Publicidad
Publicidad

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Highlights in the treatment of Rectal cancer.pptx(20)

Publicidad

Highlights in the treatment of Rectal cancer.pptx

  1. HIGHLIGHTS IN THE TREATMENT OF RECTAL CANCER MONA NAFEA M.D
  2. OUTLINE • Global incidence of colorectal cancer • anatomy and molecular basics • diagnosis • Treatment outline
  3. GLOBAL CANCER FIGURE • As the third most common malignancy and the second most deadly cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC) induces estimated 1.9 million incidence cases and 0.9 million deaths worldwide in 2020. The incidence of CRC is higher in highly developed countries, and it is increasing in middle- and low-income countries due to westernization.
  4. GLOBAL FIG.CONT • Globally, 60% of cases are diagnosed at ages 50– 74 years, and almost 10% occur in adults under 50. By 2040, the number of cases of colorectal cancer is predicted to increase to 3.2 million new cases and 1.6 million deaths
  5. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION RELEASES LATEST GLOBAL CANCER DATA
  6. ANATOMY OF RECTUM
  7. RECTAL CANCER TREATMENT UPDATES Progress in MULTIMODAL THERAPY of Rectal Cancer is one of the BEST examples of success of Clinical Research in the last 2 decades.
  8. RECTAL CARCINOMA – RECENT ADVANCES -- OVERALL 1.SPHINCTER SAVING PROCEDURES – UP FROM 15% TO 50% -- NO COLOSTOMY (IMPROVED QOL) 2. OVERALL FIVE YR SURVIVAL – UP FROM 30% 60% 3. DEPTH OF INVASION – DECREASED BY 40%- 60% WITH ADJUVANT RTP 4. LYMPH NODE STATUS AND REC. FREE
  9. RECENT ADVANCES 1. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 2. SURGERY 3. IMAGING – MRI, CT AND PET 4. CHEMO/RADIOTHERAPY
  10. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY DNA chip technique DNA sequence checked -- APC Gene – FAP gene mutation -- mismatch repair gene -HNPCC SUCH PTS.(5%) Put on surveillance program .prophylactic surgery
  11. • Pathology review • 1 ●CEA● • Complete MSI analysis● • Proctoscopy evaluation by surgeon● • High-resolution rectal staging MRI • CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis (with and without contrast) or MRI with abdomen/pelvis● • Colonoscopy (with biopsy if no pathology or pathology non diagnostic)● • Lifestyle risk assessment2 • diagnosis in glance
  12. II USE OF CH/RT (NEOADJUVANT/ADJUVANT)  PTS WITH POOR HISTOLOGY  PTS WITH EXTRA MURAL SPREAD (MRI)  PTS WITH INVOLVED NODES (ERUS) The concept of neo- adjuvant treatment
  13. : stage I Resectable primary,no metastasis TAE or TAMIS/TEM3 Treatment guide
  14. Stage I not eligible for TAE or TAMIS/TEM resection3 Radical surgical resection: LAR, CAA or APR, with or without temporary fecal diversion (ileostomy)
  15. Unresectable primary, no metastasis Consider chemoradiation therapy
  16. Stage II and Stage III Neoadjuva nt therapy Radical surgical resection Consider adjuvant chemotherapy
  17. Metastatic disease, intact primary Are primary tumor and metastases resectable
  18. . . in Europe short- term radiotherapy is increasingly used in the primary management of rectal cancer In united states postoperative chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment of choice.
  19. LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION
  20. • 1-Abdominoperineal Resection • ● Tumors located in the distal rectum requiring an abdominoperineal resection are at an increased risk for circumferential resection margin positivity. ● • In addition to the TME principles as outlined above, the division of the pelvic floor (levator muscles) should be wide around the level of tumor to avoid narrowing or coning of the resection. • .
  21. • For anterior or posterior tumors, this could require en bloc resection of the adjacent structure such as the vagina or coccyx in order to ensure a clear margin. • ● The approach to the pelvic floor may be • trans-abdominal (from above) or • trans-perineal (from below) in either a lithotomy or prone position as long as a complete resection with clear margins can be achieved. • . ● Prior resection does not preclude re-resection in selected patients
  22. • II-Liver ● Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. • Complete resection or ablative therapy must be feasible based on anatomic grounds and extent of disease. Maintenance of normal hepatic function is required. • • A- ● Resectable extrahepatic sites of metastases do not preclude curative hepatic resection. • ● Re-evaluation for resection can be considered in otherwise unresectable patients after neoadjuvant therapy. All original sites of disease must be resectable.
