Extent of surgery in cancer of the colon : is more better?

Since the introduction of total mesorectal excision as the standard approach in mid and low rectal cancer, the incidence of local recurrence has sharply declined. Similar attention to surgical technique in colon cancer (CC) has resulted in the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME), which consists of complete removal of the intact mesentery and high ligation of the vascular supply at its origin. Although renewed attention to meticulous surgical technique certainly has its merits, routine implementation of CME is currently unfounded. Firstly, in contrast to rectal cancer, local recurrence originating from an incompletely removed mesentery is rare in CC and usually a manifestation of systemic disease. Secondly, although CME may increase nodal counts and therefore staging accuracy, this is unlikely to affect survival since the observed relationship between nodal counts and outcome in CC is most probably not causal but confounded by a range of clinical variables. Thirdly, several lines of evidence suggest that metastasis to locoregional nodes occurs early and is a stochastic rather than a stepwise phenomenon in CC, in essence reflecting the tumor-host-metastasis relationship. Unsurprisingly, therefore, comparative studies in CC as well as in other digestive cancers have failed to demonstrate any survival benefit associated with extensive, additional or extra-mesenteric lymphadenectomy. Finally, routine implementation of CME may cause patient harm by longer operating times, major vascular damage and autonomic nerve injury. Therefore, data from randomized trials reporting relevant endpoints are required before CME can be recommended as a standard approach in CC surgery

Progress in rectal cancer treatment

The dramatic improvement in local control of rectal cancer observed during the last decades is to be attributed to attention to surgical technique and to the introduction of neoadjuvant therapy regimens. Nevertheless, systemic relapse remains frequent and is currently insufficiently addressed. Intensification of neoadjuvant therapy by incorporating chemotherapy with or without targeted agents before the start of (chemo)radiation or during the waiting period to surgery may present an opportunity to improve overall survival. An increasing number of patients can nowadays undergo sphincter preserving surgery. In selected patients, local excision or even a “wait and see” approach may be feasible following active neoadjuvant therapy. Molecular and genetic biomarkers as well as innovative imaging techniques may in the future allow better selection of patients for this treatment option. Controversy persists concerning the selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy after neoadjuvant regimens. The currently available evidence suggests that in complete pathological responders long-term outcome is excellent and adjuvant therapy may be omitted. The results of ongoing trials will help to establish the ideal tailored approach in resectable rectal cancer

Preoperative chemoradiation versus radiation alone for stage II and III resectable rectal cancer

Background : Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) decreases local recurrence rate and improves survival in stage II and III rectal cancer patients. The combination of chemotherapy with RT has a sound radiobiological rationale, and phase II trials of combined chemoradiation (CRT) have shown promising activity in rectal cancer. Objectives : To compare preoperative RT with preoperative CRT in patients with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer. Search methods : We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase.com, and Pubmed from 1975 until June 2012. A manual search was performed of Ann Surg, Arch Surg, Cancer, J Clin Oncol, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys and the proceedings of ASTRO, ECCO and ASCO from 1990 until June 2012. Selection criteria : Relevant studies randomized resectable stage II or III rectal cancer patients to at least one arm of preoperative RT alone or at least one arm of preoperative CRT. Data collection and analysis : Primary outcome parameters included overall survival (OS) at 5 years and local recurrence (LR) rate at 5 years. Secondary outcome parameters included disease free survival (DFS) at 5 years, metastasis rate, pathological complete response rate, clinical response rate, sphincter preservation rate, acute toxicity, postoperative mortality and morbidity, and anastomotic leak rate. Outcome parameters were summarized using the Odds Ratio (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) using the fixed effects model. Main results : Five trials were identified and included in the meta-analysis. From one of the included trials only preliminary data are reported. The addition of chemotherapy to preoperative RT significantly increased grade III and IV acute toxicity (OR 1.68-10, P = 0.002) and marginally affected postoperative overall morbidity (OR 0.67-1.00, P = 0.05) while no differences were observed in postoperative mortality or anastomotic leak rate. Compared to preoperative RT alone, preoperative CRT significantly increased the rate of complete pathological response (OR 2.12-5.84, P < 0.00001) although this did not translate into a higher sphincter preservation rate (OR 0.92-1.30, P = 0.32). The incidence of local recurrence at five years was significantly lower in the CRT group compared to RT alone (OR 0.39-0.72, P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in DFS (OR 0.92-1.34, P = 0.27) or OS (OR 0.79-1.14, P = 0.58) at five years. Authors' conclusions : Compared to preoperative RT alone, preoperative CRT enhances pathological response and improves local control in resectable stage II and III rectal cancer, but does not benefit disease free or overall survival. The effects of preoperative CRT on functional outcome and quality of life are incompletely understood and should be addressed in future trials

BEV-IP : perioperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients undergoing cytoreduction and intraperitoneal chemoperfusion for colorectal carcinomatosis

Background: Selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from colorectal cancer (CRC) benefit from cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (IPC). However, even after optimal cytoreduction, systemic and locoregional recurrence are common. Perioperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab (BEV) may improve the outcome of these patients. Methods/Design: The BEV-IP study is a phase II, single-arm, open-label study aimed at patients with colorectal or appendiceal adenocarcinoma with synchronous or metachronous PC. This study evaluates whether perioperative chemotherapy including BEV in combination with CRS and oxaliplatin-based IPC results in acceptable morbidity and mortality (primary composite endpoint). Secondary endpoints are treatment completion rate, chemotherapy-related toxicity, pathological response, progression free survival, and overall survival. Discussion: The BEV-IP trial is the first prospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy combined with anti-angiogenic treatment in patients undergoing CRS and IPC for colorectal peritoneal metastases

Aerosolization of nanotherapeutics as a newly emerging treatment regimen for peritoneal carcinomatosis

Recent advances in locoregional chemotherapy have opened the door to new approaches for the clinical management of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by facilitating the delivery of anti-neoplastic agents directly to the tumor site, while mitigating adverse effects typically associated with systemic administration. In particular, an innovative intra-abdominal chemotherapeutic approach, known as Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), was recently introduced to the intraperitoneal (IP) therapy regimens as a palliative therapeutic option in patients with PC, presumably providing a better drug distribution pattern together with deeper drug penetration into tumor nodules within the peritoneal space. Furthermore, the progress of nanotechnology in the past few decades has prompted the application of different nanomaterials in IP cancer therapy, offering new possibilities in this field ranging from an extended retention time to sustained drug release in the peritoneal cavity. This review highlights the progress, challenges, and opportunities in utilizing cancer nanotherapeutics for locoregional drug delivery, with a special emphasis on the aerosolization approach for intraperitoneal therapies