Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Rectal Surgery on Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Rectal Cancer During the First 2 Years After Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer surgery with neoadjuvant therapy is associated with substantial morbidity. The present study describes the course of quality of life (QOL) in rectal cancer patients in the first 2 years after the start of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study within a colorectal cancer cohort including rectal cancer patients who were referred for neoadjuvant chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy and underwent rectal surgery. QOL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and colorectal cancer questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-CR29) before treatment and after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The outcomes were compared with the QOL scores from the Dutch general population and stratified by low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. Postoperative bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score. RESULTS: Of the 324 patients, 272 (84%) responded to at least 2 questionnaires and were included in the present study. Compared with pretreatment levels, the strongest decline was observed in physical, role, and social functioning at 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment. Global health and cognitive functioning declined to a lesser extend, and emotional functioning gradually improved over the time. Within 24 months, the QOL scores had recovered toward the pretreatment levels in most patients. Compared with the general population, physical, role, social, and cognitive functioning and symptoms of fatigue and insomnia remained significantly worse in patients on longer-term. After low anterior resection, major bowel dysfunction was reported by 44% to 60% of the patients. Increasing urinary incontinence and severe complaints of impotence were observed in patients who had undergone abdominoperineal resection. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer treatment is associated with a significant decline in QOL during the first 6 months after the diagnosis. Within 2 years, most patients return toward pretreatment functioning but could still experience poorer functioning and treatment-related symptoms compared with the general population. These findings support shared decision-making and emphasize the need for postoperative supportive care and novel treatment approaches

The ethics of ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs): 2nd international symposium - London, UK. 7-8 November 2016

On 7-8 th November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘ Trials within Cohorts ’ (TwiCs) approach for randomised controlled trial design met in London. The purpose of this 2 nd TwiCs international symposium was to share perspectives and experiences on ethical aspects of the TwiCs design, discuss how TwiCs relate to the current ethical frame- work, provide a forum in which to discuss and debate ethical issues and identify future directions for conceptual and empirical research. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton and attended by people from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. The two-day sympo- sium enabled an international group to meet and share experiences of the TwiCs design (also known as the ‘ cohort multiple RCT design ’ ), and to discuss plans for future research. Over the two days, invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini pre- sentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators. Key findings of the symposium were: (1) It is possible to make a compelling case to ethics committees that TwiCs designs are ap- propriate and ethical; (2) The importance of wider considerations around the ethics of inefficient trial designs; and (3) some questions about the ethical requirements for content and timing of informed consent for a study using the TwiCs design need to be decided on a case-by-case basis

Efficacy of dose-escalated chemoradiation on complete tumour response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL-BOOST); a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

Purpose Pathological complete tumour response following chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with favourable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. We aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumour prior to chemoradiation on pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response in LARC. Methods and materials This multicentre, non-blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial followed the trials within cohorts-design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomisation. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of two radiotherapy centres were eligible. Patients were randomised to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 x 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 x 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR, i.e. ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks or, as surrogate for pCR, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCTXXXXXX. Results Between Sept 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomised. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4-stage and a low rectal tumour (31.3% versus 17.2% and 56.3% versus 45.3% respectively), and more patients had a cN2-stage (59.4% versus 70.3% respectively). Rate of pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%, 95%CI 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%, 95%CI 25.7-50.5) in the control group (OR=0.94 95%CI 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumour regression was more common in the intervention group: 34 of 49 (69.4%) versus 24 of 53 (45.3%) in the control group (OR=2.74, 95%CI 1.21-6.18). Grade >3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR=1.22 95%CI 0.35-4.22). Conclusion Dose escalation with an external radiotherapy boost to the tumour prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response rate in LARC

