User login
Does Radiation Timing Affect QOL After Prostate Surgery?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SBRT or Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Is One Better?
TOPLINE:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCRT Confirmed as Best Approach in Locally Advanced, Resectable ESCC
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.
Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.
Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
Different Approaches in ESCC
Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.
This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”
In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.
Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.
The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.
They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.
In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes
One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.
The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.
Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).
There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.
The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).
Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”
However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.
While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.
“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”
Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.
“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”
Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.
No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM WCLC 2024
Is Minimal Access Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy a Safer Option?
TOPLINE:
Given that both procedures appear safe overall, the choice may be guided by patients’ preference.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with a conventional mastectomy, a nipple-sparing mastectomy offers superior esthetic outcomes in patients with breast cancer. However, even the typical nipple-sparing approach often results in visible scarring and a high risk for nipple or areola necrosis. A minimal access approach, using endoscopic or robotic techniques, offers the potential to minimize scarring and better outcomes, but the complication risks are not well understood.
- Researchers performed a retrospective study that included 1583 patients with breast cancer who underwent conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 1356) or minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 227) between 2018 and 2020 across 21 institutions in the Republic of Korea.
- Postoperative complications, categorized as short term (< 30 days) and long term (< 90 days), were compared between the two groups.
- The minimal access group had a higher percentage of premenopausal patients (73.57% vs 66.67%) and women with firm breasts (66.08% vs 31.27%).
TAKEAWAY:
- In total, 72 individuals (5.31%) in the conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy group and 7 (3.08%) in the minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy group developed postoperative complications of grade IIIb or higher.
- The rate of complications between the conventional and minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy groups in the short term (34.29% for conventional vs 32.16% for minimal access; P = .53) and long term (38.72% vs 32.16%, respectively; P = .06) was not significantly different.
- The conventional group experienced significantly fewer wound infections — both in the short term (1.62% vs 7.49%) and long term (4.28% vs 7.93%) — but a significantly higher rate of seroma (14.23% vs 9.25%), likely because of the variations in surgical instruments used during the procedures.
- Necrosis of the nipple or areola occurred more often in the minimal access group in the short term (8.81% vs 3.91%) but occurred more frequently in the conventional group in the long term (6.71% vs 2.20%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The similar complication rates suggest that both C-NSM [conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy] and M-NSM [minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy] may be equally safe options,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, the choice of surgical approach should be tailored to patient preferences and individual needs.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Joo Heung Kim, MD, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, South Korea, was published online on August 14, 2024, in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design comes with inherent biases. The nonrandom assignment of the participants to the two groups and the relatively small number of cases of minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy may have affected the findings. The involvement of different surgeons and use of early robotic surgery techniques may have introduced bias as well.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by Yonsei University College of Medicine and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees outside of this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Given that both procedures appear safe overall, the choice may be guided by patients’ preference.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with a conventional mastectomy, a nipple-sparing mastectomy offers superior esthetic outcomes in patients with breast cancer. However, even the typical nipple-sparing approach often results in visible scarring and a high risk for nipple or areola necrosis. A minimal access approach, using endoscopic or robotic techniques, offers the potential to minimize scarring and better outcomes, but the complication risks are not well understood.
- Researchers performed a retrospective study that included 1583 patients with breast cancer who underwent conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 1356) or minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 227) between 2018 and 2020 across 21 institutions in the Republic of Korea.
- Postoperative complications, categorized as short term (< 30 days) and long term (< 90 days), were compared between the two groups.
- The minimal access group had a higher percentage of premenopausal patients (73.57% vs 66.67%) and women with firm breasts (66.08% vs 31.27%).
TAKEAWAY:
- In total, 72 individuals (5.31%) in the conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy group and 7 (3.08%) in the minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy group developed postoperative complications of grade IIIb or higher.
- The rate of complications between the conventional and minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy groups in the short term (34.29% for conventional vs 32.16% for minimal access; P = .53) and long term (38.72% vs 32.16%, respectively; P = .06) was not significantly different.
- The conventional group experienced significantly fewer wound infections — both in the short term (1.62% vs 7.49%) and long term (4.28% vs 7.93%) — but a significantly higher rate of seroma (14.23% vs 9.25%), likely because of the variations in surgical instruments used during the procedures.
