Health-related quality of life (QoL) is a goal in nutritional oncology but the association between nutritional status and QoL is rarely explored. The aim of the study was to investigate the association of nutritional assessment criteria with QoL in 50 patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. A second aim was to investigate changes in body weight and QoL during a 3-month follow-up. Muscle mass, nutritional risk, malnutrition and cachexia according to three different criteria were assessed, as well as health-related QoL. At inclusion, 36 patients experienced weight loss, 10 patients sarcopenia, 25 were at nutritional risk, 16 were malnourished and 11, 14 and 31 patients had cachexia according to different criteria. All nutritional assessment criteria discriminated between groups of patients with worse or better QoL to varying degrees. Malnutrition and cachexia defined by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative and adjusted for recent gain or stabilisation of body weight discriminated on most QoL scores. Weight loss at follow-up was associated with a decrease in several QoL scores. Recognition of weight loss as well as diagnosing malnutrition and cachexia should be the first steps in an interventional pathway to enhance nutritional status and QoL in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.
Purpose Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is considered standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for the chemotherapy addition is limited. This trial investigated whether chemotherapy as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach would improve downstaging, survival, and relapse rate. Patients and Methods The randomized study included 207 patients with locally nonresectable T4 primary rectal carcinoma or local recurrence from rectal carcinoma in the period 1996 to 2003. The patients received either chemotherapy (fluorouracil/leucovorin) administered concurrently with radiotherapy (50 Gy) and adjuvant for 16 weeks after surgery (CRT group, n = 98) or radiotherapy alone (50 Gy; RT group, n = 109). Results The two groups were well balanced according to pretreatment characteristics. An R0 resection was performed in 82 patients (84%) in the CRT group and in 74 patients (68%) in the RT group (P = .009). Pathologic complete response was seen in 16% and 7%, respectively. After an R0 + R1 resection, local recurrence was found in 5% and 7%, and distant metastases in 26% and 39%, respectively. Local control (82% v 67% at 5 years; log-rank P = .03), time to treatment failure (63% v 44%; P = .003), cancer-specific survival (72% v 55%; P = .02), and overall survival (66% v 53%; P = .09) all favored the CRT group. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity, mainly GI, was seen in 28 (29%) of 98 and six (6%) of 109, respectively (P = .001). There was no difference in late toxicity. Conclusion CRT improved local control, time to treatment failure, and cancer-specific survival compared with RT alone in patients with nonresectable rectal cancer. The treatments were well tolerated.
The patient positioning in pelvic radiotherapy (RT) should be decided based on both reproducibility and on which position that yields the lowest radiation dose to the organs at risk (OAR), and thereby less side effects to patients. The present randomized study aimed to evaluate the influence of patient positioning on setup reproducibility and dose distribution to OAR in rectal cancer patients. Ninety-one patients were randomized into receiving RT in either supine or prone position. The recruitment period was from 2005 to 2008. Position deviations were derived from electronic portal image registrations, and setup errors were defined as deviations between the expected and the actual position of bony landmarks. Setup deviations were expressed into three table shift values (∆x, ∆y, ∆z) from which the deviation vector $$ \left|\overrightarrow{v}\right| $$ were calculated. The estimated lengths of $$ \left|\overrightarrow{v}\right| $$ defined the main outcome and were compared between prone and supine positions using linear mixed model statistics. The mean volume of each 5 Gy increments between 5 and 45 Gy was calculated for the small bowel and the total bowel, and the dose volumes were compared between prone and supine position. Data from 83 patients was evaluable. The mean $$ \left|\overrightarrow{v}\right| $$ was 5.8 mm in supine position and 7.1 mm in prone position (p = 0.024), hence the reproducibility was significantly superior in supine position. However, the difference was marginal and may have borderline clinical importance. The irradiated volumes of the small bowel and the total bowel were largest in the supine position for all dose levels, but none of those were significantly different. The patient positioning in RT of rectal cancer patients may therefore be decided based on other factors such as the most comfortable position for the patients.
4530 Background: The aim of this study was to compare survival in a randomized phase III trial of chemoradiotherapy (CHRT) versus surgery alone for localized resectable oesophageal cancer. Methods: Between 2000 and 2004, 91 patients with oesophageal cancer were enrolled in a Scandinavian multicenter study. Patients with resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (50%) or adenocarcinoma (50%) were randomized to chemoradiotherapy (CHRT) or surgery alone. Chemotherapy (CHT) was given in 3 cycles with cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 , day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m 2 /24 hours, infusion day 1–5, every three weeks. After one induction chemotherapy course, radiotherapy including the primary tumour and defined locoregional lymph nodes, was given concomitant with the following CHT cycles, to a total dose of 64 Gy, in 32 fractions. Surgery was performed according to Ivor Lewis and lymph nodes resected with standard two-field technique. Results: At a median follow-up of 51.8 month’s 65 deaths are noted. In the chemoradiation group 50% of the patients accomplished therapy according to protocol, 40% were treated with modifications of the protocol and radical resection was performed 76% of the patients. Median survival was 12.8 months for chemoradiation and 15.8 months for the surgery group. There was no significant difference in 1-year survival 56% and 55% for CHRT and surgery, respectively. By two years, survival curves diverge and 2-years survival was 37% (CI 95%: 23–51%) for the CHRT group and 25% (CI 95%: 12–39%) for the surgery group. At four years, survival was 29% for CHRT versus 23% for surgery (CI 95% CHRT: 16–43%, CI 95% Surgery: 10–36%). Both treatments were well tolerated and no treatment related deaths were recorded in any of the treatment arms. Most deaths were due to tumor disease (66%) in both groups. Conclusions: No statistically significant differences between the treatment arms were seen and survival results are equal to earlier reported. Both treatment arms were well tolerated. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
