Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and treatment characteristics and outcomes in locally advanced anal cancer, a potentially curable disease, in patients referred from a public or private hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 112 anal cancer patients from a public and a private hospital who received definitive chemoradiotherapy at the same cancer center between 2004 and 2013. Tumor stage, radiotherapy delay, radiotherapy duration, and unplanned treatment breaks >/=10 days were compared using t-test and chi(2) test. Overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and colostomy free survival (CFS) were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models for OS and DFS were developed. RESULTS: The follow-up was 14.9 months (range, 0.7-94.8 months). Public hospital patients presented with significantly higher clinical T stage (P<0.05) and clinical stage group (P<0.05), had significantly longer radiotherapy delays (P<0.05) and radiotherapy duration (P<0.05), and had more frequent radiation therapy (RT) breaks >/=10 days (P<0.05). Three-year OS showed a marked trend in favor of private hospital patients for 3-year OS (72.8% vs. 48.9%; P=0.171), 3-year DFS (66.3% vs. 42.7%, P=0.352), and 3-year CFS (86.4% vs. 68.9%, P=0.299). Referral hospital was not predictive of OS or DFS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Public hospital patients presented at later stage and experienced more delays in initiating and completing radiotherapy, which may contribute to the trend in poorer DFS and OS. These findings emphasize the need for identifying clinical and treatment factors that contribute to decreased survival in low socioeconomic status (SES) populations.

Through the contribution of a very large number of single-arm phase II trials and many less randomized phase III trials, the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer has evolved to either combination chemotherapy plus radiation or combination chemotherapy. In this review, we focus on the key findings of these studies and selected meta-analyses that have led to this evolution. We note differences in outcomes for adenocarcinomas of the esophagus when compared to squamous cell esophageal cancers. Despite progress in developing a consensus for therapy, the outcome for patients with locally advanced remains poor. We complete the review by noting newer areas of investigation seeking to provide targeted and more personalized therapy to patients with esophageal cancer.

Objective: Current national guidelines include category 1 recommendations for perioperative chemotherapy or adjuvant chemoradiation with surgical resection for patients with stage IB-IIIB gastric cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials in which chemotherapy was prospectively tested against chemoradiation with surgical resection. Methods: We electronically searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized, controlled clinical trials involving patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, status post-R0 resection. The interventions compared were adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiation, with any chemotherapy regimen. The primary outcomes of interest were disease-free survival and overall survival. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate effect sizes. Results: Six trials that included 1,171 patients were evaluated; 599 were randomized to adjuvant chemoradiation and 572 to chemotherapy alone. Chemoradiation was associated with a significant increase in disease-free survival (odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.03) when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.71). Five trials found no statistically significant differences in toxicities between the two groups. Conclusion: In patients with gastric cancer status post-R0 resection, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with higher disease-free survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. It remains appropriate to design trials testing new systemic agents with radiotherapy. (c) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is associated with improved survival. The Southwest Oncology Group designed a trimodality, phase II, single-arm trial with objectives of achieving a pCR rate of 40% with prospective exploratory analyses of intratumoral molecular markers postulated to affect response and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically staged II or III esophageal adenocarcinoma received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 29; protracted-infusion fluorouracil (PI-FU) 180 mg/m(2)/d on days 8 through 43; and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) 5 days a week at 1.8 Gy/d for 25 fractions; surgery was performed 28 to 42 days after neoadjuvant therapy. Chemotherapy was planned after surgery. Tumors were analyzed for mRNA expression and polymorphisms in genes involved in drug metabolism and DNA repair. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were evaluable. Two deaths (2.2%) were attributable to preoperative therapy, and two deaths (2.2%) were attributable to surgery. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were recorded for 47.3% and 19.4% of patients, respectively. Seventy-nine patients (84.9%) underwent surgery; 67.7% of patients had R0 resections. Twenty-six patients (28.0%) had confirmed pCR (95% CI, 19.1% to 38.2%). At a median follow-up of 39.2 months, estimates of median and 3-year overall survival (OS) were 28.3 months and 45.1%, respectively. Intratumoral ERCC-1 gene expression was inversely related to progression-free survival and OS. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, PI-FU, and EBRT for esophageal adenocarcinoma is active and tolerable. Because the regimen failed to meet the primary end point, it does not define a new standard. However, future trials can be built on this platform to validate the role of ERCC-1 in determining the best systemic regimen for individual patients.

Rituximab plus intravenous bolus chemotherapy is a standard treatment for immunocompetent patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Some studies have suggested that rituximab is associated with excessive toxicity in HIV-associated NHL, and that infusional chemotherapy may be more effective. We performed a randomized phase 2 trial of rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) given either concurrently before each infusional etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone (EPOCH) chemotherapy cycle or sequentially (weekly for 6 weeks) after completion of all chemotherapy in HIV-associated NHL. EPOCH consisted of a 96-hour intravenous infusion of etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine plus oral prednisone followed by intravenous bolus cyclophosphamide given every 21 days for 4 to 6 cycles. In the concurrent arm, 35 of 48 evaluable patients (73%; 95% confidence interval, 58%-85%) had a complete response. In the sequential arm, 29 of 53 evaluable patients (55%; 95% confidence interval, 41%-68%) had a complete response. The primary efficacy endpoint was met for the concurrent arm only. Toxicity was comparable in the 2 arms, although patients with a baseline CD4 count less than 50/microL had a high infectious death rate in the concurrent arm. We conclude that concurrent rituximab plus infusional EPOCH is an effective regimen for HIV-associated lymphoma.