Angiotomografia Computadorizada com Descarte Triplo Convencional e Parcialmente Sincronizada ao ECG com Cobertura da Aorta Abdominal: Comparação da Dose de Radiação e da Qualidade da Imagem
Fundamento: A angiotomografia computadorizada (ATC) com descarte triplo (TRO; do inglês, triple rule-out) é um protocolo sincronizado ao eletrocardiograma (ECG) que permite a avaliação simultânea das artérias coronárias, da aorta torácica e das artérias pulmonares em um único exame. É especialmente útil para pacientes com risco baixo a moderado de síndrome coronariana aguda no pronto atendimento, particularmente quando dissecção aórtica e embolia pulmonar também são consideradas no diagnóstico diferencial. Objetivo: O presente estudo visou comparar, em termos de dose de radiação e qualidade da imagem, dois protocolos de TRO: totalmente sincronizado ao ECG (protocolo A) e parcialmente sincronizado ao ECG (protocolo B), ambos incluindo cobertura da aorta abdominal. Tal comparação de protocolos pode ser útil quando algoritmos de reconstrução iterativa não estiverem disponíveis e a transição manual entre em protocolos parcialmente sincronizados ao ECG for necessária. Métodos: A dose de radiação foi avaliada usando o produto dose-comprimento, a dose efetiva e a dose virtual. Os valores de atenuação foram medidos nas artérias coronárias e pulmonares, bem como na aorta descendente e abdominal. A qualidade da imagem e a conspicuidade dos vasos foram avaliadas por meio de uma escala Likert de 5 pontos. Resultados: Um total de 56 pacientes foi incluído. O protocolo B demonstrou exposição à radiação significativamente menor em comparação ao protocolo A em todas as métricas: mediana do produto dose-comprimento (1,1 mSv [intervalo interquartil: 0,9 a 1,1] versus 2,2 mSv [intervalo interquartil: 1,6 a 2,8]), dose efetiva (17,0 mSv [intervalo interquartil: 14,3 a 18,1] versus 32,6 mSv [intervalo interquartil: 24,4 a 42,7]) e dose virtual (16,2 [intervalo interquartil: 9,3 a 20,4] versus 34,7 [intervalo interquartil: 19,9 a 43,5]). Todas as diferenças foram estatisticamente significativas (p < 0,001). Não houve diferenças significativas nas medidas de atenuação ou na avaliação qualitativa das imagens entre os dois protocolos. Conclusão: A ATC com TRO parcialmente sincronizada ao ECG proporciona qualidade de imagem comparável à técnica totalmente sincronizada ao ECG, reduzindo significativamente a exposição à radiação, tornando-se uma alternativa mais eficiente em termos de dose de radiação, quando algoritmos de reconstrução iterativa não estiverem disponíveis e a transição manual for necessária.
Trials in progress: Alliance A022104/NRG-GI010—A randomized phase II/III trial testing the efficacy of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy regarding clinical complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC;
TPS3650 Background: A total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone in those with locally advanced rectal cancer. Recent data indicate that optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to improve complete response rates. The use of FOLFIRINOX has shown to improve response and outcomes compared to CRT and surgery alone. Data have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed with a watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to improve cCR rates has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. We designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address this and to increase cCR rates, provide opportunity for organ preservation, and survival outcomes. Methods: In this multigroup randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N+) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0–4; 4–8; 8–12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX (control arm)) or triplet chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX (experimental arm)) for 3–4 months. LCRT in both arms involve 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks +900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine. Patients will undergo assessment 8–12 (±4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include overall survival, organ preservation time, time to distant metastasis, and adverse event rates. This study has accrued 587 patients as of January 2025, and is investigating exploratory correlatives (e.g., ctDNA). Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163. Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .
Utilizing Patient Input in Rectal Cancer Trial Design
Abstract Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Furthermore, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with <80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.
MRI for Rectal Cancer: Updates and Controversies—AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review
Rectal cancer presents significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, with neoadjuvant therapy playing a pivotal role in improving resectability and patient outcomes. MRI serves as a critical tool in assessing treatment response. However, differentiating viable tumor tissue from therapy-induced changes on MRI remains a complex task. In this comprehensive review, we explore treatment options for rectal cancer based on resectability status, focusing on the role of MRI in guiding therapeutic decisions. We delve into the nuances of MRI-based evaluation of treatment response following neoadjuvant therapy, paying particular attention to emerging techniques like radiomics. Drawing from our insights based on the literature, we provide essential recommendations for post-neoadjuvant therapy management of rectal cancer, all within the context of MRI-based findings.
Alliance A022104/NRG-GI010: A randomized phase II trial testing the efficacy of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy to achieve clinical complete response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer—The Janus Rectal Cancer trial.
TPS3640 Background: Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients (pts) with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated it as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and pt groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation and improve quality of life for pts. Methods: In this Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology randomized phase II trial (1:1), up to 312 pts with microsatellite stable LARC, clinical stage T4N0, any T, N+ or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Pts will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long course CRT (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (w) + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Pts will undergo assessment 8-12 w post-TNT completion for the primary endpoint of cCR per previously validated criteria and recommended WW and surveillance if cCR is achieved or TME if an incomplete response is noted. Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (disease-free and overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse effects. Statistical power, based on cCR, incorporates a one-sided alpha = 0.048 and power = 90% yielding 312 patients (156 per arm). Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, matched / normal blood samples and serial rectal MRI will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and is actively recruiting. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG); Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163 Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .
Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors