Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and Aims:

The standard treatment of non-metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) consists of chemotherapy with mitomycin (MMC) plus 5-fluorouracil (5FU) for 1–2 cycles concomitant with pelvic radiotherapy. Subsequent studies introduced cisplatin (CDDP) combined with 5FU, with unclear results. We evaluated the doublet capecitabine (C) and CDDP as a possible alternative to MMC-5FU regimen concomitant with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Patients and Methods:

We carried out a retrospective study on 67 patients affected by stage I–III ASCC, treated with CDDP (60–70 mg/m² every 21 days for two courses) plus C (825 mg/m² twice daily for 5 days/week) chemotherapy concomitant with IMRT for curative intent.

Results:

At a median follow up of 41 months, the clinical complete response calculated at the 6-month time-point (6-moCR), the 6-month objective response rate and the 6-month disease control rate were 93%, 94%, and 99%, respectively.

Disease-free survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 89%, 87%, and 85%, while the overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 100% and 95%. The colostomy-free survival rates were 90% at 1 year and 88% at 2 years. Grade 3–4 acute adverse events were reported in 61% of patients; predominantly skin toxicity (46%) and limited hematological toxicity (12%).

Conclusion:

In this retrospective study, chemotherapy with C plus CDDP concomitant with IMRT proved safe and effective, and may represent a possible alternative option to standard MMC-containing regimen for curative intent.

Keywords

anal cancer capecitabine chemotherapy cisplatin image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy squamous cell neoplasms

Introduction

Anal cancer is a rare malignancy (2.7% of gastrointestinal tumors).¹ Risk factors include female gender, tobacco consumption, human papillomavirus (HPV) or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, previous vulvar or cervical cancer and chronic immunosuppression. Poor prognostic features at tumor diagnosis are tumor size >5 cm and regional nodal involvement.^2–4

Based on results of the phase II trial by Nigro, confirmed by phase III trials that established the clear advantage of chemo-radiotherapy (C-RT) over radiotherapy (RT) alone, systemic chemotherapy with mitomycin (MMC) plus 5-fluorouracil (5FU) for 1–2 cycles concomitant with pelvic RT represents the standard treatment for non-metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC).^5–8 Surgery is reserved as salvage therapy for progressive/recurrent local disease only.⁹

The well-known radiosensitizing properties of platinum-salt agents in different squamous cell tumors have stimulated a growing interest in the combination of cisplatin (CDDP) with 5FU in studies. However, even though efficacy data are comparable, there is no clear advantage in terms of toxicity and so no consensus for replacing the standard MMC in ASCC treatment.¹⁰

Developments in RT have allowed dynamic variations in dose intensity to be delivered more precisely to the tumor tissue with reduced damage to surrounding normal tissue and consequent reduced genitourinary and bowel toxicity. Currently intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents the standard of care in the United States (US), even if it is not adopted worldwide for ASCC; its better management in terms of efficacy and toxicity could allow the concomitant role of CDDP to be reassessed.¹¹

Since 2010, IMRT has been proposed in our institute, concomitantly with CDDP plus oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (C) as a possible alternative to the MMC-5FU regimen in patients who preferred to avoid central vein catheter and/or when an increased hematological toxicity related to clinical history was expected.

Here, we report the largest case series treated with this combination to date.

Patients and methods

Patient selection

We carried out a retrospective study on consecutive patients with ASCC treated between June 2010 and December 2017 at the Gastrointestinal Division of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Inclusion criteria were: histologically proven diagnosis of ASCC, absence of distant metastases (stage I–III), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1,¹² age >18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ⩽2, treatment with CDDP plus C chemotherapy concomitant to IMRT for curative intent. All patients had life expectancy of at least 3 months, adequate bone marrow (hemoglobin ⩾9 g/dl, neutrophil count ⩾1500/mm³, platelet count ⩾100,000/mm³), liver (serum total bilirubin ⩽1.5× upper limit normal, transaminases ⩽3× upper limit normal) and renal function (serum creatinine within normal ranges and calculated creatinine clearance ⩾50 ml/min).

Exclusion criteria were: previous pelvic RT, different chemotherapy schedules, medical or psychological impairments associated with restricted ability to give consent or difficulty in adhering to the regular treatment plan. Patients with past or current malignancies, other than ASCC, were allowed if treated with curative intent.

