International Preoperative Rectal Cancer Management: Staging, Neoadjuvant Treatment, and Impact of Multidisciplinary Teams

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates. METHODS: One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81). CONCLUSIONS: There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods

Fluropyrimidine single agent or doublet chemotherapy as second line treatment in advanced biliary tract cancer

Fluoropyrimidine (FP) plus platinum chemotherapy has been recently established as a second-line (L2) preferred option in advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) (ABC-06 phase III trial). However, the overall survival (OS) benefit was limited and comparison with FP monotherapy was not available. Our aim was to assess the OS of patients treated with a FP monotherapy compared to a doublet with irinotecan or platinum in L2. We performed a retrospective analysis of two large multicenter prospective cohorts: a French cohort (28 centers) and an Italian cohort (9 centers). All consecutive patients with aBTC receiving FP-based L2 after gemcitabine plus cisplatin/gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin L1 between 2003 and 2016 were included. A subgroup analysis according to performance status (PS) and an exploratory analysis according to platinum sensitivity in L1 were planned. In the French cohort (n = 351), no significant OS difference was observed between the FP monotherapy and doublet groups (median OS: 5.6 vs 6.8 months,P= .65). Stratification on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS showed similar results in PS 0-1 and 2. Median OS was not different between FP monotherapy, platinum- and irinotecan-based doublets (5.6 vs 7.1 vs 6.7 months,P= .68). Similar findings were observed in the Italian cohort (n = 174) and in the sensitivity analysis in pooled cohorts (n = 525). No L2 regimen seemed superior over others in the platinum resistant/refractory or sensitive subgroups. Our results suggest that FP monotherapy is as active as FP doublets in aBTC in L2, regardless of the patient PS and country, and could be a therapeutic option in this setting