  23. PRINCIPLES OF RECTAL SURGERY ● Ablative techniques may be considered in conjunction with resection in otherwise unresectable patients. ● Primary tumor should be resected with curative intent (R0). Consider completion with radical lymphadenectomy at time of liver resection if synchronous metastasis at presentation and a non-oncologic resection of the primary was performed
  24. PRINCIPLES OF RECTAL SURGERY III Lung Surgery ● Complete resection must be feasible based on anatomic grounds and the extent of disease. Maintenance of adequate residual pulmonary function is required. ● Resectable extrapulmonary metastases do not preclude resection.
  25. IV Other sites Primary tumor should be resected with curative intent (R0). ● Prior resection does not preclude a subsequent resection in selected patients. Other Sites (other than liver or lung) ● Resection of isolated metastasis outside of the liver or lung may be considered if complete resection can be performed, but treatment should be individualized and based on a multidisciplinary treatment plan.
  26. • V Peritoneal carcinomatosis • ○ Cytoreductive surgery with or without intra-peritoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy may be considered in the setting of a clinical trial. PRINCIPLES OF RECTAL SURGERY
  27. Three major indications for radiotherapy can be identified: - - downstaging of the tumor in primary irresectable tumors reduction of local recurrences in mobile rectal cancer, RADIATION THERAPY
  28. , The Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial was one of the first major studies in which a significant benefit of neoadjuvant irradiation compared to surgery alone was found. By preoperatively applying a short-course radiotherapy (SC-RT) of 5 × 5 Gy, the overall survival (OS) was significantly improved from 30 to 38% (p = 0.008), and the local recurrence rate (LRR) decreased from 26 to 9% (p < 0.001). Evidenced based clinical practice”
  29. In a Dutch trial, the addition of preoperative SC-RT to TME surgery reduces LRR from 11 to 5% (p < 0.0001) but did not result in a better OS (49 vs. 48%; p = 0.86) Evidenced based practice cont”
  30. In the MRC CR07 trial, preoperative SC-RT was tested against selective adjuvant chemoradiation for high-risk patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+). TME was not obligatory but equably balanced between both treatment arms. Though selective postoperative treatment did not influence OS after 3 years (76.7 vs. 74.4%; p = 0.04), LRR was remarkably higher with 10.6% compared to preoperative SC-RT with 4.4% (p < 0.0001) Evidenced based practice cont
  31. EVIDENCED BASED PRACTICE CONT • Alternatively to SC-RT, the combination of norm fractionated irradiation with radiation doses between 45 and 50.4 Gy and simultaneous application of chemotherapy was established as long course chemoradiotherapy (LC-CRT). • The German CAO/ARO/ AIO-94 trial introduced a 5- fluorouracil(5-FU)-based CRT approach and demonstrated an advantage of preoperative over postoperative application in terms of 10-year LRR (7.1 vs. 10.1%; p = 0.048) but not in OS • Omitting the chemotherapeutic component in preoperative long- course treatment does not affect OS negatively but results in a worse LRR as Gérard et al. [9] were able to demonstrate. Alternatively to 5- FU-based approaches, capecitabine can be used in preoperative LC- CRT
  32. With two available neoadjuvant concepts, SC-RT and LC-CRT, the question arose whether one of them is superior to the other and should thus be used preferably in daily practice. Several works addressed this topic, Evidenced based practice cont.”
  33. ] Evidenced based Practice cont. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group presented comparable prognostic results in 2012 for both strategies, with a 5-year OS of 74 versus 70% (p = 0.62) and a 3-year LRR of 7.5 versus 4.4% (p = 0.24) for SC-RT versus LC-CRT.
  34.  From a clinical point of view,  SC-RT and LC-CRT are not competing but complementary strategies with a separate scope of use and partly different therapeutic goals: concordantly, both strategies aim to reduce the risk of local relapse. But as reflected in the major clinical guidelines  SC-RT is commonly recommended in early T3 stage without lymph node involvement,  LC-CRT is indicated for advanced T3 and T4 tumors with positive clinical circumferential resection margin (cCRM+) and/or positive lymph nodes to additionally downsize the tumor.
