancer exhibited mismatched biology, epidemiology, and therapeutic response to current treatment strategy in different age groups. It is necessary to investigate whether radiotherapy exhibits disparate effects in different age groups of patients with stage II/III RC.MethodsData from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program was extracted to identify stage II/III RC diagnosed in the periods of 2004–2016. The statistical methods included Pearson’s chi-square test, log-rank test, Cox regression model, and propensity score matching.ResultsNeoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) cannot improve the prognosis, and postoperative RT may even reduce the survival time for early onset stage II/III RC. Postoperative RT was not able to improve the overall survival (OS), while nRT may provide limited survival improvement for middle-aged stage II/III RC patients. In addition, radiotherapy can significantly improve the prognosis for elderly stage II/III RC.ConclusionsThis study indicated the inconsistent survival effect of radiotherapy on stage II/III rectal cancer patients in different age groups. Hence, we formulated a novel flow chart of radiotherapy decision-making based on age in stage II/III RC patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document