Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Excision, and Observation for Early Rectal Cancer: The Phase II NEO Trial (CCTG CO.28) Primary End Point Results

Hagen F Kennecke, Chris J O'Callaghan, Jonathan M Loree, Hussein Moloo, Rebecca Auer, Derek J Jonker, Manoj Raval, Reilly Musselman, Grace Ma, Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda, Vlad V Simianu, Sunil Patel, Lacey D Pitre, Ramzi Helewa, Vallerie L Gordon, Katerina Neumann, Halla Nimeiri, Max Sherry, Dongsheng Tu, Carl J Brown, Hagen F Kennecke, Chris J O'Callaghan, Jonathan M Loree, Hussein Moloo, Rebecca Auer, Derek J Jonker, Manoj Raval, Reilly Musselman, Grace Ma, Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda, Vlad V Simianu, Sunil Patel, Lacey D Pitre, Ramzi Helewa, Vallerie L Gordon, Katerina Neumann, Halla Nimeiri, Max Sherry, Dongsheng Tu, Carl J Brown

Abstract

Purpose: Organ-sparing therapy for early-stage I/IIA rectal cancer is intended to avoid functional disturbances or a permanent ostomy associated with total mesorectal excision (TME). The objective of this phase II trial was to determine the outcomes and organ-sparing rate of patients with early-stage rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by transanal excision surgery (TES).

Methods: This phase II trial included patients with clinical T1-T3abN0 low- or mid-rectal adenocarcinoma eligible for endoscopic resection who were treated with 3 months of chemotherapy (modified folinic acid-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin 6 or capecitabine-oxaliplatin). Those with evidence of response proceeded to transanal endoscopic surgery 2-6 weeks later. The primary end point was protocol-specified organ preservation rate, defined as the proportion of patients with tumor downstaging to ypT0/T1N0/X and who avoided radical surgery.

Results: Of 58 patients enrolled, all commenced chemotherapy and 56 proceeded to surgery. A total of 33/58 patients had tumor downstaging to ypT0/1N0/X on the surgery specimen, resulting in an intention-to-treat protocol-specified organ preservation rate of 57% (90% CI, 45 to 68). Of 23 remaining patients recommended for TME surgery on the basis of protocol requirements, 13 declined and elected to proceed directly to observation resulting in 79% (90% CI, 69 to 88) achieving organ preservation. The remaining 10/23 patients proceeded to recommended TME of whom seven had no histopathologic residual disease. The 1-year and 2-year locoregional relapse-free survival was, respectively, 98% (95% CI, 86 to 100) and 90% (95% CI, 58 to 98), and there were no distant recurrences or deaths. Minimal change in quality of life and rectal function scores was observed.

Conclusion: Three months of induction chemotherapy may successfully downstage a significant proportion of patients with early-stage rectal cancer, allowing well-tolerated organ-preserving surgery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03259035.

Conflict of interest statement

Carl J. Brown

Honoraria: Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson

Other Relationship: Medtronic (Inst)

No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Flow diagram of 58 patients enrolled in the study. aRepresents ypT, cN0 stage. bRepresents yp stage. c, clinical; CAPOX, capecitabine-oxaliplatin; mFOLFOX, modified folinic acid–flurouracil-oxaliplatin 6; N, node; oOPR, observed organ preservation rate; psOPR, protocol-specified organ preservation rate; T, tumor; TES, transanal excision surgery; TME, total mesorectal excision; yp, pathologic stage following systemic or radiation therapy prior to surgery.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Tumor genotype by FoundationOne CDx analysis in 53 patients with sufficient archival tumor tissue. MSI, microsatellite; TMB, tumor mutation burden.
FIG 3.
FIG 3.
(A) EORTC QLQ-C-30 scores at baseline, pre-excision, 6 months, and 12 months after TES. Functioning and global scales were scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better QoL. Observed/expected sample size was 58/58 at baseline, 53/58 at pre-excision, 37/43 at 6 months after TES, and 23/26 at 12 months after TES. (B) LARS mean total scores at baseline, pre-excision, 6 months, and 12 months after excision. Scores of 0-20 correspond to no LARS, 21-29 to minor LARS, and 30-42 to major LARS. Observed/expected sample size was 58/58 baseline, 50/58 pre-excision, 36/43 at 6 months after TES, and 21/26 at 12 months after TES. (C) FIQL mean scores at baseline, pre-excision, 6 months, and 12 months after excision. FIQL was scored with a range from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating a lower functional status of QoL. Observed/expected sample size was 52/58 at baseline, 52/58 at pre-excision, 37/43 at 6 months after TES, and 23/26 at 12 months after TES. EORTC QLQ-C-30, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–C30; FIQL, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life; LARS, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome; QoL, quality of life; TES, transanal excision surgery.
FIG A1.
FIG A1.
Kaplan-Meier curve for LRR-free survival among 58 patients enrolled in the study. LRR, locoregional recurrence.

