Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research

The effect of primary tumor radiotherapy in patients with Unresectable stage IV Rectal or Rectosigmoid Cancer: a propensity score matching analysis for survival

verfasst von: Gang Wang, Wenling Wang, Haijie Jin, Hongmin Dong, Weiwei Chen, Xiaokai Li, Guodong Li, Leilei Li

Erschienen in: Radiation Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the impact of primary tumor radiotherapy on survival in patients with unresectable metastatic rectal or rectosigmoid cancer.

Methods

From September 2008 to September 2017, 350 patients with unresectable metastatic rectal or rectosigmoid cancer were retrospectively reviewed in our center. All patients received at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy and were divided into two groups according to whether they received primary tumor radiotherapy. A total of 163 patients received primary tumor radiotherapy, and the median radiation dose was 56.69 Gy (50.4–60). Survival curves were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method to roughly compare survival between the two groups. Subsequently, the 18-month survival rate was used as the outcome variable for this study. This study mainly evaluated the impact of primary tumor radiotherapy on the survival of these patients through a series of multivariate Cox regression analyses after propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

The median follow-up time was 21 months. All 350 patients received a median of 7 cycles of chemotherapy (range 4–12), and 163 (46.67%) patients received primary tumor radiotherapy for local symptoms. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the primary tumor radiotherapy group had a significant overall survival (OS) advantage compared to the group without radiotherapy (20.07 vs 17.33 months; P = 0.002). In this study, the multivariate Cox regression analysis after adjusting for covariates, multivariate Cox regression analysis after PSM, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis and propensity score (PS)-adjusted model analysis consistently showed that primary tumor radiotherapy could effectively reduce the risk of death for these patients at 18 months (HR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.40–0.98; HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.93–1.45; HR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.99 and HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59–0.94).

Conclusion

Compared with patients with stage IV rectal or rectosigmoid cancer who did not receive primary tumor radiotherapy, those who received primary tumor radiotherapy had a lower risk of death. The prescription dose (59.4 Gy/33 fractions or 60 Gy/30 fractions) of radiation for primary tumors might be considered not only to relieve symptoms improve the survival of patients with inoperable metastatic rectal or rectosigmoid cancer.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
AJCC
American joint commission on cancer
BED
Biologically equivalent dose
CT
Computed tomography
Gy
Gray
HR
Hazard ratio
IMRT
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
IPTW
Inverse probability of treatment weighting
KPS
Karnofsky performance status
MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging
NCCN
National comprehensive cancer network
OS
Overall survival
PD
Progressive disease
PR
Partial response
PS
Propensity score
PSM
Propensity score matching
RCT
Randomized controlled trial
RECIST
Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors
SD
Stable disease
TRG
Tumor regression grade

Background

From the cancer statistical data of 2019, the incidence rate of colorectal cancer was 39.42 per 100,000 population in the U.S. [1], and the rate was 27.47 per 100,000 people in China [2]. The proportion of rectal cancer among colorectal cancers was 49.7% in China, which is higher than the corresponding 30.4% in the U.S. Approximately 25% of colorectal cancer patients present have overt metastases, and an additional 25–35% of patients will develop metastases during the course of their disease [3]. Approximately 80–90% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were not able to undergo a radical surgery of metastatic lesions [3, 4], therefore a surgical removal to the primary tumor was considered unnecessary, which leads to the fact that most of stage IV rectal cancer are always with primary lesion in their whole survival time. Benefitting from the combination therapies of chemotherapy and targeted drugs, unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer normally has a median survival time of 20.7–33.4 months, which has been reported by several classical studies [58]. At present, systemic chemotherapy is still the preferred treatment for stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer. Radiotherapy or resection of the primary tumor is only recommended for patients with primary tumor progression by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines [9]. These patients usually have typical local symptoms such as obstruction, bleeding, and pain. Although there is some controversy, most of the studies show that resection of the primary tumor without metastasectomy not only relieves pelvic symptoms in patients but also improves their survival [1012]. However, few studies have explored whether radiotherapy for primary tumors can also improve the survival of these patients. To provide more meaningful clinical evidence to answer this question, in this study, we retrospectively analyzed 350 patients with stage IV unresectable rectal or rectosigmoid cancer using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to explore whether there were any survival benefits in patients who received primary tumor radiotherapy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 366 patients who were initially diagnosed with stage IV unresectable rectal or rectosigmoid cancer from September 2008 to September 2017 in our center. All patients received at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy, some of whom had significant local pelvic symptoms and received primary tumor radiotherapy. Four patients’ diagnoses were corrected as nonmetastatic patients by review, 3 patients underwent emergency resection of the primary tumor because of an acute intestinal obstruction, 4 patients discontinued primary tumor radiotherapy, and 5 patients were lost to follow-up. The final analysis included 350 patients, and the details of the PSM process are demonstrated in Fig. 1. Of these 350 patients, 254 were male, and 96 were female; 266 were diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 84 had rectosigmoid cancer. The numbers of patients with stage IVa, IVb and IVc disease were 180, 146 and 24, respectively, according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual. The whole group of patients received chemotherapy (FOLFOX4/FOLFOX6), and the average number of chemotherapy cycles was 7 cycles. Seventy-four patients received second-line chemotherapy after disease progression. The response to chemotherapy was assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST); partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) was defined as a good response to chemotherapy, and progressive disease (PD) was defined as a poor response. Because of typical local pelvic symptoms such as pain, bleeding, and incomplete obstruction, 163 patients received primary tumor radiotherapy while receiving chemotherapy. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was used as primary tumor radiotherapy. Primary tumors included intestinal tumors and metastatic lymph nodes confirmed by pelvic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Radiotherapy was administered at doses of 1.8 or 2.0 Gy/day and delivered 5 days per week for a total dose of 59.4 or 60 Gy. The pelvic lymph drainage area (presacral space, internal iliac, obturator, mesorectum) within 2 cm above and below the primary tumor received 45–50.4 Gy. The patient and treatment characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Comparison of clinical and treatment characteristics between the patients with primary tumor radiation and those without
Variable
Primary tumor radiotherapy
P-value
No (187)
Yes (163)
 
Number
%
Number
%
 
Age
    
0.460
  < 60 years
90
48.13
72
44.17
 
  ≥ 60 years
97
51.87
91
55.83
 
Sex
    
0.879
 Male
136
72.73
118
72.39
 
 Female
51
27.27
45
27.61
 
KPSa
    
0.037
 70–80
120
64.17
122
74.85
 
 90–100
67
35.83
41
25.15
 
Primary Site
    
0.056
 Rectum
134
71.66
132
80.98
 
 Rectosigmoid
53
28.34
31
19.02
 
T Stage
    
0.043
 T2
10
5.35
14
8.59
 
 T3
86
45.99
90
55.21
 
 T4
91
48.66
59
36.20
 
N Stage
    
< 0.001
 N0
10
5.35
40
24.54
 
 N1
43
22.99
71
43.56
 
 N2
44
23.53
42
25.77
 
 N+
77
41.18
9
5.52
 
 Nx
13
6.95
1
0.61
 
M Stage
    
0.880
 M1a
98
52.41
82
50.31
 
 M1b
77
41.17
69
42.33
 
 M1c
12
6.42
12
7.36
 
Differentiation
    
0.013
 Well
20
10.70
8
4.91
 
 Moderate
94
50.27
104
63.80
 
 Poor
61
32.62
49
30.06
 
 Unknown
12
6.42
2
1.23
 
Chemotherapy Cycle
    
0.019
 4–8 cycles
142
75.94
105
64.42
 
 9–12 cycles
45
24.06
58
35.58
 
Second-line Chemotherapy
    
0.014
 No
156
83.42
120
73.62
 
 Yes
31
16.58
43
26.38
 
Chemotherapy Response
    
0.279
 Poor
83
44.39
63
38.65
 
 Good
104
55.61
100
61.35
 
Metastatic Tumor Radiotherapy
    
0.201
 Yes
90
48.13
90
55.21
 
 No
97
51.87
73
44.79
 
aKPS Karnofsky Performance Status
The follow-up period was defined as the time from the confirmed diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer until death or at least 18 months after the confirmed diagnosis. The survival time of the two groups was compared with the Kaplan-Meier method. The outcome variable was the 18-month survival rate, and whether the primary tumor was treated with radiation was used as the exposure variable. Covariates that may be related to outcome variables were screened for by referring to previous literature, clinical experience, and univariate Cox regression analysis. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify the independent effects of exposure variables on the outcome variable after adjusting for relevant covariates. This study was a retrospective observational study, not a randomized controlled trial (RCT), so selection bias was inevitable. To minimize the effect of bias, the propensity score matching (PSM) method can achieve a similar randomization effect, further verifying the previous analysis results. The matching algorithm used binary logistic regression, and the caliper value was set to 0.05. Given that PSM can cause sample loss, this study used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) as a sensitivity analysis to assess the stability of the results. Moreover, we further verified the results by adjusting the propensity score analysis (PS-adjusted model). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 24.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) and R software.

Results

The median follow-up time was 21 months. Patients who received primary tumor radiotherapy had more cycles of chemotherapy (35.58% vs 24.06%; P = 0.019) and were more likely to receive second-line chemotherapy (26.38% vs 16.58%; P = 0.014) than those who did not receive primary tumor radiotherapy. Patients with a lower Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, moderate differentiation and T3 stage constituted a higher percentage in the primary tumor radiotherapy group. All of the other characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1).
The Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the primary tumor radiotherapy group had a significant overall survival (OS) advantage compared to the group without radiotherapy (20.07 vs 17.33 months; P = 0.002; Fig. 2). The 18-month survival rates were 73.01 and 42.25%, respectively, for the groups with and without primary tumor radiotherapy.
Univariable Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between covariates and the 18-month survival rate, and the results are displayed in Table 2. The possible protective factors based on the univariable Cox regression analysis include older age, more chemotherapy cycles, second-line chemotherapy, better chemotherapy response, metastatic lesions treated with radiotherapy, and primary tumor treated with radiotherapy. The possible risk factors include a higher T stage, N stage, and M stage. Based on the univariate Cox regression analysis and the distribution of related factors in the two groups of patients, 10 variables (including age, KPS, T stage, N stage, M stage, differentiation, chemotherapy cycle, second-line chemotherapy, chemotherapy response, radiotherapy for metastatic tumor) were selected as the covariates that needed to be adjusted for in subsequent multivariate Cox regression analysis. After adjusting for the above covariates in the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the primary tumor radiotherapy group had a lower risk of death than the group without primary tumor radiotherapy (HR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.40–0.98; Table 4). The 10 variables were included in propensity score matching. There were 91 matched patients in each group after 1:1 individual matching without replacement. The matching situation is shown in Fig. 3, and the clinicopathological features are presented in Table 3. The primary tumor radiotherapy group still showed a lower risk of death than the group without primary tumor radiotherapy after propensity score matching (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.93–1.45; Table 4). The sensitivity analyses using propensity score–based IPTW and PS-adjusted models yielded similar results (Table 4). The results from our sensitivity analyses were consistent with our primary analysis findings. Patients treated with primary tumor radiotherapy in this study had a lower risk of death than those treated without radiotherapy (HR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.99 and HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59–0.94).
Table 2
Univariable Cox regression analysis of factors affecting survival at 18 months in the whole group of patients
Factors
Number (%)
HR (95% CI)
P value
Age
  < 60 years
162 (46.29)
Reference
 
  ≥ 60 years
188 (53.71)
0.98 (0.97, 1.00)
0.0297
Sex
 Male
254 (72.57)
Reference
 
 Female
96 (27.43)
0.88 (0.62, 1.26)
0.4927
KPS
 70–80
242 (69.14)
Reference
 
 90–100
108 (30.86)
1.00 (0.98, 1.03)
0.7220
Primary Site
 Rectum
266 (76.00)
Reference
 
 Rectosigmoid
84 (24.00)
1.12(0.53,1.18)
0.6210
T Stage
 T2
24 (6.86)
Reference
 
 T3
176 (50.29)
2.86 (1.05, 7.83)
0.0406
 T4
150 (42.86)
3.16 (1.15, 8.64)
0.0253
N Stage
 N0
50 (14.29)
Reference
 
