Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): a randomized, multicenter, phase II trial SAKK 41/07.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, phase II, multicenter study to evaluate the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAb panitumumab (P) in combination with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with standard-dose capecitabine as neoadjuvant treatment for wild-type KRAS locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with wild-type KRAS, T3-4 and/or N+ LARC were randomly assigned to receive CRT with or without P (6 mg/kg). The primary end-point was pathological near-complete or complete tumor response (pNC/CR), defined as grade 3 (pNCR) or 4 (pCR) histological regression by Dworak classification (DC). RESULTS: Forty of 68 patients were randomly assigned to P + CRT and 28 to CRT. pNC/CR was achieved in 21 patients (53%) treated with P + CRT [95% confidence interval (CI) 36%-69%] versus 9 patients (32%) treated with CRT alone (95% CI: 16%-52%). pCR was achieved in 4 (10%) and 5 (18%) patients, and pNCR in 17 (43%) and 4 (14%) patients. In immunohistochemical analysis, most DC 3 cells were not apoptotic. The most common grade ≥3 toxic effects in the P + CRT/CRT arm were diarrhea (10%/6%) and anastomotic leakage (15%/4%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab to neoadjuvant CRT in patients with KRAS wild-type LARC resulted in a high pNC/CR rate, mostly grade 3 DC. The results of both treatment arms exceeded prespecified thresholds. The addition of panitumumab increased toxicity.

Prospective analysis of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations and EGFR copy number in patients (pts) with locally advanced rectal cancer: A translational substudy of a clinical trial (SAKK 41/07) evaluating the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) with or without panitumumab

Background: Prognostic and predictive markers are of great importance for future study designs and essential for the interpretation of clinical trials incorporating an EGFR-inhibitor. The current study prospectively assessed and validated KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in rectal cancer patients screened for the trial SAKK41/07 of concomitant preoperative radio-chemotherapy with or without panitumumab.Methods: Macrodissection was performed on pretreatment formalin fixed paraffin embedded biopsy tissue sections to arrive at a minimum of 50% of tumor cells. DNA was extracted with the Maxwell 16 FFPE Tissue LEV DNA purification kit. After PCR amplification, mutations were identified by pyrosequencing. We prospectively analysed pretreatment biopsy material from 149 rectal cancer pts biopsies for KRAS (exon 2 codon 12 [2-12] and 13 [2-13], exon 3 codon 59 [3-59]) and 61 [3-61], exon 4 codon 117 [4-117] and 146 [4-146]). Sixty-eight pts (KRASwt exon 2, 3 only) were further analysed for BRAF (exon 15 codon 600) and PIK3CA (exon 9 codon 542, 545 and 546, exon 20 codon 1043 [20-1043] and 1047 [20-1047]) mutations, and EGFR copy number by qPCR. For the calculation of the EGFR copy number, we used KRAS copy number as internal reference standard. The calculation was done on the basis of the two standard curves relative quantification method.Results: In 149 screened pts with rectal cancer, the prevalence of KRAS mutations was 36%. Among the 68 pts enrolled in SAKK 41/07 based on initially presumed KRASwt status (exon 2/codons 12+13), 18 pts (26%) had a total of 23 mutations in the RAS/PIK3CA-pathways upon validation analysis. Twelve pts had a KRAS mutation, 7 pts had a PIK3CA mutation, 3 pts had a NRAS mutation, 1 patient a BRAF mutation. Surprisingly, five of these pts had double- mutations, including 4 pts with KRAS plus PIK3CA mutations, and 1 pt with NRAS plus PIK3CA mutations. The median normalized EGFR copy number was 1. Neither mutations of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA, nor EGFR copy number were statistically associated with the primary study endpoint pCR (pathological complete regression).Conclusions: The prevalence of KRAS mutations in rectal and in colon cancer appears to be similar. BRAF mutations are rare; PIK3CA mutations are more common (10%). EGFR copy number is not increased in rectal cancer. A considerable number or KRAS exon 2 wt tumors harbored KRAS exon 3+4 mutations. Further study is needed to determine if KRAS testing should include exons 2-4.