Don't forget about the 'R' in cmRCT; Reply to Groenwold and van Smeden

Item does not contain fulltext2 p

Comparison of pathological complete response rates after neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by delayed surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who are unfit for chemoradiation (CRT), are often offered short-course radiotherapy followed by delayed surgery (SCRT-delay). This entails a lower radiation dose, no chemotherapy and a shorter treatment period. This may lower their chances for complete tumor response and, as such, organ-sparing approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the pathological complete response (pCR) rates between neoadjuvant CRT and SCRT-delay in patients with LARC in a nationwide database from the Netherlands. Methods: In the population based Netherlands Cancer Registry, clinical stage III rectal cancer patients, diagnosed between 2008 and 2014, who underwent CRT or SCTR-delay were selected. pCR (ypT0N0), near pCR (ypT0-1N0), and tumor and nodal downstaging were compared between the treatment groups using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: 386 patients underwent SCRT-delay and 3659 patients underwent CRT. The pCR-rate in the SCRT-delay group was significantly lower compared to the CRT-group (6.4% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.001). After adjustment for clinical tumor stage, clinical nodal stage and time interval to surgery, SCRT-delay patients were significantly less likely to reach pCR (adjusted odds ratio 0.3, 95%CI 0.2–0.5). Also, near-pCR (ypT0–1N0) as well as tumor and nodal downstaging was observed less often in the SCRT-delay group. Conclusion: Compared to patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT, those receiving SCRT and delayed surgery are less likely to develop pCR. Novel neoadjuvant treatment strategies for patients not fit enough for CRT are needed to increase their eligibility for organ-sparing treatments

SPONGE-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery in laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal cancer surgery (SPONGE trial): randomized clinical trial

Background: In minimally invasive surgery of the sigmoid colon and rectum a retractor sponge has been introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared postoperative duration of hospital stay and perioperative outcomes in patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing sponge-assisted versus Trendelenburg position surgery. Methods: The SPONGE trial is a single-centre RCT nested within the Dutch nationwide prospective observational cohort of patients with colorectal cancer, and follows the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design. Patients with sigmoid or rectal cancer undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic surgery were randomized to either sponge-assisted or Trendelenburg surgery on a 1:1 basis using block randomization. Duration of postoperative hospital stay was the primary outcome and was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complications, readmissions, or mortality versus the χ 2 test in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial was not blinded for patients in the intervention arm or physicians. Results: Between November 2015 and June 2021, 82 patients were randomized to sponge-assisted surgery and 81 to Trendelenburg surgery. After post-randomization exclusion, 150 patients remained for analyses (75 patients per arm). There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of hospital stay (5 days versus 4 days, respectively; P = 0.06), 30-day postoperative complications (30 per cent versus 31 per cent; P = 1.00), readmission rate (8 per cent versus 15 per cent; P = 0.30), or mortality (0 per cent versus 1 per cent, P = 1.00). The per-protocol analysis showed similar results. No adverse device events were seen. Conclusion: Sponge-assisted laparoscopic/robotic surgery does not reduce the duration of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity or mortality