 N1
114 (32.57)
0.88 (0.44, 1.75)
0.7192
 N2
86 (24.57)
2.03 (1.05, 3.93)
0.0350
 N+
86 (24.57)
4.09 (2.21, 7.59)
< 0.0001
 Nx
14 (4.00)
7.01 (3.14, 15.66)
< 0.0001
M Stage
 M1a
180 (51.43)
Reference
 
 M1b
146 (41.71)
1.09 (0.77, 1.54)
0.6163
 M1c
24 (6.86)
2.39 (1.46, 3.91)
0.0006
Differentiation
 Well
28 (8.00)
Reference
 
 Moderate
198 (56.57)
0.28 (0.17, 0.47)
< 0.0001
 Poor
110 (31.43)
1.00 (0.61, 1.65)
0.9877
 Unknown
14 (4.00)
0.95 (0.22, 4.07)
0.9444
Chemotherapy Cycles
 4–8
247(70.57)
Reference
 
 9–12
103(29.43)
0.79 (0.69, 0.90)
0.0002
Second-line Chemotherapy
 No
276 (78.86)
Reference
 
 Yes
74 (21.14)
0.37 (0.22, 0.63)
0.0002
Chemotherapy Response
 Poor
146 (41.71)
Reference
 
 Good
204 (58.29)
0.82 (0.59, 1.13)
0.0217
Metastatic Tumor radiotherapy
 Yes
180 (51.43)
Reference
 
 No
170 (48.57)
1.53 (1.11, 2.11)
0.0102
Primary Tumor Radiotherapy
 No
187 (53.43)
Reference
 
 Yes
163 (46.57)
0.39 (0.28, 0.56)
< 0.0001
Table 3
Clinicopathological features between the two groups after propensity score matching
Variable
Primary Tumor Radiotherapy
Standardized difference
P value
No (91)
Yes (91)
Number
%
Number
%
Age
    
0.0224
1.0000
  < 60 years
43
47.3
44
48.4
  
  ≥ 60 years
48
52.7
47
51.6
  
KPS
     
0.1700
 70
14
15.4
32
35.2
0.4674
 
 80
65
71.4
42
46.2
0.5313
 
 90
12
13.2
14
15.4
0.0628
 
 100
0
0.0
3
3.3
0.2611
 
T Stage
     
0.1156
 T2
10
11.0
5
5.5
0.2008
 
 T3
43
47.3
56
61.5
0.2898
 
 T4
38
41.8
30
33
0.1825
 
N Stage
     
0.1250
 N0
10
11.0
15
16.5
0.1601
 
 N1
44
48.4
29
31.9
0.3412
 
 N2
25
27.5
38
41.8
0.3037
 
 N+
9
9.9
7
7.7
0.0777
 
 Nx
3
3.3
2
2.2
0.0673
 
M Stage
     
0.9395
 M1a
50
54.9
50
54.9
0.0000
 
 M1b
37
40.7
36
39.6
0.0224
 
 M1c
4
4.4
5
5.5
0.0507
 
Differentiation
     
0.3212
 Well
7
7.7
6
6.6
0.0427
 
 Moderate
53
58.2
52
57.1
0.0222
 
 Poor
28
30.8
33
36.3
0.1166
 
 Unknown
3
3.3
0
0
0.2611
 
Chemotherapy Cycles
     
0.0940
 4
20
22.0
25
27.5
0.1276
 
 5
5
3.3
0
0
0.2611
 
 6
22
24.2
19
20.9
0.0790
 
 8
20
22.0
14
15.4
0.1698
 
 10
5
5.5
20
22
0.4932
 
 12
19
20.9
13
14.3
0.1739
 
Second-line Chemotherapy
    
0.0000
1.0000
 No
74
81.3
74
81.3
  
 Yes
17
18.7
17
18.7
  
Chemotherapy Response
    
0.1562
0.3680
 Poor
42
46.2
35
38.5
  
 Good
49
53.8
56
61.5
  
Metastatic Tumor Radiotherapy
    
0.0880
0.6565
 Yes
44
48.4
48
52.7
  
 No
47
51.6
43
47.3
  
Table 4
Various analysis models for the risk of death at 18 months in the two groups of patients
Methods
Primary Tumor Radiotherapy
No
Yes
 