Endocavitary contact radiation therapy for ultrasonographically staged T1 N0 and T2 N0 rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing endocavitary contact radiation therapy (ECR) for stage I rectal cancer. METHODS: A database of patients treated with ECR for biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma from July 1986 to June 2006 was reviewed retrospectively. Only patients with primary, non-metastatic, ultrasonographically staged T1 N0 and T2 N0 cancer who had no adjuvant treatment were included. Patients received a median of 90 (range 60-190) Gy contact radiation, delivered transanally by a 50-kV X-ray tube in two to five fractions. RESULTS: Of 149 patients, 77 (40 T1, 37 T2) met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 74 (range 38-104) years, and median follow-up 69 (range 10-219) months. ECR failed in 21 patients (27 per cent) (persistent disease, four; recurrence, 17), of whom ten remained disease free after salvage therapy. The estimated 5-year disease-free survival rate was 74 (95 per cent confidence interval 63 to 83) per cent after ECR alone, and 87 (76 to 93) per cent when survival after salvage therapy for recurrence was included. CONCLUSION: ECR is a minimally invasive treatment option for early-stage rectal cancer. However, similar to other local therapies, ECR has a worse oncological outcome than radical surgery.

CPT-11 and concomitant hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy induce efficient local control in rectal cancer patients: results from a phase II.

Patients with rectal cancer are at high risk of disease recurrence despite neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with 5-Fluorouracil (5FU), a regimen that is now widely applied. In order to develop a regimen with increased antitumour activity, we previously established the recommended dose of neoadjuvant CPT-11 (three times weekly 90 mg m(-2)) concomitant to hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) followed by surgery within 1 week. Thirty-three patients (20 men) with a locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum were enrolled in this prospective phase II trial (1 cT2, 29 cT3, 3 cT4 and 21 cN+). Median age was 60 years (range 43-75 years). All patients received all three injections of CPT-11 and all but two patients completed radiotherapy as planned. Surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME) was performed within 1 week (range 2-15 days). The preoperative chemoradiotherapy was overall well tolerated, 24% of the patients experienced grade 3 diarrhoea that was easily manageable. At a median follow-up of 2 years no local recurrence occurred, however, nine patients developed distant metastases. The 2-year disease-free survival was 66% (95% confidence interval 0.48-0.83). Neoadjuvant CPT-11 and HART allow for excellent local control; however, distant relapse remains a concern in this patient population.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus conventional transanal excision for patients with early rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) with conventional transanal excision (TAE) in terms of the quality of resection, local recurrence, and survival rates in patients with stage I rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Although TEMS is often considered a superior surgical technique to TAE, it is poorly suited for excising tumors in the lower third of the rectum. Such tumors may confer a worse prognosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed information on all patients with stage pT1 and pT2 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent local excision from 1997 through mid-2006. We excluded patients with node-positive, metastatic, recurrent, previously irradiated, or snare-excised tumors. RESULTS: Our study included 42 TEMS and 129 TAE patients. We found no significant differences in patient characteristics, adjuvant therapy, tumor stage, or adverse histopathologic features. In the TAE group, 52 (40%) of tumors were <5 cm from the anal verge (AV); in the TEMS group, only 1 (2%) (P = 0.0001). Surgical margins were less often positive in the TEMS group (2%) than in the TAE group (16%) (P = 0.017). For patients with tumors > or =5 cm from the AV, the estimated 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was similar between the TEMS group (84.1%) and the TAE group (76.1%) (P = 0.651). But within the TAE group, the estimated 5-year DFS rate was better for patients with tumors > or =5 cm from the AV (76.1%) vs. <5 cm from the AV (60.5%) (P = 0.029). In our multivariate analysis, the tumor distance from the anal verge, the resection margin status, the T stage, and the use of adjuvant therapy--but not the surgical technique (i.e., TEMS or TAE) itself--were independent predictors of local recurrence and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of resection is better with TEMS than with TAE. However, the apparently better oncologic outcomes with TEMS can be partly explained by case selection of lower-risk tumors of the upper rectum.

Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83). CONCLUSION: A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections. METHODS: 20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines. RESULTS: Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.

3531: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) combined with capecitabine (Cape) and sorafenib (Sor) in patients (pts) with locally advanced, k-ras-mutated rectal cancer (LARC): A phase I/II trial SAKK 41/08

Background: K-ras mutation is found in up to 40% of LARC. Sor is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor including raf and VEGFR and has demonstrated radiosensitizing effects. Sor might improve outcome of standard preoperative radio-chemotherapy in patients with k-ras mutated LARC. Methods: Pts with k-ras mutated T3-4 and/or N+, M0 disease by MRI were included. Recommended doses from phase I part consisted of RT 1.8 Gy/day x25 with Cape 825mg/m2bid x 33 in combination with Sor 400mg/d. The primary endpoint for the phase II part was pathological complete response (pCR) prospectively defined as grade 3 (near complete regression) or 4 (complete regression) in the histological grading system according to Dworak (DC). A pCR rate of 8% or lower was considered uninteresting and of 22% or higher was promising. Secondary endpoints included sphincter preservation, R0 resection, downstaging and safety. Results: 54 pts were treated in 18 centers in Switzerland und Hungary, 40 pts were included into the single arm phase II part. Median dose intensity per day was 100.0% for RT, 98.6% for Cape and 100.0% for Sor respectively. pCR rate was 60.0% (95%CI: 43.3%, 75.1%) by central independent pathological review (15.0% DC grade 4; 45.0% DC grade 3). Sphincter preservation was achieved in 89.5%, R0 resection in 94.7% and downstaging in 81.6% of the pts. The most common grade 3 toxicities included diarrhea (15.0%), skin toxicity outside of the RT field (12.5%), pain (7.5%), skin toxicity in RT field, proctitis, fatigue and cardiac ischemia (each 5.0%). Laboratory AEs grade 3/4 were neutropenia (1 pt grade 4; 1 grade 3), creatinine elevation (1 pt grade 3). Conclusions: The combination of Sor to standard RCT with Cape in k-ras mutated LARC tumors is highly active with acceptable toxicity and deserves further investigation.

Metabolic syndrome is associated with colorectal cancer in men.

AIM OF THE STUDY: We assessed the relation between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components and colorectal cancer. METHODS: We analysed data from a multicentre case-control study conducted in Italy and Switzerland, including 1378 cases of colon cancer, 878 cases of rectal cancer and 4661 controls. All cases were incident and histologically confirmed. Controls were subjects admitted to the same hospitals as cases with acute non-malignant conditions. MetS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by multiple logistic regression models, including terms for major identified confounding factors for colorectal cancer. RESULTS: With reference to each component of the MetS, the ORs of colorectal cancer in men were 1.27 (95% CI, 0.95-1.69) for diabetes, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48) for hypertension, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.93-1.40) for hypercholesterolaemia and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08-1.48) for overweight at age 30. The corresponding ORs in women were 1.20 (95% CI, 0.82-1.75), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.06), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-1.03) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.86-1.30). Colorectal cancer risk was increased in men (OR=1.86; 95% CI, 1.21-2.86), but not in women (OR=1.13; 95% CI, 0.66-1.93), with MetS. The ORs were 2.09 (95% CI, 1.38-3.18) in men and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.68-1.94) in women with > or =3 components of the MetS, as compared to no component. Results were similar for colon and rectal cancers. CONCLUSION: This study supports a direct association between MetS and both colon and rectal cancers in men, but not in women.

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009 : analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).