The use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer: a practice guideline

BACKGROUND: This systematic review with meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the literature and to develop recommendations regarding the use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with resectable rectal cancer. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the annual proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Relevant reports were reviewed by four members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Two meta-analyses of preoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone, nineteen trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery to surgery alone, and five trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy to alternative treatments were obtained. Randomized trials demonstrate that preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery is significantly more effective than surgery alone in preventing local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer and it may also improve survival. A single trial, using surgery with total mesorectal excision, has shown similar benefits in local recurrence. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer we conclude that: • Preoperative radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative to the previous practice of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with stage II and III resectable rectal cancer; • Both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy decrease local recurrence but neither improves survival as much as postoperative radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Therefore, if preoperative radiotherapy is used, chemotherapy should be added postoperatively to at least patients with stage III disease

Cancer effects of formaldehyde: a proposal for an indoor air guideline value

Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous indoor air pollutant that is classified as “Carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)” (IARC, Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropanol-2-ol. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol 88. World Health Organization, Lyon, pp 39–325, 2006). For nasal cancer in rats, the exposure–response relationship is highly non-linear, supporting a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) that allows setting a guideline value. Epidemiological studies reported no increased incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer in humans below a mean level of 1 ppm and peak levels below 4 ppm, consistent with results from rat studies. Rat studies indicate that cytotoxicity-induced cell proliferation (NOAEL at 1 ppm) is a key mechanism in development of nasal cancer. However, the linear unit risk approach that is based on conservative (“worst-case”) considerations is also used for risk characterization of formaldehyde exposures. Lymphohematopoietic malignancies are not observed consistently in animal studies and if caused by formaldehyde in humans, they are high-dose phenomenons with non-linear exposure–response relationships. Apparently, these diseases are not reported in epidemiological studies at peak exposures below 2 ppm and average exposures below 0.5 ppm. At the similar airborne exposure levels in rodents, the nasal cancer effect is much more prominent than lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Thus, prevention of nasal cancer is considered to prevent lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Departing from the rat studies, the guideline value of the WHO (Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, pp 87–91, 2000), 0.08 ppm (0.1 mg m−3) formaldehyde, is considered preventive of carcinogenic effects in compliance with epidemiological findings

Is exposure to formaldehyde in air causally associated with leukemia?—A hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence analysis

Recent scientific debate has focused on the potential for inhaled formaldehyde to cause lymphohematopoietic cancers, particularly leukemias, in humans. The concern stems from certain epidemiology studies reporting an association, although particulars of endpoints and dosimetry are inconsistent across studies and several other studies show no such effects. Animal studies generally report neither hematotoxicity nor leukemia associated with formaldehyde inhalation, and hematotoxicity studies in humans are inconsistent. Formaldehyde's reactivity has been thought to preclude systemic exposure following inhalation, and its apparent inability to reach and affect the target tissues attacked by known leukemogens has, heretofore, led to skepticism regarding its potential to cause human lymphohematopoietic cancers. Recently, however, potential modes of action for formaldehyde leukemogenesis have been hypothesized, and it has been suggested that formaldehyde be identified as a known human leukemogen. In this article, we apply our hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence (HBWoE) approach to evaluate the large body of evidence regarding formaldehyde and leukemogenesis, attending to how human, animal, and mode-of-action results inform one another. We trace the logic of inference within and across all studies, and articulate how one could account for the suite of available observations under the various proposed hypotheses. Upon comparison of alternative proposals regarding what causal processes may have led to the array of observations as we see them, we conclude that the case fora causal association is weak and strains biological plausibility. Instead, apparent association between formaldehyde inhalation and leukemia in some human studies is better interpreted as due to chance or confounding