HR (95% CI)
P value
COX adjusteda
Reference
0.62(0.40–0.98)
0.0394
PSM model
Reference
0.79(0.93–1.45)
NS
IPTW model
Reference
0.70(0.55–0.99)
0.0436
PS-Adjustedb
Reference
0.74(0.50–0.94)
0.0254
aAdjusted covariates included age, KPS, T stage, N stage, M stage, differentiation, chemotherapy cycle, second-line chemotherapy, chemotherapy response, and metastatic lesion radiotherapy
bPropensity scores were adjusted
NS Not significant

Discussion

With the application of oxaliplatin and irinotecan in combination with the fluorouracil regimen, the survival time of stage IV colorectal cancer ranged from 16 to 20 months [1315]. After entering the era of targeted drugs combined with chemotherapy, the survival time of stage IV colorectal cancer has been significantly improved to 20.7–33.4 months.
For patients with stage IV colorectal cancer who cannot be cured by radical surgery, in general, resection or radiotherapy was used as a local treatment to relieve local obstruction, hemorrhage and pain. More clinical studies focus on the benefits of primary tumor resection alone. Although there are still controversies at present [16, 17], most of the existing clinical studies show that resection of the primary tumor alone can not only reduce the incidence of local complications [18] but also seems to be beneficial in terms of patient survival [11, 19, 20]. However, there are limited data regarding the effect of primary tumor radiotherapy in stage IV unresectable rectal or rectosigmoid cancer, and most of these studies mainly observed the palliative effect [2124]. To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have explored the effects of primary tumor radiotherapy on the survival of metastatic rectal cancer. For clinical researchers, the main reason is that there are many factors that can affect the survival of patients with stage IV rectal cancer, and there are large individual differences. In retrospective observational studies, conventional multivariate regression analysis has difficulty effectively removing interference of confounding factors and selection bias from the results, which makes the analysis results lack reliability and consistency. Moreover, it is very difficult to implement such randomized controlled trials; for example, two previous trials (NCT01086618 and NCT01978249) were terminated due to recruitment problems. This study designed a series of analyses based on PSM to minimize interference from other confounding factors and selection bias on the research results.
In previous clinical studies on primary tumor radiotherapy for metastatic rectal cancer, the radiotherapy doses were generally low. Sager et al. reviewed many studies in which the radiotherapy dose delivered to the primary tumors ranged from 25 to 50 Gy [25]. When the α/β of the tumor was assumed to be 10 Gy for the biologically equivalent dose (BED), the BED of the above studies ranged from 37.5 to 53.1 Gy. In this study, the radiation dose of the primary tumor was significantly higher than that in previous clinical studies. Overall, 78% of patients completed the prescription dose (59.4 Gy in 33 fractions or 60 Gy in 30 fractions) of radiotherapy, the average radiation dose was 56.69 Gy, and the average BED was 67 Gy. Previous studies showed that a prescription dose of 54 Gy to 60 Gy (BED = 65 to 72 Gy) delivered to rectal tumors would achieve a significant tumor regression effect, and the percentage of patients with tumor regression grade (TRG) 1 and 2 was approximately 60 to 63.9% [26, 27].
In this study, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the median survival times of the primary tumor groups with and without radiotherapy were 20.07 ± 8.98 months and 17.33 ± 7.34 months, respectively. This was consistent with previous studies on stage IV colorectal cancer patients who only received chemotherapy (median survival was 16 to 20 months), so we decided to use the 18-month survival rate as the outcome variable in this study. Furthermore, in this study, the priori selection of covariates was based on previous studies and the experience of the authors but also considered the results of the univariate analysis. Subsequently, multivariate Cox regression analysis after adjusting for covariates, analysis after PSM, IPTW analysis and PS-adjusted model analysis were performed to examine the reliability of the results. All analyses consistently showed that primary tumor radiotherapy could effectively reduce the risk of death for these patients at 18 months. According to the results of the different analysis models above, although the hazard ratio (HR) increased significantly, the reduction in the risk of death did not change, and the range of the confidence interval gradually narrowed. Our results became more conservative and accurate with the IPTW and PS-adjusted model analyses. A retrospective observational study similar to this study showed that palliative radiotherapy could improve the survival of patients with metastatic rectal cancer [28]. However, several deficiencies exist in the study. The study did not further analyze the location of the lesion (primary or metastatic) targeted by palliative radiotherapy, and it did not consider the dose. Chemotherapy, as an important factor affecting the survival of patients with metastatic rectal cancer, was not analyzed in this study. These deficiencies have been corrected in this study.
There are still some shortcomings and limitations in this study: (1) the time range of eligible patients included in this retrospective study was from September 2008 to September 2017. During this period, the price of bevacizumab and cetuximab in China were high, and these drugs were not covered by local health care insurance. Patients could rarely afford these medications, so this study did not select patients who received bevacizumab or cetuximab. The lack of targeted drugs will definitely reduce the survival benefit of patients and may affect the benefits of radiotherapy for primary tumors. (2) Compared with the 12 cycles recommended by the guidelines, the median number of chemotherapy cycles in this study was relatively low, at only 7 cycles. Fewer chemotherapy cycles will reduce the therapeutic efficacy for all patients and may have an uncertain impact on the benefits of primary tumor radiotherapy. (3) This study was a real-world study (observational clinical study). There might be some confounding factors outside of clinical cognition and previous literature reports that may affect the accuracy of the research results.

