Sergei Bedrikovetski, Ishraq Murshed, Tracy Fitzsimmons, Luke Traeger, Timothy J. Price, Michael Penniment, Sudarshan Selva-Nayagam, Ryash Vather, Tarik Sammour
{"title":"Total neoadjuvant therapy in early-onset rectal cancer: A multicentre prospective cohort study","authors":"Sergei Bedrikovetski, Ishraq Murshed, Tracy Fitzsimmons, Luke Traeger, Timothy J. Price, Michael Penniment, Sudarshan Selva-Nayagam, Ryash Vather, Tarik Sammour","doi":"10.1111/codi.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The incidence of early-onset (age <50 years) rectal cancer (EORC) is rising globally, often presenting at an advanced stage. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is increasingly utilised in the management of advanced rectal cancers due to improved response and survival rates. However, it remains unclear whether EORC in an unscreened population responds similarly to TNT compared to average or late-onset (age ≥50 years) rectal cancer (AORC).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>This study included consecutive patients treated with curative intent with TNT for rectal cancer at three South Australian hospitals between 2019 and 2024. Patients were divided into EORC and AORC cohorts. The primary outcome was overall complete response (oCR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) and/or pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary outcomes included compliance and treatment-related toxicity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 202 eligible patients, 48 (23.8%) were in the EORC cohort and 154 (76.2%) in the AORC cohort. No significant difference in oCR rate was observed between EORC and AORC patients (43.8% vs. 37.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.470). cCR, pCR and complete M1 response rates were also similar between the two groups. EORC patients experienced significantly less Grade 3–4 chemotherapy-induced toxicity compared to AORC patients (2.1% vs. 25.3%, <i>P</i> < 0.001), but reported higher rates of patient-reported Grade 3–4 radiotherapy-induced toxicity than AORC patients (31.3% vs. 12.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.004).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>EORC patients exhibit comparable overall tumour response rates to AORC patients treated with TNT. However, toxicity profiles differ, with EORC patients experiencing less chemotherapy-induced toxicity but more patient-reported radiation-induced toxicity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10512,"journal":{"name":"Colorectal Disease","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/codi.70059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/codi.70059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
The incidence of early-onset (age <50 years) rectal cancer (EORC) is rising globally, often presenting at an advanced stage. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is increasingly utilised in the management of advanced rectal cancers due to improved response and survival rates. However, it remains unclear whether EORC in an unscreened population responds similarly to TNT compared to average or late-onset (age ≥50 years) rectal cancer (AORC).
Method
This study included consecutive patients treated with curative intent with TNT for rectal cancer at three South Australian hospitals between 2019 and 2024. Patients were divided into EORC and AORC cohorts. The primary outcome was overall complete response (oCR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) and/or pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary outcomes included compliance and treatment-related toxicity.
Results
Of 202 eligible patients, 48 (23.8%) were in the EORC cohort and 154 (76.2%) in the AORC cohort. No significant difference in oCR rate was observed between EORC and AORC patients (43.8% vs. 37.9%, P = 0.470). cCR, pCR and complete M1 response rates were also similar between the two groups. EORC patients experienced significantly less Grade 3–4 chemotherapy-induced toxicity compared to AORC patients (2.1% vs. 25.3%, P < 0.001), but reported higher rates of patient-reported Grade 3–4 radiotherapy-induced toxicity than AORC patients (31.3% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.004).
Conclusion
EORC patients exhibit comparable overall tumour response rates to AORC patients treated with TNT. However, toxicity profiles differ, with EORC patients experiencing less chemotherapy-induced toxicity but more patient-reported radiation-induced toxicity.
目的早发性(50岁)直肠癌(EORC)的发病率在全球范围内呈上升趋势,通常出现在晚期。全新辅助治疗(TNT)越来越多地应用于晚期直肠癌的治疗,因为它改善了治疗反应和生存率。然而,与平均或晚发性(年龄≥50岁)直肠癌(AORC)相比,未筛查人群中的EORC对TNT的反应是否相似尚不清楚。方法本研究纳入2019年至2024年在南澳大利亚州三家医院连续接受TNT治疗的直肠癌患者。患者分为EORC组和orc组。主要终点是总体完全缓解(oCR)率,定义为达到临床完全缓解(cCR)和/或病理完全缓解(pCR)的患者比例。次要结局包括依从性和治疗相关毒性。结果202例符合条件的患者中,48例(23.8%)属于EORC队列,154例(76.2%)属于orc队列。EORC与orc患者的oCR率无显著差异(43.8% vs. 37.9%, P = 0.470)。两组间的cCR、pCR和M1完全缓解率也相似。与AORC患者相比,EORC患者的3-4级化疗诱导毒性明显减少(2.1% vs. 25.3%, P < 0.001),但患者报告的3-4级放疗诱导毒性发生率高于AORC患者(31.3% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.004)。结论EORC患者的总体肿瘤缓解率与TNT治疗的orc患者相当。然而,毒性谱不同,EORC患者较少经历化疗引起的毒性,但更多的患者报告辐射引起的毒性。
期刊介绍:
Diseases of the colon and rectum are common and offer a number of exciting challenges. Clinical, diagnostic and basic science research is expanding rapidly. There is increasing demand from purchasers of health care and patients for clinicians to keep abreast of the latest research and developments, and to translate these into routine practice. Technological advances in diagnosis, surgical technique, new pharmaceuticals, molecular genetics and other basic sciences have transformed many aspects of how these diseases are managed. Such progress will accelerate.
Colorectal Disease offers a real benefit to subscribers and authors. It is first and foremost a vehicle for publishing original research relating to the demanding, rapidly expanding field of colorectal diseases.
Essential for surgeons, pathologists, oncologists, gastroenterologists and health professionals caring for patients with a disease of the lower GI tract, Colorectal Disease furthers education and inter-professional development by including regular review articles and discussions of current controversies.
Note that the journal does not usually accept paediatric surgical papers.