Study procedures

The present study was part of the research project “Image guided radiotherapy in gastrointestinal malignancies”, approved by the European Institute of Oncology Ethical Committee, Milan, Italy (registration number: IEO N87/11). Clinical and technical analyses for this project, carried out both retrospectively and prospectively, were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and in line with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. All patients gave written informed consent for the research and educational purposes, and their data were extrapolated anonymously.

Treatment

Radiotherapy

All patients, with a full urinary bladder and empty rectum, underwent planning computed tomography (CT) scan in the supine position. The gross tumor volume, including primary tumor and involved lymph nodes, was delineated on the CT scan. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or positron emission computed tomography with ¹⁸fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸FDG-PET/CT) were used to better define the anatomical structures during contouring procedures. The clinical target volume and the planning target volume (PTV) were contoured according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0529 and Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) guidelines.^13,14 For all patients, RT to the bilateral inguinal nodes was planned as prophylactic or curative. Patients with early stage disease were evaluated for a boost with brachytherapy (BRT) depending on clinical factors (age, PS, clinical tumor stage). The low-risk (bilateral external and internal iliac, presacral, and inguinal nodes), the high-risk (strictly adjacent tumor tissues) and the tumor PTVs were scheduled to receive at least 32 Gy, 40 Gy, and 50 Gy, respectively. Dosimetric parameters followed the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) recommendations (report No. 83).¹⁵ The dose volume constraints for the organs at risk, delineated by the CT scan, were adopted from RTOG 0529 and RTOG 0921 trials.^13,16,17 IMRT was performed using either RapidArc^® or Tomotherapy^® image-guided RT.

Chemotherapy

The chemotherapy scheme consisted of CDDP 70 mg/m² (60 mg/m² for patients >70 years) every 21 days for two courses plus C 825 mg/m² twice daily for 5 days/week concomitant with IMRT until the evening of the last dose of RT.

At baseline, complete medical history, including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG PS, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, a score based on the patient comorbidities weights able to predict outcomes, such as mortality or higher resource use),¹⁸ histological type, HPV genotype, tumor-node-metastasis stage 7th edition, was recorded. Clinical and instrumental evaluation were performed by digital anorectal examination (DRE), anorectal endoscopy with tumor biopsy for histology and HPV status, anorectal ultrasound and/or pelvic MRI with contrast and chest-abdominal-pelvic CT scan with contrast. In case of suspected extra regional disease (44 patients), ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT was carried out. Female patients underwent a gynecological examination at the beginning of the treatment and they were followed up regularly at the discretion of the gynecologist.

ECOG PS, vital signs, weight and body mass index, physical examination, blood samples for bone marrow, renal and liver function were performed at baseline, at weekly intervals during therapy (including before each CDDP administration) and at the end of treatment. Subsequent analyses were carried out at 8 weeks and 6 months after treatment start, and then every 4 months during the first 2 years and every 6 months during the subsequent 3-year follow-up period.

During treatment, and at the same time points as previously mentioned, all toxicities were recorded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03.¹⁹ Patients with abnormal values after the termination of C-RT were monitored for toxicity weekly and, if necessary, every 4 weeks until normalization of the values.

Assessment of tumor response was planned at 6 months from the start of C-RT by DRE, anorectal endoscopy, and pelvic MRI, and repeated every 4 months during the first 2 years and every 6 months for the subsequent 3 years if a CR was obtained. Distant disease monitoring was conducted by chest-abdominal-pelvic CT scan every 6 months for 2 years and annually thereafter.

Statistical analysis

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with observed CR at 6-months after the start of C-RT (6-moCR). Secondary end-points were: the 6-month objective response rate (6-moORR), that is the percentage of patients who achieved CR and partial response at the 6-month time-point; the 6-month disease control rate (6-moDCR), that is the percentage of patients with CR, partial response, and stable disease at the 6-month time-point; the disease-free survival (DFS), calculated only in patients achieving CR from 6-months after the start of therapy to the date of the first documented tumor recurrence, other primary tumor, or death due to any cause; the overall survival (OS), calculated in all patients from the start of the study treatment until death from any cause; the tumor-related and treatment-related colostomy-free survival (CFS), calculated in all patients from the baseline to the day of surgery for colostomy or death, whichever occurred first; the incidence of acute (within 3 months of treatment) severe toxicity [grade (G)3–G4, according to CTCAE version 4.03]. The maximum toxic effect grade was used for each patient and each event type. Exact confidence intervals (CIs) for binomial proportion were calculated. The DFS, OS, and CFS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. All analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The main patient characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics (N = 67).