Conclusions

In this study, compared with patients with stage IV rectal or rectosigmoid cancer who did not receive primary tumor radiotherapy, those who received primary tumor radiotherapy had a reduced risk of death for 18 months. The dose pattern of 59.4 Gy in 33 fractions or 60 Gy in 30 fractions was acceptable during concurrent chemotherapy. These doses of radiation for primary tumors might be considered not only to relieve symptoms but also to improve the survival of patients with inoperable metastatic rectal or rectosigmoid cancer.

Acknowledgments

I want to thank the staff member Ms. Huiqin Li at the Department of Epidemiological Investigation of Guizhou Cancer Hospital Cancer Therapy Center for her support and assistance with my research project, as well as for providing the dataset used in this study.
The institutional ethics committee granted ethics approval for this study (SL-201507004; Guizhou Cancer Hospital, Guiyang, People’s Republic of China).
All authors consent to publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34.CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Xishan W. Epidemiological characteristics and prevention and control strategies of colorectal cancer in China and American. Chin J Colorectal Dis (Electronic Edition). 2019;8(01):7–11. Xishan W. Epidemiological characteristics and prevention and control strategies of colorectal cancer in China and American. Chin J Colorectal Dis (Electronic Edition). 2019;8(01):7–11.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Cutsem EV, Nordlinger B, Adam R, et al. Towards a pan-European consensus on the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(14):0–2221. Cutsem EV, Nordlinger B, Adam R, et al. Towards a pan-European consensus on the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(14):0–2221.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Dawood O, Mahadevan A, Goodman KA. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastases. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(17):0–2959.CrossRef Dawood O, Mahadevan A, Goodman KA. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver metastases. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(17):0–2959.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Qin S, Li J, Wang L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of first-line Cetuximab plus Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal Cancer: the open-label, randomized, phase III TAILOR trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(30):3031–9.CrossRef Qin S, Li J, Wang L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of first-line Cetuximab plus Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal Cancer: the open-label, randomized, phase III TAILOR trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(30):3031–9.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Cremolini C, Loupakis F, Antoniotti C, et al. FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated overall survival and molecular subgroup analyses of the open-label, phase 3 TRIBE study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1306–15. Cremolini C, Loupakis F, Antoniotti C, et al. FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated overall survival and molecular subgroup analyses of the open-label, phase 3 TRIBE study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1306–15.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1065–75.CrossRef Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1065–75.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz HJ, et al. CALGB/SWOG 80405: Phase III trial of irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET) for patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rec [J]. J Clin Oncol Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18_suppl):LBA3.CrossRef Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz HJ, et al. CALGB/SWOG 80405: Phase III trial of irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET) for patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rec [J]. J Clin Oncol Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18_suppl):LBA3.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, Rectal Cancer version 1.2020, 2019. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, Rectal Cancer version 1.2020, 2019.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ko-Chao L, Yuche O, Wan-Hsiang H, et al. Meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy with and without primary tumor resection. Oncotargets Ther. 2016;9:7059–69.CrossRef Ko-Chao L, Yuche O, Wan-Hsiang H, et al. Meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy with and without primary tumor resection. Oncotargets Ther. 2016;9:7059–69.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Gulack BC, Nussbaum DP, Keenan JE, et al. Surgical resection of the primary tumor in stage IV colorectal cancer without metastasectomy is associated with improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy/radiation therapy alone. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(4):299–305.CrossRef Gulack BC, Nussbaum DP, Keenan JE, et al. Surgical resection of the primary tumor in stage IV colorectal cancer without metastasectomy is associated with improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy/radiation therapy alone. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(4):299–305.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Clancy C, Burke JP, Barry M, et al. A meta-analysis to determine the effect of primary tumor resection for stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases on patient survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3900–8.CrossRef Clancy C, Burke JP, Barry M, et al. A meta-analysis to determine the effect of primary tumor resection for stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases on patient survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3900–8.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Twelves C, et al. XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2084–91.CrossRef Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Twelves C, et al. XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(11):2084–91.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Giacchetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(1):136–47.CrossRef Giacchetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al. Phase III multicenter randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(1):136–47.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Köhne CH, van Cutsem E, Wils J, et al. Phase III study of weekly high-dose infusional fluorouracil plus folinic acid with or without irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer gastrointestinal group study 40986. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):4856–65.CrossRef Köhne CH, van Cutsem E, Wils J, et al. Phase III study of weekly high-dose infusional fluorouracil plus folinic acid with or without irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer gastrointestinal group study 40986. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):4856–65.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Gelsomino F, Spallanzani A, Orsi G, Caputo F, Santini C, Cascinu S. To resect or not to resect: the hamletic dilemma of primary tumor resection in patients with asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;132:154–60.CrossRef Gelsomino F, Spallanzani A, Orsi G, Caputo F, Santini C, Cascinu S. To resect or not to resect: the hamletic dilemma of primary tumor resection in patients with asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;132:154–60.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Yun JA, Huh JW, Park YA, et al. The role of palliative resection for asymptomatic primary tumor in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(9):1049–58.CrossRef Yun JA, Huh JW, Park YA, et al. The role of palliative resection for asymptomatic primary tumor in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(9):1049–58.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Cellini C, Hunt SR, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH, Bierhals AJ, Mutch MG. Stage IV rectal cancer with liver metastases: is there a benefit to resection of the primary tumor. World J Surg. 2010;34(5):1102–8.CrossRef Cellini C, Hunt SR, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH, Bierhals AJ, Mutch MG. Stage IV rectal cancer with liver metastases: is there a benefit to resection of the primary tumor. World J Surg. 2010;34(5):1102–8.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Maroney S, de Paz CC, Reeves ME, et al. Benefit of surgical resection of the primary tumor in patients undergoing chemotherapy for stage IV colorectal Cancer with Unresected metastasis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(3):460–6.CrossRef Maroney S, de Paz CC, Reeves ME, et al. Benefit of surgical resection of the primary tumor in patients undergoing chemotherapy for stage IV colorectal Cancer with Unresected metastasis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(3):460–6.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee KC, Ou YC, Hu WH, Liu CC, Chen HH. Meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy with and without primary tumor resection. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:7059–69.CrossRef Lee KC, Ou YC, Hu WH, Liu CC, Chen HH. Meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy with and without primary tumor resection. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:7059–69.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Cameron MG, Kersten C, Vistad I, Fosså S, Guren MG. Palliative pelvic radiotherapy of symptomatic incurable rectal cancer - a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(2):164–73.CrossRef Cameron MG, Kersten C, Vistad I, Fosså S, Guren MG. Palliative pelvic radiotherapy of symptomatic incurable rectal cancer - a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(2):164–73.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat 1Picardi V, Deodato F, Guido A, et al. Palliative short-course radiation therapy in rectal Cancer: a phase 2 study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(4):1184–90. 1Picardi V, Deodato F, Guido A, et al. Palliative short-course radiation therapy in rectal Cancer: a phase 2 study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(4):1184–90.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Tyc-Szczepaniak D, Wyrwicz L, Kepka L, et al. Palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy instead of surgery in symptomatic rectal cancer with synchronous unresectable metastases: a phase II study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(11):2829–34.CrossRef Tyc-Szczepaniak D, Wyrwicz L, Kepka L, et al. Palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy instead of surgery in symptomatic rectal cancer with synchronous unresectable metastases: a phase II study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(11):2829–34.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Bae SH, Park W, Choi DH, et al. Palliative radiotherapy in patients with a symptomatic pelvic mass of metastatic colorectal cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:52.CrossRef Bae SH, Park W, Choi DH, et al. Palliative radiotherapy in patients with a symptomatic pelvic mass of metastatic colorectal cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:52.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Sager O, Dincoglan F, Demiral S, et al. A concise review of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for rectal Cancer with synchronous liver metastases. Int J Surg Oncol. 2019:1–11.CrossRef Sager O, Dincoglan F, Demiral S, et al. A concise review of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for rectal Cancer with synchronous liver metastases. Int J Surg Oncol. 2019:1–11.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Alongi F, Fersino S, Mazzola R, et al. Radiation dose intensification in pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017;19(2):189–96.CrossRef Alongi F, Fersino S, Mazzola R, et al. Radiation dose intensification in pre-operative chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017;19(2):189–96.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Lupattelli M, Matrone F, Gambacorta MA, et al. Preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost combined with Capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer: short-term results of a multicentric study. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):139.CrossRef Lupattelli M, Matrone F, Gambacorta MA, et al. Preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost combined with Capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer: short-term results of a multicentric study. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):139.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Qi L. Zezhi, et al. palliative beam radiotherapy offered real-world survival benefit to metastatic rectal cancer: a large US population-based and propensity score-matched study. J Cancer. 2019;10(5):1216–25.CrossRef Qi L. Zezhi, et al. palliative beam radiotherapy offered real-world survival benefit to metastatic rectal cancer: a large US population-based and propensity score-matched study. J Cancer. 2019;10(5):1216–25.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The effect of primary tumor radiotherapy in patients with Unresectable stage IV Rectal or Rectosigmoid Cancer: a propensity score matching analysis for survival
verfasst von
Gang Wang
Wenling Wang
Haijie Jin
Hongmin Dong
Weiwei Chen
Xiaokai Li
Guodong Li
Leilei Li
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Radiation Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01574-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Radiation Oncology 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Hodgkin Lymphom: BrECADD-Regime übertrifft die Erwartungen

