Title |
Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Colon Cancer: a Cohort Analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11605-018-3676-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Devi Mukkai Krishnamurty, Alexander T Hawkins, Katerina O Wells, Matthew G Mutch, Mathew L Silviera, Sean C Glasgow, Steven R Hunt, Sekhar Dharmarajan |
Abstract |
A paucity of data exists in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NRT) for T4, non-metastatic colon cancer. This study was conducted to determine the effect of NRT on outcomes after resection for T4 colon cancer. All patients with non-metastatic resected clinical T4 colon cancer from 2000 to 2012 at a tertiary care center were included. The cohort was divided into two groups-those that received NRT and those that did not (non-NRT). The primary outcomes were margin-negative resection and overall survival (OS). One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients with non-metastatic clinical T4 colon cancer with a mean age of 65 years were included. NRT was used in 23 patients (17.4%). NRT group was noted to have non-statistically significant improvement in R0 resection rate (NRT 95.7% vs non-NRT 88.0%; p = 0.27) and local recurrence (NRT 4.3% vs non-NRT 15.7%; p = 0.15). There was a significant difference in T-stage downstaging between the two groups (NRT 30.4% vs non-NRT 6.5%; p = 0.007). In a bivariate analysis, NRT was associated with improved 5-year OS (NRT 76.4% vs non-NRT 51.5%; p = 0.03). This relationship did not persist in a Cox proportional hazard analysis that included age and comorbidity (HR 2.19; 95% CI 0.87-5.52; p = 0.09). The use of NRT in locally advanced T4 colon cancer is safe and associated with increased downstaging. While there was a trend toward improvement in local recurrence and the ability to obtain margin-negative resections in the NRT group, this was not significant. Significantly improved overall survival was not observed in a multivariable analysis. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 6 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 10 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 42% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 12 | 36% |