Era Of Effective Systemic Therapy Research Articles

Selection criteria for radiofrequency ablation for colorectal liver metastases in the era of effective systemic therapy: a clinical score based proposal.

BackgroundAt present, there are no widely accepted criteria for the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) in the context of effective modern-agent therapies. We aimed to define selection criteria for patients with liver-limited CLM who may benefit from adding RFA to systemic therapy with respect to long-term disease control.MethodsBetween 2002 and 2007, 88 consecutive patients received RFA for liver-only CLM during partial remission (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD) after systemic therapy. At a median follow-up of 8.2 years (range 5.2-11.1 years), clinical data were correlated to overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).ResultsPoor OS and RFS correlated significantly with PD to systemic therapy before RFA (HR 5.46; p < 0.0001; and HR 6.46; p < 0.0001), number of ≥4 CLM (HR 3.13; p = 0.0005; and HR 1.77; p = 0.0389), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level of ≥100 ng/ml (HR 1.67; p = 0.032; and HR 1.67; p = 0.044). The presence of four criteria (PR, ≤3 CLM, ≤3 cm maximum size, and CEA ≤100 ng/ml) selected a subgroup (n = 23) with significantly higher probabilities for OS and RFS at 5 years (39% and 22%,respectively) compared to those without any or up 3 of these criteria (0-27% and 0-9%, p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsA score based on four criteria (response to systemic therapy, ≤3 CLM, ≤3 cm size, low CEA value) may allow to select patients with liver-only CLM for whom additional use of RFA most likely adds benefit in an attempt to achieve long-term disease control. Almost one-fourth of patients fulfilling these four criteria may achieve 5-year survival without disease recurrence following effective systemic plus local RFA treatment.

Abstract P1-01-16: Intraoperatively-palpable “non-sentinel” nodes: should they be removed?

Abstract Background: Sentinel lymphadenectomy is the standard of care for evaluation of the axilla in breast cancer. Not infrequently, despite a clinically negative axilla, axillary nodes are found and removed that are only palpable intraoperatively at the time of sentinel lymph node biopsy. There is limited data suggesting that their resection is beneficial, and there is some controversy over whether these non-hot, non-blue nodes should also be called “sentinel nodes” (SNs). Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of breast cancer patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy from 2007 to 2011 at a single institution. Patients were only included if they had SNs removed (defined as blue and/or radioactive nodes), as well as additional non-sentinel nodes that were only palpable intraoperatively (pNSNs) and not part of an axillary dissection (ALND). Pathology of both SNs and pNSNs were reviewed. Histologic nodal evaluation was performed by H&amp;E alone. Results: From 2007 to 2011, a total of 59 patients had both SNs and pNSNs removed. Fifty-five patients (93.2%) were female and the average age was 55 years old. Fifty-two patients (88.1%) had invasive ductal carcinoma while 7 had lobular carcinoma (11.9%). Average tumor size was 2.0 cm. Among the 59 patients, a total of 109 SNs (mean 1.8, median 1, range 1–6) and 202 pNSNs (mean 3.4, median 2, range 1–30) were removed at the same surgery. Twenty patients (33.9%) had metastases in either the SNs and/or pNSNs with 16 (80.0%) of these having metastases in the SNs alone. Sixteen patients proceeded to an ALND. There were 4 patients (6.8%, 95% CI 1.9–16.5%) who had SNs negative for tumor but pNSNs positive for tumor, and 4 (6.8%, 95% CI 1.9–16.5%) separate patients who had extracapsular extension (ECE) in their pNSNs but no ECE in the SNs. The pNSNs thus provided information altering operative treatment by American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial criteria in 8 patients (13.6%). Two patients (3.4%, 95% CI 0.4–11.7%) had ECE present in ALND nodes, but not present in either their SNs or pNSNs. Conclusion: pNSNs provide information that changes the surgical plan by ACOSOG Z0011 criteria in 14% of cases. Whether their removal changes patient outcomes remains unclear, especially as SNs and pNSNs may, together, be falsely-negative for ECE present within the axilla. While we recommend their removal at this time based upon the added information they provide, further study is required to determine whether the changes resulting from pNSN dissection (i.e. need for ALND) provide any outcome benefit in this era of effective systemic therapy. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-01-16.

Hepatectomy and resection of concomitant extrahepatic disease for colorectal liver metastases – A systematic review

BackgroundRecent data suggest that hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with concomitant extrahepatic disease (EHD) achieve encouraging survival result. The authors examine the clinical efficacy of this treatment approach through a systematic review of the published literature. MethodsElectronic search of the MEDLINE and PubMed databases (January 2000 to January 2011) to identify studies reporting outcomes of hepatectomy for CLM with resection of EHD was undertaken. Two reviewers independently appraised each study using a predetermined protocol. Clinical efficacy was synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies. ResultsTwenty-two studies were examined. This comprised 1142 patients. The median disease-free survival was 12 (range, 4–22) months, median overall survival was 30 (range, 14–44) months and median 5-year survival rate was 19% (range, 0–42%). Median 5-year survival of patients with R0 hepatectomy with resection of EHD was 25% (range, 19–36%). Survival based on site of EHD include lung; median survival (M/S) was 41 (range, 32–46) months, porto-caval lymph node; M/S was 25 (range, 19–48) months, peritoneal metastases; M/S was 25 (range, 18–32) months. ConclusionIn the era of effective systemic therapies, surgical resection of CLM and concomitant EHD in carefully selected patients may achieve survival results superior to non-surgically treated patients. This treatment strategy may be considered appropriate especially when a R0 hepatectomy and complete resection of EHD may be achieved.

Localized Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Adjuvant Radiotherapy in the Era of Effective Systemic Therapy

Investigators in Europe, Canada, and the United States recently established a definitive role for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy following resection of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This was no small accomplishment, as upward of 20 randomized trials had previously been conducted. The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) has been studied with far less vigor in the modern era. A 1998 meta-analysis of randomized trials suggesting that PORT was detrimental to survival included studies of doubtful quality. The value of PORT should be considered in the same context as recent chemotherapy trials. Advances in imaging have improved the accuracy of staging, patient selection, and target definition. Modern dosimetry and accelerator technologies have advanced the capacity to deliver radiation to the target with less tissue toxicity. Evolving philosophies in dosing and fractionation should improve the therapeutic ratio. Finally, it is reasonable to assume that the importance of local control will be enhanced in the setting of better systemic therapies. We will review the data on PORT and address critical issues in the design of trials to assess the role of modern radiotherapy in the integrated approach to management of early-stage NSCLC.