05.06.2024 ASCO 2024 Kongressbericht

Das Kombinationsregime BrECADD mit Brentuximab vedotin ermöglichte in der Studie HD21 beim fortgeschrittenen klassischen Hodgkin-Lymphom eine unerwartet hohe progressionsfreie Überlebensrate von 94,3% nach vier Jahren. Gleichzeitig war das Regime besser tolerabel als der bisherige Standard eBEACOPP.

Antikörper-Drug-Konjugat verdoppelt PFS bei Multiplem Myelom

05.06.2024 ASCO 2024 Nachrichten

Zwei Phase-3-Studien deuten auf erhebliche Vorteile des Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugats Belantamab-Mafodotin bei vorbehandelten Personen mit Multiplem Myelom: Im Vergleich mit einer Standard-Tripeltherapie wurde das progressionsfreie Überleben teilweise mehr als verdoppelt.

Neuer TKI gegen CML: Höhere Wirksamkeit, seltener Nebenwirkungen

05.06.2024 Chronische myeloische Leukämie Nachrichten

Der Tyrosinkinasehemmer (TKI) Asciminib ist älteren Vertretern dieser Gruppe bei CML offenbar überlegen: Personen mit frisch diagnostizierter CML entwickelten damit in einer Phase-3-Studie häufiger eine gut molekulare Response, aber seltener ernste Nebenwirkungen.

Brustkrebs-Prävention wird neu gedacht

04.06.2024 ASCO 2024 Kongressbericht

Zurzeit untersuchen Forschende verschiedene neue Ansätze zur Prävention von Brustkrebs bei Personen mit hohem Risiko. Darunter Denosumab, die prophylaktische Bestrahlung der Brust – und Impfungen.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.