- Necrosis of the nipple or areola occurred more often in the minimal access group in the short term (8.81% vs 3.91%) but occurred more frequently in the conventional group in the long term (6.71% vs 2.20%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The similar complication rates suggest that both C-NSM [conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy] and M-NSM [minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy] may be equally safe options,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, the choice of surgical approach should be tailored to patient preferences and individual needs.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Joo Heung Kim, MD, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, South Korea, was published online on August 14, 2024, in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design comes with inherent biases. The nonrandom assignment of the participants to the two groups and the relatively small number of cases of minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy may have affected the findings. The involvement of different surgeons and use of early robotic surgery techniques may have introduced bias as well.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by Yonsei University College of Medicine and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees outside of this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Given that both procedures appear safe overall, the choice may be guided by patients’ preference.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with a conventional mastectomy, a nipple-sparing mastectomy offers superior esthetic outcomes in patients with breast cancer. However, even the typical nipple-sparing approach often results in visible scarring and a high risk for nipple or areola necrosis. A minimal access approach, using endoscopic or robotic techniques, offers the potential to minimize scarring and better outcomes, but the complication risks are not well understood.
- Researchers performed a retrospective study that included 1583 patients with breast cancer who underwent conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 1356) or minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 227) between 2018 and 2020 across 21 institutions in the Republic of Korea.
- Postoperative complications, categorized as short term (< 30 days) and long term (< 90 days), were compared between the two groups.
- The minimal access group had a higher percentage of premenopausal patients (73.57% vs 66.67%) and women with firm breasts (66.08% vs 31.27%).
TAKEAWAY:
- In total, 72 individuals (5.31%) in the conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy group and 7 (3.08%) in the minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy group developed postoperative complications of grade IIIb or higher.
- The rate of complications between the conventional and minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy groups in the short term (34.29% for conventional vs 32.16% for minimal access; P = .53) and long term (38.72% vs 32.16%, respectively; P = .06) was not significantly different.
- The conventional group experienced significantly fewer wound infections — both in the short term (1.62% vs 7.49%) and long term (4.28% vs 7.93%) — but a significantly higher rate of seroma (14.23% vs 9.25%), likely because of the variations in surgical instruments used during the procedures.
- Necrosis of the nipple or areola occurred more often in the minimal access group in the short term (8.81% vs 3.91%) but occurred more frequently in the conventional group in the long term (6.71% vs 2.20%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The similar complication rates suggest that both C-NSM [conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy] and M-NSM [minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy] may be equally safe options,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, the choice of surgical approach should be tailored to patient preferences and individual needs.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Joo Heung Kim, MD, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, South Korea, was published online on August 14, 2024, in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design comes with inherent biases. The nonrandom assignment of the participants to the two groups and the relatively small number of cases of minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy may have affected the findings. The involvement of different surgeons and use of early robotic surgery techniques may have introduced bias as well.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by Yonsei University College of Medicine and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Two authors reported receiving grants and consulting fees outside of this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In Colorectal Cancer, Donating Half a Liver Could Save Lives
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.
He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?
Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.
This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.
I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.
Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.
First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?
Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.
It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.
Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.
In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.
They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.
It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.
First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.
And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.
It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.
The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?
What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?
Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.
These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.
Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?
Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.
That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.
So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.
And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.
Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?
Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.
In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.
I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.
But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?
Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.
At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.
In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.
But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.
Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.
Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?
What is that like? How do you identify them?
Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.
We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.
Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.
Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.
That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.
But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.
Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?
Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.
If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.
This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.
It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.
Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?
How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?
Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.
And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.
I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.
Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.
It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.
Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.
We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.
There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.
And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.
Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.
SBRT vs Surgery in CRC Lung Metastases: Which Is Better?
TOPLINE:
However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
- In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
- A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
- The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025).
- Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
- Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
- Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).
IN PRACTICE:
SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
LIMITATIONS:
This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
- In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
- A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
- The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025).
- Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
- Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
- Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).
IN PRACTICE:
SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
LIMITATIONS:
This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
- In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
- A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
- The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025).
- Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
- Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
- Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).
IN PRACTICE:
SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
LIMITATIONS:
This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Sexual Challenges
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Liver Transplant Delays Progression in Colorectal Metastasis
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method.
- Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria.
- Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy.
- Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6).
- The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group.
- Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01).
- Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12).
- Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method.
- Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria.
- Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy.
- Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6).
- The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group.
- Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01).
- Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12).
- Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Research has shown promising results for well-selected patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastasis undergoing liver transplant; however, the absence of a suitable comparison group makes it difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this treatment method.