	Overall
Age, median (range)	61.2 (39–81)
Sex, N (%)
Male	7 (10)
Female	60 (90)
ECOG PS
0	62 (93)
1	5 (7)
2	0
CCI, median (range)	4 (2–8)
BMI, median (range)	23.6 (16.2–36.8)
Smoke, N (%)
No	56 (84)
Yes	6 (9)
Missing	5 (7)
HIV positivity, N (%)
Negative	20 (30)
Positive	1 (1)
Missing	46 (69)
HPV infection and types, N (%)
Negative	1 (1)
16	52 (78)
16 + 18	3 (4)
16 + 45	1 (1)
16 + 51 + 58	1 (1)
16 + 31 + 33	1 (1)
31 + 33	1 (1)
33	2 (3)
Missing	5 (7)
Histology, N (%)
SCC	62 (93)
Basaloid	5 (7)
Grading, N (%)
G1	3 (4)
G2	14 (21)
G3	20 (30)
Not reported	30 (45)
Stage, N (%)
I	2 (3)
II	19 (28)
IIIA	23 (34)
IIIB	23 (34)

BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HPV, human papillomavirus; PS, performance status; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

Out of 96 screened consecutive patients, 67 [60 females (F) and 7 males (M)], all Caucasian, were eligible for treatment evaluation in terms of toxicity and efficacy. A total of 29 patients were excluded due to metastatic disease (4 cases), treatment choice different from the CDDP-C doublet schedule (24 cases) or to C monotherapy (1 patient with kidney failure).

HIV positivity was identified in 1/21 evaluated patients. Of the cases with HPV, 52 were HPV16+, 6 had multiple HPV genotypes in combination with HPV16+, and 3 were HPV33+.

Tumor location in all patients was the anal canal. Basaloid histology was described in 5 patients (4 F HPV16+ and 1 M HPV16+/18+). Based on medical history, 17 patients (25%) reported cancer diagnoses: 7 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia type 3; 1 cervical cancer; 1 cervical cancer plus lymphoma; 5 breast cancer; 1 melanoma; 1 squamous penile cancer (HPV16+18+, HIV+), and 1 concomitant diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma treated with surgery after completing C-RT for ASCC.

The elective low-risk PTV received a median dose of 41.4 Gy (range 32.4–48.6 Gy), high-risk PTV received a median dose of 46 Gy (range 40–56 Gy), while tumor and positive nodes received a total median dose of 56 Gy (range 36–60 Gy). The boost on macroscopic disease was given using either a sequential boost technique or a simultaneous integrated boost strategy. Some patients received boost with BRT after 36–50 Gy of external RT. Both high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) BRT were used. In case of PDR treatment, the dose administered was 10 Gy with dose rate of 0.4 Gy/h and 20 Gy with dose rate of 0.4 or 0.5 Gy/h; in case of HDR treatment, a mean dose of 16 Gy (range 8–25 Gy in 3–5 fractions) prescribed to 5 mm depth was given. Median time gap between EBRT and BRT was 21 days (range 12–53 days). Only two patients received the BRT boost after a time gap of longer than 1 month. One of them received the boost after 39 days because of skin and gastrointestinal toxicity; the second patient underwent a restaging MRI to evaluate the response and to optimize boost parameters. Objectives for target volume were set so that, for PTV, 95% of the prescribed volume should receive at least 95% of the prescribed dose. The prescribed dose was delivered in a median of 28 fractions (range 18–29), with daily fractions of 1.7–2 Gy, 5 days per week. The minimum and maximum dose, as the accepted variation in the dose distribution, was 93% <0.03 cm³ of the PTV <110%.

Due to G2–4 systemic or local adverse events (AEs), a median break in C-RT of 7 days (range 1–21) was necessary in 56 patients (84%), though all patients completed the planned RT. RT details are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Radiotherapy details.

IMRT dose—Gy, median (range)		56 (36–60)
RT interruption, N (%)	No	11 (16)
	Yes	56 (84)
Break in RT—days, median (range)		7 (1–21)
Overall treatment time—days, median (range)		48 (35–75)
Boost RT, N (%)	No	2 (3)
	Yes	65 (97)
Brachytherapy, N (%)	No	57 (85)
	Yes	10 (15)

IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; RT, radiotherapy.

A total of 62 patients (93%) were able to complete both the two cycles of chemotherapy, while 5 patients underwent only one cycle.

All patients experienced some acute toxicity, of which 61% had G3–4: 39 (58%) patients reported G3 AEs, mainly skin toxicity (46%), with one case of anal-cutaneous fistula that developed during EBRT; G4 AEs occurred in only two cases (one gastrointestinal and one hematological, with leuco-neutropenia and thrombocytopenia). Toxicity details are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Acute toxicity (N = 67). The maximum toxic effect grade was considered for each patient and each event type.

GRADE, N
Type	G1	G2	G3	G4	Grade 3 or 4, N/67 (%)
Asthenia	0	1	0	0	0 (0)
Neutropenia	8	16	5	1	6 (9)
Thrombocytopenia	17	3	0	1	1 (1)
Leucopenia	12	28	1	1	2 (3)
Anaemia	24	6	2	0	2 (3)
Urogenital toxicity	28	8	1	0	1 (1)
Mucositis	1	0	2	0	2 (3)
Local mucosal and skin toxicity	5	15	31	0	31 (46)
Gastrointestinal toxicity	21	25	6	1	7 (11)
Total					52 (77)
Patients with acute toxicity*	5	21	39	2	41 (61)

Only the maximum grade observed for each patient is reported.

The 6-moCR, the 6-moORR and the 6-moDCR were 93% (62/67 patients), 94% (63/67), and 99% (66/67), respectively.

At a median follow up of 41 months, the median DFS was not reached in 62 patients with CR at the 6-month time-point (Figure 1A), with a DFS rate of 89% (95% CI 77–95%], 87% (95% CI 75–94%), and 85% (95% CI 72–92%) at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. The median OS of all 67 patients was not reached (Figure 1B), with an OS rate of 100% and 95% (95% CI 85–98%) at 1 and 2 years, respectively.

Figure 1.

(A) DFS in patients with CR at 6 months from the start of treatment (N = 62). (B) OS in all patients (N = 67).

Using an exact Fisher’s text, we compared the 6-moCR for all 67 patients between different levels of possible predictors. We included the 62 patients with 6-moCR in a survival analysis, modelling the DFS with a Cox univariate model for each predictor. No statistically significant difference was observed. A better trend in response was seen for patients who developed G3 cutaneous toxicity, but the small sample size does not allow its predictive value to be estimated (Table 4).

Table 4.

The 6-moCR (N = 67) and the DFS (N = 62) according to different possible predictors.

		6-moCR, N (%)				DFS for patients with 6-moCR
	Level	No, 5 (7)	Yes, 62 (93)	p	Level	HR (95% CI)	p
History of cancer	No	2 (4)	48 (96)	0.10	Yes versus No	3.3 (0.9–12.5)	0.07
	Yes	3 (18)	14 (82)
Sex	Male	2 (29)	5 (71)	0.08	Female versus Male	1.1 (0.1–8.8)	0.95
	Female	3 (5)	57 (95)
ECOG PS	0	4 (6)	58 (94)	0.33	1 versus 0	2.3 (0.3–18.7)	0.44
	1	1 (20)	4 (80)
Histology	SCC	5 (8)	57 (92)	1.00	Basaloid versus SCC	1.3 (0.2–10.3)	0.83
	Basaloid	0 (0)	5 (100)
Grading	G1–G2	1 (6)	16 (94)	1.00	G3 versus G1–G2	0.4 (0.0–4.7)	0.48
	G3	2 (10)	18 (90)
Stage	I–II	1 (5)	20 (95)	1.00	IIIA–IIIB versus I–II	5.1 (0.6–40.7)	0.13
	IIIA–IIIB	4 (9)	42 (91)
Brachytherapy	No	4 (7)	53 (93)	0.57	Yes versus No	0.5 (0.1–4.4)	0.57
	Yes	1 (10)	9 (90)
Boost RT	No	1 (50)	1 (50)	0.14	Yes versus No	–	–
	Yes	4 (6)	61 (94)
Local mucosal and skin toxicity	No-G1–G2G3	5 (14)0 (0)	31 (86)31 (100)	0.06	G3 versus No-G1–G2	1.0 (0.3–3.9)	0.96

DFS, disease-free survival; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HR, hazard ratio; 6-moCR, complete response at the 6-month time-point; PS, performance status; RT, radiotherapy; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

When stratified for other cancer diagnoses, patients did not show differences in DFS (p = 0.058; Figure 2A) and in OS (p = 0.345; Figure 2B), although the DFS curve suggests a slightly better prognosis at 3 years in terms of recurrence of disease for the subgroup without any history of cancer.

Figure 2.

DFS (A) and OS (B) in patients with (dashed line) and without (continuous line) history of cancer.

Eight (13%) patients with 6-moCR presented recurrence within 2 years: four local relapses treated with abdominoperineal resection and four distant relapses treated with systemic chemotherapy.

The CFS rates were 90% (95% CI 79–95%) and 88% (95% CI 77–94%) at 1 and 2 years, respectively: three patients underwent colostomy before C-RT and never reversed, three patients underwent colostomy due to local progressive disease within 1 year after C-RT, and one patient due to the onset of an anal-cutaneous fistula.

Discussion

The primary aim of the treatment of non-metastatic ASCC is to achieve complete local control at 6 months from the start of treatment. This is the optimum time-point for minimizing loco-regional and systemic early and late toxicities.^20,21

The doublet MMC-5FU concomitant with RT is considered the gold standard treatment, based on the results from phase III trials indicating its statistical improvement over RT alone/combined to 5FU.^6–8,22

In the ACT I trial, the benefit of C-RT was confirmed beyond a median of 13 years, with an expected 25.3% fewer patients with locoregional relapse and 12.5% fewer anal cancer deaths compared with RT alone.⁶

The contribution of CDDP as a curative therapy for ASCC is still unclear mainly because the available studies were addressed specifically to investigating its role as induction or maintenance therapy before or after C-RT.

Intergroup study RTOG 98-11 compared 5FU (1000 mg/m² days 1–4 and 29–32) plus MMC (10 mg/m² on days 1 and 29) and RT (45–59 Gy) with 5FU (1000 mg/m² days 1–4, 29–32, 57–60 and 85–88) plus CDDP (75 mg/m² on days 1, 29, 57 and 85) and RT (45–59 Gy; start day: 57). In the last 2012 update of 649/682 evaluable patients, DFS and OS resulted statistically better for the MMC arm versus the CDDP arm (5-year DFS: 67.8% versus 57.8%, p = 0.006; 5-year OS: 78.3% versus 70.7%, p = 0.026), with a trend toward statistical significance for CFS (p = 0.05). Conversely, increased hematological toxicity was described in the MMC group (61.8% versus 42%, p < 0.001).²³

In the ACT II trial, patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups: MMC (12 mg/m² on day 1) or CDDP (60 mg/m² on days 1 and 29), with 5FU (1000 mg/m² days 1–4 and 29–32) and RT (50.4 Gy), with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (5FU and CDDP weeks 11 and 14). At a median follow up of 5 years, no difference in terms of ORR, progression-free survival (PFS) and OS was found between MMC for one cycle plus RT and CDDP-5FU for two cycles plus RT ± two additional CDDP-5FU courses, confirming higher hematological toxicity in the MMC arm (G3–G4 26% versus 16%).²⁴

Furthermore, the role of CDDP was excluded both as an induction and maintenance treatment: this failure could be due to the delay in the start of the RT and the longer duration of the treatment, with a consequently greater probability of radio-resistance to platinum through the process of ‘cell repopulation’ (persistence of tumor cell clones that proliferate during treatment intervals), or could be determined by the increased radiosensitizing effect of MMC under hypoxic conditions.^25–28

Limited data are available regarding the role of oral fluoropyrimidines, such as C, that represents a cost-effective alternative to infusional 5FU widely used in several malignancies, also concurrently with RT.^29–31

The administration of C on a continuous daily basis can be assumed to increase the radiosensitizer effect compared with 5FU administration during the first and the last 4 days of RT, and to improve patient compliance also by avoiding venous central catheter.