References

    1. Chen TY, Wiltink LM, Nout RA, et al. : Bowel function 14 years after preoperative short- course radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Report of a multicenter randomized trial. Clin Colorectal Cancer 14:106-114, 2015
    1. Sturiale A, Martellucci J, Zurli L, et al. : Long-term functional follow-up after anterior rectal resection for cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:83-88, 2017
    1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. : NCCN guidelines insights: Rectal cancer, version 6.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 18:806-815, 2020
    1. Battersby NJ, Juul T, Christensen P, et al. : Predicting the risk of bowel-related quality-of-life impairment after restorative resection for rectal cancer: A multicenter cross-sectional study. Dis Colon Rectum 59:270-280, 2016
    1. Ihnát P, Slívová I, Tulinsky L, et al. : Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study). J Surg Oncol 117:710-716, 2018
    1. You YN, Baxter NN, Stewart A, Nelson H: Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: A nationwide cohort study from the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg 245:726-733, 2007
    1. Stitzenberg KB, Sanoff HK, Penn DC, et al. : Practice patterns and long-term survival for early-stage rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:4276-4282, 2013
    1. Minsky BD, Rich T, Recht A, et al. : Selection criteria for local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy for rectal cancer. Cancer 63:1421-1429, 1989
    1. Brodsky JT, Richard GK, Cohen AM, Minsky BD: Variables correlated with the risk of lymph node metastasis in early rectal cancer. Cancer 69:322-326, 1992
    1. Salinas HM, Dursun A, Klos CL, et al. : Determining the need for radical surgery in patients with T1 rectal cancer. Arch Surg 146:540-543, 2011
    1. Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, et al. : Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg 99:1211-1218, 2012
    1. Garcia-Aguilar J, Shi Q, Thomas CR, Jr, et al. : A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2N0 rectal cancer: Preliminary results of the ACOSOG Z6041 trial. Ann Surg Oncol 19:384-391, 2012
    1. Verseveld M, de Graaf EJ, Verhoef C, et al. : Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (CARTS study). Br J Surg 102:853-860, 2015
    1. Stijns RCH, de Graaf EJR, Punt CJA, et al. : Long-term oncological and functional outcomes of chemoradiotherapy followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery for distal rectal cancer: The CARTS study. JAMA Surg 154:47-54, 2019
    1. Rullier E, Vendrely V, Asselineau J, et al. : Organ preservation with chemoradiotherapy plus local excision for rectal cancer: 5-year results of the GRECCAR 2 randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:465-474, 2020
    1. Marks JH, Valsdottir EB, DeNittis A, et al. : Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: Comparison of wound complication rates with and without neoadjuvant radiation therapy. Surg Endosc 23:1081-1087, 2009
    1. Hupkens B, Lambregts D, Van der Sande M, et al. : 2001 Anorectal function after watch and wait-policy in rectal cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 51:S327, 2015
    1. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, et al. : Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 355:1114-1123, 2006. [Erratum: N Engl J Med 357:728, 2007]
    1. Monson JR, Weiser MR, Buie WD, et al. : Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 56:535-550, 2013
    1. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. : Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: The ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1356-1363, 2015
    1. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. : A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324-1332, 2015
    1. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. : Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346-1355, 2015
    1. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. : Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: Quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:9-17, 2000
    1. Juul T, Ahlberg M, Biondo S, et al. : International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Ann Surg 259:728-734, 2014
    1. Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, et al. : Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: Results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 38:1-10, 2020
    1. Marabelle A, Fakih M, Lopez J, et al. : Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: Prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Oncol 21:1353-1365, 2020
    1. : NEO: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Excision and Observation for Early Rectal Cancer. Bethesda, MD, National Library of Medicine (US), 2000.
    1. Smith JJ, Strombom P, Chow OS, et al. : Assessment of a watch-and-wait strategy for rectal cancer in patients with a complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. JAMA Oncol 5:e185896, 2019
    1. Jones HJS, Al-Najami I, Baatrup G, Cunningham C: Local excision after (near) complete response of rectal cancer to neoadjuvant radiation: Does it add value? Int J Colorectal Dis 36:1017-1022, 2021
    1. Allaix ME, Arezzo A, Morino M: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer: T1 and beyond? An evidence-based review. Surg Endosc 30:4841-4852, 2016
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Network : Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487:330-337, 2012
    1. Xu Z, Aquina CT, Justiniano CF, et al. : Centralizing rectal cancer surgery: What is the impact of travel on patients? Dis Colon Rectum 63:319-325, 2020
    1. Brady JT, Xu Z, Scarberry KB, et al. : Evaluating the current status of rectal cancer care in the US: Where we stand at the start of the commission on cancer's National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. J Am Coll Surg 226:881-890, 2018. [Erratum: J Am Coll Surg 227:484-487, 2018]

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren