Pathological and Oncologic Outcomes of Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation

Objective: The current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with multimodality therapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation significantly decreased the locoregional recurrence rate and improved survival. However, distant metastasis develops rather than local recurrence, which becomes the leading cause of death. This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in locally advanced rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study recruited 18 patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (cT3-4 or cN1-2), treated with consolidation TNT. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR). The secondary endpoint included postoperative outcomes, local recurrences, and distant metastases. Results: The pathologic complete response was observed in 27.8% of consolidation therapy cases. Downstaging of the T-category was achieved in 10 (55.6%) patients, and downstaging of the N-category was achieved in 14 (77.8%) patients. Only one patient who achieved pCR developed distant metastasis, whereas all patients with pathological stage III developed distant metastasis. Conclusions: TNT is a promising approach for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This strategy improved complete pathologic response rates in TNT, and pCR was found to be associated with fewer local recurrences and greater disease-free survival

Does Extending the Waiting Time of Low-Rectal Cancer Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Increase the Perioperative Complications?

Background. Traditionally, rectal cancer surgery is recommended 6 to 8 weeks after completing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Extending the waiting time may increase the tumor response rate. However, the perioperative complication rate may increase. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between extending the waiting time of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and perioperative outcomes. Methods. Sixty patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical resection at Siriraj hospital between June 2012 and January 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. The two groups were comparable in term of demographic parameters. The mean time interval from neoadjuvant chemoradiation to surgery was 6.4 weeks in Group A and 11.7 weeks in Group B. The perioperative outcomes were not significantly different between Groups A and B. Pathologic examination showed a significantly higher rate of circumferential margin positivity in Group A than in Group B (30% versus 9.3%, resp.; P=0.04). Conclusions. Extending the waiting to >8 weeks from neoadjuvant chemoradiation to surgery did not increase perioperative complications, whereas the rate of circumferential margin positivity decreased

From presentation to paper: gender disparities in oncological research

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011-2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008-2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p <0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p <0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p <0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research

From presentation to paper: Gender disparities in oncological research

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011–2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008–2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p < 0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p < 0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research