Stewart, Andrew K.

Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs’ databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan—Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 686—695. http:// ctj.sagepub.com

Purpose The sixth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) rectal cancer staging subdivided stage II into IIA (T3N0) and IIB (T4N0) and stage III into IIIA (T1-2N1M0), IIIB (T3-4N1M0), and IIIC (anyTN2M0). Subsequent analyses supported revised substaging of stage III as a result of improved survival with T1-2N2 versus T3-4N2 and survival of T4N1 more similar to T3-4N2 than T3N1. The AJCC Hindgut Taskforce sought population-based validation that depth of invasion interacts with nodal status to affect survival. Methods Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population-based data from January 1992 to December 2004 for 35,829 patients with rectal cancer were compared with rectal pooled analysis data (3,791 patients). T4N0 cancers were stratified by tumors that perforate visceral peritoneum (T4a) versus tumors that invade or are adherent to adjacent organs or structures (T4b). N1 and N2 were stratified by number of positive nodes as follows: N1a/N1b (one v two to three nodes) and N2a/N2b (four to six v ≥ seven nodes). Five-year observed and relative survival rates were obtained for each TN category. Results SEER rectal cancer analyses confirm that T1-2N2 cancers have better prognosis than T3-4N2, T4bN1 have similar prognosis to T4N2, T1-2N1 have similar prognosis to T2N0/T3N0, and T1-2N2a have similar prognosis to T2N0/T3N0 (T1N2a) or T4aN0 (T2N2a). Prognosis for T4a lesions is better than T4b by N category. The number of positive nodes affects prognosis. Conclusion This SEER population-based rectal cancer analysis validates the rectal pooled analyses and supports the shift of T1-2N2 lesions from IIIC to IIIA or IIIB and T4bN1 from IIIB to IIIC. SEER outcomes support subdividing T4, N1, and N2 and revised substaging of stages II and III. Survival by TN category suggests a complex biologic interaction between depth of invasion and nodal status.

Purpose The sixth edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual for colon cancer subdivided stage II into IIA (T3N0) and IIB (T4N0) and stage III into IIIA (T1-2N1M0), IIIB (T3-4N1M0), and IIIC (anyTN2M0). Subsequent analyses supported revised substaging of stage III because of improved survival for T1-2N2 versus T3-4N2 and T4N1 survival was more similar to T3-4N2 than to T3N1. The AJCC Hindgut Taskforce sought population-based validation that depth of invasion and nodal status interact to affect survival. Patients and Methods Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population-based data from January 1992 to December 2004 for 109,953 colon cancer patients were compared with National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) data on 134,206 patients. T4N0 cancers were stratified by tumors that perforate visceral peritoneum (T4a) versus tumors that invade or are adherent to adjacent organs or structures (T4b). N1 and N2 were stratified by number of involved positive lymph nodes (N+): N1a/N1b (1 v 2-3), N2a/N2b (4 to 6 v ≥ 7). Five-year observed and relative survival data were obtained for each TN category. Results SEER colon cancer analyses confirm that patients with T1-2N0 cancers have better survival than T3N0, T3N0 better than T4N0, T1-2N2 better than T3-4N2, and T4bN1 similar to T4N2. Patients with T4a lesions have better survival than T4b by N category. The number of positive nodes affects survival for each T category. Conclusion This SEER population-based colon cancer analysis is highly consistent with rectal cancer pooled analysis and SEER rectal cancer analyses, supporting the shift of T1-2N2 lesions from IIIC to IIIA/IIIB, shifting T4bN1 from IIIB to IIIC, subdividing T4/N1/N2, and revising substaging of stages II/III. Survival outcomes by TN category for colon and rectal cancer are strikingly similar.