Patient-Reported Work Ability During the First Two Years After Rectal Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment is associated with substantial short- and longer-term morbidity that may affect patients' ability to work. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated patient-reported work ability during the first 2 years after rectal cancer diagnosis, relative to the Dutch general population. Also, we assessed the association between clinical factors and work ability. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of a tertiary center. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal cancer, <67 years of age, and treated with curative intent were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Work ability was assessed with the Work Ability Index before the start of treatment (baseline) and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after. The Work Ability Index scores of patients with paid employment were compared with the scores of matched population controls. Mixed models were used to estimate the impact of clinical factors on work ability. RESULTS: Of the 230 eligible patients, 172 (75%) had paid employment. Work ability decreased at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline. At 12 months, work ability recovered to baseline level but remained significantly lower than in population controls up to 24 months. Fifty-four percent reported 100 to 365 days of sick leave during the first 12 months of treatment versus 2% in the general population. At 24 months, 32% needed substantial adaptations in work activities, worked reduced hours, or were unable to work due to the disease versus 6% in the general population. Female sex, multiple comorbidities, oligometastatic disease, chemoradiation, and abdominoperineal resection were associated with lower work ability. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by a decrease in questionnaire response rate from 83% to 64% over time. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported work ability deteriorates during rectal cancer treatment. Within 24 months after diagnosis, work ability returns to pretreatment level but remains lower than that of the general population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B175. CAPACIDAD DE TRABAJO REPORTADO POR PACIENTES DURANTE LOS PRIMEROS DOS AÑOS DESPUÉS DEL DIAGNÓSTICO DE CÁNCER RECTAL ANTECEDENTES: El tratamiento del cáncer rectal se asocia con una morbilidad significante a corto y largo plazo que puede afectar la capacidad de trabajo de pacientes. OBJETIVO: Evaluamos la capacidad de trabajo reportado por pacientes durante los primeros dos años después del diagnóstico de cáncer rectal, en relación con la población general holandesa. Además, evaluamos la asociación entre los factores clínicos y capacidad para trabajar. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte prospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Este estudio se realizó en el Departamento de Radiación Oncológica de en un centro de referencia de tercer nivel. PACIENTES: Se seleccionaron pacientes con cáncer rectal, <67 años de edad, y tratados con intención curativa. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: La capacidad de trabajo se evaluó con el índice de capacidad de trabajo antes del inicio del tratamiento (línea de base) y a los 3, 6, 12, 18 y 24 meses después. Los puntajes de capacidad laboral de los pacientes con empleo remunerado se compararon con los puntajes de los controles de población pareados. Se utilizaron modelos mixtos para estimar el impacto de los factores clínicos en la capacidad laboral. RESULTADOS: De los 230 pacientes elegibles, 172 (75%) tenían empleo remunerado. La capacidad de trabajo disminuyó a los 3 y 6 meses en comparación con la línea de base. A los 12 meses, la capacidad de trabajo se recuperó al nivel de referencia, pero se mantuvo significativamente más baja que en los controles de la población hasta 24 meses. Durante los primeros 12 meses, el 54% reportó 100-365 días de baja por enfermedad versus el 2% en la población general. A los 24 meses, el 32% necesitaba adaptaciones sustanciales en las actividades laborales, trabajó horas reducidas o no pudo trabajar debido a la enfermedad frente al 6% en la población general. El sexo femenino, las comorbilidades múltiples, la enfermedad oligometastásica, la quimiorradiación y la resección abdominoperineal se asociaron con una menor capacidad de trabajo. LIMITACIONES: El estudio estuvo limitado por una disminución en la tasa de respuesta al cuestionario del 83% al 64% a lo largo plazo. CONCLUSIONES: La capacidad laboral informada por el paciente se deteriora durante el tratamiento del cáncer rectal. Dentro de los 24 meses posteriores al diagnóstico, la capacidad laboral vuelve al nivel de pretratamiento, pero sigue siendo inferior a la de la población general. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B175. (Traducción - Dr. Adrian Ortega)

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off. RESULTS: Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection. LIMITATIONS: The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off. RESULTS: Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection. LIMITATIONS: The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521

The impact of retractor SPONGE-assisted laparoscopic surgery on duration of hospital stay and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal cancer (SPONGE trial) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: To achieve an adequate visual working field during laparoscopic colorectal surgery without disturbance of the small intestine, patients are positioned in the Trendelenburg position. This position results in hemodynamic changes that may increase the risk of cardiopulmonary complications and prolonged hospital stay. Recently, an intraoperative retractor sponge was introduced as an alternative to the Trendelenburg position during laparoscopic surgery. The objective of this trial is to study the impact of the use of an intraoperative retractor sponge on the duration of the hospital stay and risk of perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: The SPONGE trial is a monocenter study and follows the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. It will be conducted within a multicenter prospective observational cohort of colorectal cancer patients of all stages, for whom longitudinal clinical data and patient-reported outcomes are collected. Patients within the cohort, who will undergo laparoscopic surgery for distal colon or rectal cancer, are eligible for inclusion and form a subcohort. From this subcohort, a 1:1 random sample will be offered to undergo surgery with the use of the retractor sponge. Patients from the subcohort who are not selected will undergo standard treatment, that is, surgery in the Trendelenburg position. The primary endpoint is the duration of the postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes are duration of surgery; intraoperative blood loss and fluid balance; and postoperative body temperature, oxygenation and complications. Both arms require 94 patients. DISCUSSION: This study is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of sponge-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery in comparison with standard Trendelenburg position on hospital stay and peri- and postoperative complications. Results of this study will also be relevant for other surgical procedures in the pelvic region. The present study is the second randomized controlled trial according to the cmRCT design, which is embedded within our colorectal cancer cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02574013 . Registered 27 September 2015