Gunderson, Leonard L.

PurposeTo examine the value of surgical resection combined with preoperative external beam radiation therapy and intraoperative radiation therapy (Surg‐RT) for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS).MethodsReview of 63 consecutive patients with RPS from 1996 to 2011.ResultsThirty‐seven patients (59%) underwent Surg‐RT and 26 (41%) had surgery alone. 51% of tumors were high grade and 36% of patients had locally recurrent disease. Final margin status was: R0 73%, R1 16%, R2 6%, and unknown 5%. Of those with R0 resections, 67% received Surg‐RT. Median follow‐up was 45 months. The 5‐year local control rate was 89% for Surg‐RT patients and 46% for surgery alone patients (P = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, Surg‐RT was the only variable associated with a lower risk of LR (HR 0.19; CI 0.05–0.69, P = 0.003). The actuarial 5‐year OS was 60% for patients receiving either Surg‐RT or surgery alone.ConclusionsThe combination of pre‐operative radiation, surgical resection, and intraoperative radiation produces excellent local disease control for RPS. Combination therapy was associated with improved local control but not with overall survival. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:798–803. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PurposeOn initial publication of GI Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-11 [A Phase III Randomized Study of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), Mitomycin, and Radiotherapy Versus 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin and Radiotherapy in Carcinoma of the Anal Canal], concurrent chemoradiation (CCR) with fluorouracil (FU) plus mitomycin (MMC) decreased colostomy failure (CF) when compared with induction plus concurrent FU plus cisplatin (CDDP), but did not significantly impact disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) for anal canal carcinoma. The intent of the updated analysis was to determine the long-term impact of treatment on survival (DFS, OS, colostomy-free survival [CFS]), CF, and relapse (locoregional failure [LRF], distant metastasis) in this patient group.Patients and MethodsStratification factors included sex, clinical node status, and primary size. DFS and OS were estimated univariately by the Kaplan-Meier method, and treatment arms were compared by log-rank test. Time to relapse and CF were estimated by the cumulative incidence method and treatment arms were compared by using Gray's test. Multivariate analyses used Cox proportional hazard models to test for treatment differences after adjusting for stratification factors.ResultsOf 682 patients accrued, 649 were analyzable for outcomes. DFS and OS were statistically better for RT + FU/MMC versus RT + FU/CDDP (5-year DFS, 67.8% v 57.8%; P = .006; 5-year OS, 78.3% v 70.7%; P = .026). There was a trend toward statistical significance for CFS (P = .05), LRF (P = .087), and CF (P = .074). Multivariate analysis was statistically significant for treatment and clinical node status for both DFS and OS, for tumor diameter for DFS, and for sex for OS.ConclusionCCR with FU/MMC has a statistically significant, clinically meaningful impact on DFS and OS versus induction plus concurrent FU/CDDP, and it has borderline significance for CFS, CF, and LRF. Therefore, RT + FU/MMC remains the preferred standard of care.

PurposeTo determine whether increased duration of radiation therapy (RT) and overall treatment (RX) time has a detrimental effect in anal cancer.Patients and MethodsData from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 87-04 and RTOG 98-11 trials were combined to form three treatment groups: RT/fluorouracil (FU)/mitomycin (n = 472), RT/FU/cisplatin (n = 320), and RT/FU (n = 145). Cox proportional hazards models were used with the following variables: RT duration, RT intensity, RX duration, treatment group, age, sex, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), T stage, N stage, and RT dose.ResultsIn the univariate analysis, there was a significant association between RX duration and colostomy failure (CF; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.14; P = .02), local failure (HR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.03; P = .005), locoregional failure (HR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.98; P = .003), and time to failure (HR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.79; P = .007). The significance of RX duration was maintained after adjusting for treatment group. In multivariate modeling there was a trend toward an association between RX duration and CF (HR = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.50; P = .06) and a statistically significant association with local failure (HR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.87; P = .0006). Age, sex, KPS, T stage, N stage, and RT dose, but not RT duration, RT intensity, or RX duration, were found to be statistically significant predictors of OS and colostomy-free survival.ConclusionTotal treatment time, but not duration of radiation therapy, seems to have a detrimental effect on local failure and colostomy rate in anal cancer. Induction chemotherapy may contribute to local failure by increasing total treatment time.

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.