- Researchers evaluated 33 patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver metastasis (mean age, 43.5 years; 52% women) who were eligible for liver transplants, according to validated selection criteria.
- Of these, 20 patients (61%) underwent a liver transplant, while 13 (39%) declined transplantation and received alternative therapy.
- Patients who received liver transplants did not undergo regular chemotherapy until recurrence, whereas those in the alternative therapy group continued systemic chemotherapy, with hepatic artery infusion pump placement (n = 5), liver resections (n = 6), and locoregional therapies (n = 6).
- The main outcomes of the study were overall survival and PFS.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median follow-up duration was 986 days in the liver transplant group and 657 days in the alternative therapy group.
- Patients who underwent liver transplant showed higher PFS rates at 1 year (90.0% vs 41.7%), 2 years (72.7% vs 10.4%), and 3 years (36.4% vs 10.4%). The PFS gains were statistically significant (P < .01).
- Overall survival was also higher in the transplant group — 100% vs 83.9% at 1 year, and 90.0% vs 73.4% at both 2 and 3 years. The differences, however, did not reach significance (P = .12).
- Liver transplant was associated with a lower recurrence rate (5% vs 23%), which also did not reach significance (P = .28) possibly because of the small patient population.
IN PRACTICE:
“This study represents the best available data for evaluating alternatives to [liver transplant],” the authors wrote, adding that the patients should be “referred for multidisciplinary evaluation to transplant oncology centers with strict criteria.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew M. Byrne, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The patient population was small, making it difficult to interpret statistical significance. The inclusion of patients with financial and social support might limit generalizability. The survival was calculated from the date of transplant or dropout. Additionally, the study did not explore sex-based differences in treatment choice.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported holding shares with HistoSonics, not related to the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiation Therapy Underused After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become increasingly popular for treating early-stage breast cancer given the cosmetic and functional benefits of the procedure. However, appropriate use of adjuvant radiation therapy following nipple-sparing mastectomy has not been characterized.
- Researchers compared outcomes and appropriate uses of radiation therapy among 624,075 women diagnosed with cT1-3N0M0 invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer between 2004 and 2017 who underwent breast-conserving surgery (n = 611,907; median age, 63 years) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (n = 12,168; median age, 50 years).
- The researchers compared the rates of postoperative radiation therapy for two standard indications — positive margins and pathologic node involvement — in patients who had breast-conserving surgery or nipple-sparing mastectomy.
- The team also compared overall survival outcomes in patients with positive margins and node involvement.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had higher rates of positive margins (4.5% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and, on multivariable analysis, a 15% higher risk for positive margins compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P = .005).
- Similarly, patients who had nipple-sparing surgery had significantly higher rates of node involvement compared with those who had breast-conserving surgery (22.5% vs 13.5%) and, on multivariable analysis, an 8% higher risk for node involvement (OR, 1.08; P < .001).
- Despite higher rates of positive margins and node involvement in the nipple-sparing surgery group, these patients were significantly less likely than those in the breast-conserving surgery group to receive adjuvant radiation therapy (OR, 0.07). Overall, only 17.2% of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy received postoperative radiation therapy compared with 83.3% of those undergoing breast-conserving surgery — an almost fivefold difference (P < .001).
- In the overall study sample, overall survival in the two surgical groups did not differ significantly among patients with positive margins (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.31; P = .21) and those with node involvement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28; P = .93).
IN PRACTICE:
The researchers emphasized that although overall survival outcomes were comparable in the two surgery groups, the “current standard indications and guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation are not being appropriately” used after nipple-sparing mastectomy.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wesley J. Talcott, MD, MBA, Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Data on locoregional recurrence, cause-specific mortality, and all pathologic details were not available. The relatively short median follow-up period might not capture differences in the long-term survival outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding support. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tool Can Help Predict Futile Surgery in Pancreatic Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
- To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
- The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
- The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
- The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
- Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
- The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
- Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).
IN PRACTICE:
“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.
DISCLOSURES:
The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
- To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
- The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
- The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
- The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
- Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
- The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
- Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).
IN PRACTICE:
“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.
DISCLOSURES:
The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
- To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
- The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
- The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
- The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
- Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
- The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
- Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).
IN PRACTICE:
“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.
DISCLOSURES:
The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.