The evidence of efficacy and manageable toxicity of the doublet MMC-C derived from retrospective studies (similar activity, but better tolerability of MMC-C versus MMC-5FU concomitant to IMRT, with lower hematologic toxicity and fewer treatment interruptions) and from phase II trials, with CR and locoregional control ranged from 77% to 89.1% and 79% to 94%, respectively, and high treatment completion rates despite the appearance of radiation dermatitis as the main toxicity (ranged from 23% to 63%).^32–40 The data regarding the combination of C with CDDP or oxaliplatin are more limited.^41–43 The main studies including C are reported in Table 5.

Table 5.

Main studies including capecitabine.

Studies
	Glynne-Jones et al.³⁷	Wan et al.³²	Meulendijks et al.³⁵	Thind et al.³⁶	Oliveira et al.³⁸	Goodman et al.³³	Jones et al.³⁴	Our data
No. of patients	31	106	58	62	43	44	52	67
Design	Prospective, phase II	Retrospective	Retrospective	Retrospective	Prospective, phase II	Retrospective	Prospective observational cohort study	Retrospective
Chemotherapy regimen	MMC 12 mg/m² d1+ C 825 mg/m² bid	MMC+C	MMC 10 mg/m² d1+ C 500–825 mg/m² bid	MMC 12 mg/m² d1+ C 825 mg/m² bid	MMC 15 mg/m² d1+ C 825 mg/m² bid	MMC 10 mg/m² d1+ C 825 mg/m² bid	MMC 12 mg/m² d1+ C 825 mg/m² bid	CDDP 60–70 mg/m² d1+ C 825mg/m² bid
RT doses	50.4 Gy	50–54 Gy	59.4 Gy(for IMRT)	51.9 Gy(24% IMRT)	–	IMRT56 Gy	IMRT50.4–53.2 Gy	IMRT56 Gy
CR	90%at 6 months	91.5%	89.7%at 3 weeks from the last RT day	93.5%at 20 months	86%at 6 months	–	88.1%at 6 months	93%at 6 months
ORR	93.5%	–	–	–	93%	–	–	94%
DCR	93.5%	–	–	–	93%	–	–	99%
DFS	–	93.9%at 12 months	–	–	–	–	–	85%at 36 months
OS	93.5%at 14 months	–	86%at 36 months	95%at 20 months	97.7%at 23 months	98%at 24 months	–	95%at 24 months
CFS	–	–	79%at 36 months	–	–	–	77.5%at 12 months	88%at 24 months

Bid, bi-daily; C, capecitabine; CDDP, cisplatin; CFS, colostomy-free survival; CR, complete response; D, day; DCR, disease control rate; DFS, disease-free survival; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; MMC, mitomycin; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; RT, radiotherapy.

Definitive conclusions regarding CT treatment choices from the past studies are difficult to draw, because primary outcome measures were different in terms of DFS, PFS, local failure or CFS and the definitions of primary and secondary endpoints were not consistent across trials, as observed in a recent review of six randomized controlled trials, describing endpoints in curative ASCC treatment on 2877 patients.⁴⁴ Now the main goal is to find the best parameters to evaluate outcome in this setting.

Our mono-institutional retrospective study investigated well-defined endpoints and represents the largest trial conducted with the CDDP-C doublet concomitant with IMRT with curative intent in Stage I–III ASCC.

At a median follow up of 41 months, we showed substantial local control, with rates of 93%, 94%, and 99% for 6-moCR, ORR, DCR, respectively, and a satisfactory 3-year DFS rate of 85%, in agreement with the previous literature with the MMC-5FU regimen (26 weeks-CR: 89.6% in the CDDP group versus 90.5% in the MMC group, 3-year PFS: 74% for maintenance versus 73% for no maintenance in the ACT II trial).²⁴

In this study the CDDP-C schedule did not appear to affect adversely CFS. In fact, the cumulative rate of colostomies was 10% (7/67 patients), with three colostomies performed before treatment, due to locally extended disease, and only four colostomies within 1 year after the C-RT. The number of colostomies is smaller compared with ⩾20% historical results of CDDP-5FU plus RT.^23,24,45

In our study, toxicity results were manageable and comparable with previous studies: 61% had G3–4 AEs, related mainly to local skin toxicity (46%). This apparent increased toxicity could potentially be related to the possible cutaneous effects of C, which could be reinforced by its daily radiosensitizing activity, and this could potentially be predictive for clinical outcome.⁴⁶

G3–4 hematologic AEs were less (12%) than with the MMC regimens (61.8% in the RTOG 98-11 trial; 26% in the ACT II trial).^23,24 No treatment-related deaths occurred.

The patients included in our study had several comorbidities and often a high CCI. Previous malignancies, mostly HPV-related, were pre-treated with local and or systemic treatments in some cases. These adverse clinical features are often exclusion criteria preventing patient inclusion in clinical trials. However, in our study these comorbidities do not represent a problem as patients have already been treated with chemotherapeutical agents and so the proposed scheme is manageable in the context of real-life care.

Considering our favorable results in terms of efficacy, toxicity and CFS, C plus CDDP concurrent with IMRT should be considered an interesting alternative curative approach for patients with ASCC.

The main limitation is that this is a retrospective study and so does not allow definitive conclusions.

Conclusion

C plus CDDP chemotherapy concomitant with IMRT proves to be effective and well manageable in non-metastatic ASCC and it could represent a valid option to standard MMC-containing regimen, also for patients with unfavorable clinical characteristics. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these results.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients, their families and all care givers; Cristina Mazzon and Darina Tamayo for data management; and Linda A. Cairns for English language editing.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69: 7–34.

Daling

Madeleine

Johnson

, et al. Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer. Cancer 2004; 101: 270–280.

Sunesen

Nørgaard

Thorlacius-Ussing

, et al. Immunosuppressive disorders and risk of anal squamous cell carcinoma: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark, 1978–2005. Int J Cancer 2010; 127: 675–684.

Frisch

Human papillomavirus-associated cancers in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1500–1510.

Nigro

Vaitkevicius

Considine

Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a preliminary report. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 709–711.

Northover

Glynne-Jones

Sebag-Montefiore

, et al. Chemoradiation for the treatment of epidermoid anal cancer: 13-year follow-up of the first randomised UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I). Br J Cancer 2010; 102: 1123–1128.

Flam

John

Pajak

, et al. Role of mitomycin in combination with fluorouracil and radiotherapy, and of salvage chemoradiation in the definitive nonsurgical treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: results of a phase III randomized intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2527–2539.

Bartelink

Roelofsen

Eschwege

, et al. Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer radiotherapy and gastrointestinal cooperative groups. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2040–2049.

Glynne-Jones

Nilsson

Aschele

, et al. Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40: 1165–1176.

10.

Teicher

Holden

SA.

Antitumor and radiosensitizing activity of several platinum-(+) dye complexes. Radiat Res 1987; 109: 58–67.

11.

Skelton

, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for anal cancer: dose–volume relationship of acute gastrointestinal toxicity and disease outcomes. Clin Oncol 2018; 30: 634–641.

12.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.

13.

Kachnic

Winter

Myerson

, et al. RTOG 0529: a phase 2 evaluation of dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy in combination with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-C for the reduction of acute morbidity in carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86: 27–33.

14.

Leong

Chander

, et al. Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) contouring atlas and planning guidelines for intensity-modulated radiotherapy in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 1455–1462.

15.

Menzel

HG.

Prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). ICRU Report 83. J ICRU 2010; 10: 1–106.

16.

Viswanathan

Moughan

Miller

, et al. NRG Oncology/RTOG 0921: a phase 2 study of postoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin and bevacizumab followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel for patients with endometrial cancer. Cancer 2015; 121: 2156–2163.

17.

Menkarios

Azria

Laliberté

, et al. Optimal organ-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) regimen for the treatment of locally advanced anal canal carcinoma: a comparison of conventional and IMRT plans. Radiat Oncol 2007; 2: 41.

18.

Charlson

Pompei

Ales

, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383.

19.

National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. NIH Publ 2009.

20.

Glynne-Jones

Sebag-Montefiore

Meadows

, et al. Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 347–356.

21.

Pepek

Willett

Czito

BG.

Radiation therapy advances for treatment of anal cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2010; 8: 123–129.

22.