Purpose The US Gastrointestinal Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-11 anal carcinoma trial showed that cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy resulted in a significantly higher rate of colostomy compared with mitomycin-based therapy. Established prognostic variables for patients with anal carcinoma include tumor diameter, clinical nodal status, and sex, but pretreatment variables that would predict the likelihood of colostomy are unknown. Methods A secondary analysis was performed by combining patients in the two treatment arms to evaluate whether new predictive and prognostic variables would emerge. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to correlate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, and time to colostomy (TTC) with pretreatment and treatment variables. Results Of 682 patients enrolled, 644 patients were assessable and analyzed. In the multivariate analysis, tumor-related prognosticators for poorer OS included node-positive cancer (P ≤ .0001), large (> 5 cm) tumor diameter (P = .01), and male sex (P = .016). In the treatment-related categories, cisplatin-based therapy was statistically significantly associated with a higher rate of colostomy (P = .03) than was mitomycin-based therapy. In the pretreatment variables category, only large tumor diameter independently predicted for TTC (P = .008). Similarly, the cumulative 5-year colostomy rate was statistically significantly higher for large tumor diameter than for small tumor diameter (Gray's test; P = .0074). Clinical nodal status and sex were not predictive of TTC. Conclusion The combined analysis of the two arms of RTOG 98-11, representing the largest prospective database, reveals that tumor diameter (irrespective of the nodal status) is the only independent pretreatment variable that predicts TTC and 5-year colostomy rate in patients with anal carcinoma.

Purpose To determine prognostic factors and impact of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) on overall survival (OS) after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective review 472 consecutive patients who underwent complete resection with negative margins (R0) for invasive carcinoma (T1-3N0-1M0) of the pancreas between 1975 and 2005 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Exclusion criteria included metastatic or unresectable disease at surgery, positive surgical margins, and indolent tumor types (islet cell tumors and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma). Median RT dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions; 98% of RT patients also received concurrent fluorouracil-based CT. Results Six patients died within 30 days of surgery. For the 466 surviving patients, median follow-up was 32.4 months; median OS was 21.6 months. Median OS after adjuvant CT-RT was 25.2 versus 19.2 months after no adjuvant therapy (P = .001). Two-year OS was 50% versus 39%, and 5-year OS was 28% versus 17%. Adverse prognostic factors identified by univariate and multivariate analysis included positive lymph nodes (risk ratio [RR] = 1.3; P < .001), high histologic grade (RR = 1.2; P < .001), and no adjuvant therapy (RR = 1.3; P < .001). Tumor extension beyond the pancreas was an adverse prognostic factor by univariate analysis alone (P = .03). Patients receiving adjuvant therapy had more adverse prognostic factors than those not receiving adjuvant therapy (P = .001). Conclusion This study represents one of the largest, single-institution, retrospective reviews of adjuvant therapy in patients after R0 resection of carcinoma of the pancreas. Overall survival was better in patients who received adjuvant CT-RT.

Purpose We update Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113), a comparison of chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with localized esophageal cancer. The relationship between resection type and between tumor response and outcome were also analyzed. Patients and Methods The chemotherapy group received preoperative cisplatin plus fluorouracil. Outcome based on the type of resection (R0, R1, R2, or no resection) was evaluated. The main end point was overall survival. Disease-free survival, relapse pattern, the influence of postoperative treatment, and the relationship between response to preoperative chemotherapy and outcome were also evaluated. Results Two hundred sixteen patients received preoperative chemotherapy, 227 underwent immediate surgery. Fifty-nine percent of surgery only and 63% of chemotherapy plus surgery patients underwent R0 resections (P = .5137). Patients undergoing less than an R0 resection had an ominous prognosis; 32% of patients with R0 resections were alive and free of disease at 5 years, only 5% of patients undergoing an R1 resection survived for longer than 5 years. The median survival rates for patients with R1, R2, or no resections were not significantly different. While, as initially reported, there was no difference in overall survival for patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy compared with the surgery only group, patients with objective tumor regression after preoperative chemotherapy had improved survival. Conclusion For patients with localized esophageal cancer, whether or not preoperative chemotherapy is administered, only an R0 resection results in substantial long-term survival. Even microscopically positive margins are an ominous prognostic factor. After a R1 resection, postoperative chemoradiotherapy therapy offers the possibility of long-term disease-free survival to a small percentage of patients.