  35. The downsize effect aims at increasing the probability of R0 resection and in special cases to preserve the sphincter muscle. Adjuvant chemoradiation should be avoided by thorough diagnostic work-up before treatment onset. Further, the management of proximal rectal cancer, i.e. 12–16 cm from the anal verge, is debated controversially due to the anatomical setting und the underrepresentation in the mentioned studies.
  36. A detailed overview of the relevant, major randomized trials for neoadjuvant SC-RT or LC-CRT Toxicity late side effects of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in rectal cancer deserve special attention due to the functional sensitivity of concerned structures like the anal sphincter or the urinary tract.
  37. Long-term follow-up data from the Dutch trial or Swedish cohorts suggested high rates of fecal and urinary incontinence after SC-RT compared to surgery alone, thus impairing quality of life. However, from today’s perspective, old radiation techniques were used in these trials. More recent toxicity data from the British MRC CR07 trial also showed increased fecal incontinence rates associated with SC-RT; however, in most of the affected patients changes were reported on a low-grade level with rather minor impact on the quality of life.
  38. , but incidence rates of late side effects do not show significant differences . Gender-specific analyses of toxicity showed a significantly higher rate of hematologic and acute organ toxicity for female patients in the cohort of the German CAO/ARO/ AIO-94 trial and an increased rate of dyspareunia and vaginal dryness
  39. Protocol of Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer Indication of radiotherapy (1) Clinical stage II, III (2) Lower rectum clinical stage I disease for organ preservation. (RT +/- C/T) (optional) (1) Pathological StageⅡ,Ⅲ (2) After local excision, pT1Nx with high risk factors (close/positive margin, LVI, PNI, and poorly differentiated, or sm3 invasion), pT2Nx
  40. Simulation and Treatment Planning:  Use of CT simulation and 3D/IMRT/VMAT treatment planning is required to ensure adequate target volume coverage and avoid normal tissue irradiation. When clinically appropriate, use of IV and/or oral contrast for CT simulation may be used to aid in target localization.  Use of an immobilization device (such as vacuum cushion or ankle holder) is strongly recommended for reproducibility of daily set-up.  Patients could be simulated and treated either in the supine or prone position.  Positioning and other techniques to minimize the volume of small bowel in the field should be encouraged.  • Full bladder filling is not compulsorily necessary.
  41. Radiation Treatment Fields (CTV) • Radiation therapy fields should include the tumor or tumor bed and mesorectum with an adequate margin, the pre-sacral nodes, and the internal iliac nodes. • nodes should also be included for T4 tumors involving anterior structures. • should also be included for lower tumors involving the anal canal or the anal margin or advanced disease with lower third vaginal involvement. contours: 7 mm around vessels, carving out bowel, bladder and bone. (based by RTOG consensus) • The ischial fossa should be included RT field if tumor invasion to this area. • For postoperative patients treated by , the perineal wound should be included within the fields. • Different CTV to create PTV should be considered for motion target (rectum) and motionless target (pelvis nodal) (5~20 mm),
  42. Radiation dose • Once daily, 5-6 fractions per week. • For resectable cancers, after 45 Gy to pelvis, a tumor bed boost with an adequate margin of 5.4 Gy in 3 fractions could be considered for preoperative radiation (for T4 disease, total dose 54 Gy may be considered) and 5.4-9.0 Gy in 3-5 fractions for postoperative radiation. • For patients with very close or positive margins after resection, especially for patients with T4 or recurrent cancers, as an additional boost, 10-20 Gy external beam radiation (IMRT) to a limited volume could be considered soon after surgery, prior to adjuvant chemotherapy. • For unresectable cancers, doses higher than 54 Gy may be required, if technically feasible. • Short-course radiation therapy (25 Gy in 5 fractions) with surgery within 1 week of completion of therapy or delayed 6-8 weeks can also be considered if clinically necessary
  43. Group consensus contours: Brown = CTVA (peri-rectal, pre-sacral, internal iliac), Blue = CTVB (external iliac), Red = CTVC (inguinal). An RTOG Consensus Panel Contouring Atlas - SEOR
Publicidad