Northover

JMA

Arnott

Cunningham

, et al. Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. Lancet 1996; 348: 1049–1054.

23.

Gunderson

Winter

Ajani

, et al. Long-term update of US GI intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4344–4351.

24.

James

Glynne-Jones

Meadows

, et al. Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 516–524.

25.

Glynne-Jones

Hoskin

Neoadjuvant cisplatin chemotherapy before chemoradiation: a flawed paradigm?

J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5281–5286.

26.

Dolling

Boreham

Brown

, et al. Modulation of radiation-induced strand break repair by cisplatin in mammalian cells. Int J Radiat Biol 1998; 74: 61–69.

27.

Kim

Tannock

IF.

Repopulation of cancer cells during therapy: an important cause of treatment failure. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 516–525.

28.

Grau

Overgaard

Radiosensitizing and cytotoxic properties of mitomycin C in a C3H mouse mammary carcinoma in vivo. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 20: 265–269.

29.

Dunst

Reese

Sutter

, et al. Phase I trial evaluating the concurrent combination of radiotherapy and capecitabine in rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3983–3991.

30.

De Paoli

Chiara

Luppi

, et al. Capecitabine in combination with preoperative radiation therapy in locally advanced, resectable, rectal cancer: a multicentric phase II study. Ann Oncol 2006; 17: 246–251.

31.

Hofheinz

Wenz

Post

, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 579–588.

32.

Wan

DDC

Schellenberg

Hay

, et al. A comparison between 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin (FM) and capecitabine/mitomycin (CM) in combination with radiation (RT) for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the anal canal. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(5s): 4031.

33.

Goodman

Julie

Cercek

, et al. Capecitabine with mitomycin reduces acute hematologic toxicity and treatment delays in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation using intensity modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98: 1087–1095.

34.

Jones

Adams

Downing

, et al. Toxicity, tolerability, and compliance of concurrent capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil in radical management of anal cancer with single-dose mitomycin-C and intensity modulated radiation therapy: evaluation of a national cohort. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101: 1202–1211.

35.

Meulendijks

Dewit

Tomasoa

, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine for locally advanced anal carcinoma: an alternative treatment option. Br J Cancer 2014; 111: 1726–1733.

36.

Thind

Johal

Follwell

, et al. Chemoradiation with capecitabine and mitomycin-C for stage I–III anal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 124.

37.

Glynne-Jones

Meadows

Wan

, et al. EXTRA—a multicenter phase II study of chemoradiation using a 5 day per week oral regimen of capecitabine and intravenous mitomycin C in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 119–126.

38.

Oliveira

SCR

Moniz

CMV

Riechelmann

, et al. Phase II study of capecitabine in substitution of 5-FU in the chemoradiotherapy regimen for patients with localized squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. J Gastrointest Cancer 2016; 47: 75–81.

39.

Chong

Healey

Michele

, et al. Capecitabine in locally advanced anal cancer, do we need randomised evidence? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17: 411–416.

40.

Souza

Pereira

AAL

Araujo

, et al. Replacing 5-fluorouracil by capecitabine in localised squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ecancermedicalscience 2016; 10.

41.

Eng

Chang

You

, et al. Long-term results of weekly/daily cisplatin-based chemoradiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Cancer 2013; 119: 3769–3775.

42.

Cheung

WY.

Comparison of 5-FU versus capecitabine in combination with mitomycin or cisplatin in the treatment of anal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017: 680.

43.

Eng

Chang

Das

, et al. Phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin with concurrent radiation therapy (XELOX-XRT) for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4116.

44.

Glynne-Jones

Adams

Lopes

, et al. Clinical endpoints in trials of chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: e218–e227.

45.

Glynne-Jones

Kadalayil

Meadows

, et al. Tumour- and treatment-related colostomy rates following mitomycin C or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus in the ACT II trial. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1616–1622.

46.

Rzepecki

Cheng

McLellan

BN.

Cutaneous toxicity as a predictive biomarker for clinical outcome in patients receiving anticancer therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79: 545–555.

Cisplatin plus capecitabine concomitant with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in non-metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma: the experience of a single research cancer center

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Patients and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Patients and methods

Patient selection

Study procedures

Treatment

Radiotherapy

Chemotherapy

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

References