Welcome to NGC. Skip directly to: Search Box, Navigation, Content.


Brief Summary

GUIDELINE TITLE

Resectable rectal cancer.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Suh WW, Johnstone PA, Blackstock AW, Herman J, Konski AA, Mohiuddin M, Poggi MM, Regine WF, Rich TA, Cosman BC, Saltz L, Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology-Rectal/Anal Cancer. Resectable rectal cancer. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2007. 7 p. [16 references]

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

The appropriateness criteria are reviewed annually and updated by the panels as needed, depending on introduction of new and highly significant scientific evidence.

BRIEF SUMMARY CONTENT

 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY
 DISCLAIMER

 Go to the Complete Summary

RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ACR Appropriateness Criteria®

Clinical Condition: Resectable Rectal Cancer

Variant 1: 60-year-old woman with rectal bleeding mass at 5 cm from verge, biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma. Staging workup.

Radiologic Procedure Appropriateness Rating Comments
CBC 9  
Liver function tests 9  
CEA 9  
CT, abdomen and pelvis 9  
CT or x-ray, chest 9 CT chest preferred
INV, colonoscopy 9  
Endorectal MRI 9  
Endorectal US 9  
INV, sigmoidoscopy 3  
X-ray, colon, barium enema 2 Only if colonoscopy cannot be performed
INV, bone marrow biopsy 1  
PET 1  
Appropriateness Criteria Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = Least appropriate 9 = Most appropriate

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 2: 70 year old woman staged with EUS, a T2NX rectal cancer at 3 cm from verge. Final pathology was T3N1 status post APR. KPS ≥70.

Treatment Appropriateness Rating Comments
Treatment Option

RT + chemotherapy

9  

RT alone

2  

Chemotherapy alone

2  
If RT + Chemo: RT Dose to Primary

45 Gy/1.8 Gy

6  

50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

9  

54 Gy/1.8 Gy

8 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.

59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

3 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.
Simulation

Patient prone

9 Unless physically unable

Small bowel contrast at simulation

9  

Patient immobilized

9  

Use belly board

9  

Perineal scar marker

9  

Bladder full at simulation

7  
If RT + Chemo: RT Volume

L5/S1 pelvis to include perineal scar

9  

L5/S1 pelvis to bottom of ischial tuberosity

1  
RT Technique

3 or 4 field with photons

9 Depending on clinical situation.

AP/PA

1  

3 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

4 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

IMRT

1 Investigational use only.
Appropriateness Criteria Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = Least appropriate 9 = Most appropriate

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 3: 70-year-old woman staged with EUS, aT2NX rectal cancer at 9 cm from verge, Final pathology was T3N1 status post LAR. KPS ≥70.

Treatment Appropriateness Rating Comments
Treatment Option

RT + chemotherapy

9  

RT alone

2  

Chemotherapy alone

2  
If RT + Chemo: RT Dose to Primary

45 Gy/1.8 Gy

6  

50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

9  

54 Gy/1.8 Gy

8 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.

59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

3 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.
Simulation

Patient prone

9 Unless physically unable

Small bowel contrast at simulation

9  

Patient immobilized

9  

Use belly board

9  

Bladder full at simulation

7  
If RT + Chemo: RT Volume

L5/S1 pelvis to include anal marker

9  

L5/S1 pelvis to bottom of ischial tuberosity

1  
RT Technique

3 or 4 field with photons

9 Depending on clinical situation.

AP/PA

1  

3 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

4 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

IMRT

1 Investigational use only.
Appropriateness Criteria Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = Least appropriate 9 = Most appropriate

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 4: 60-year-old woman with circumferential lesion at 8 cm from verge. EUS stage T3N1. KPS ≥70.

Treatment Appropriateness Rating Comments
RT

Preoperative RT + chemo

9  

Postoperative RT + chemo

3  

Preoperative RT alone

1  

Postoperative RT

1  

Endocavitary RT

1  

Brachytherapy

1  
If Preoperative RT: RT Dose

45 Gy/1.8 Gy

7  

50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

9  

54 Gy/1.8 Gy

7 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.

59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

2 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy. For fixed lesions only.

5 Gy X 5

1  
Surgery

LAR

9  

APR

1 Only if LAR not technically possible.
If Postoperative RT: RT Dose

45 Gy/1.8 Gy

6  

50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

9  

54 Gy/1.8 Gy

8 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.

59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

3 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy. For fixed lesions only.

5 Gy X 5

1  
Simulation

Patient prone

9 Unless physically unable

Small bowel contrast at simulation

9  

Patient immobilized

9  

Use belly board

9  

Bladder full at simulation

7  
RT Technique

3 or 4 field with photons

9 Depending on clinical situation.

AP/PA

1  

3 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

4 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

IMRT

1 Investigational use only.
Appropriateness Criteria Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = Least appropriate 9 = Most appropriate

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Variant 5: 45-year-old woman with EUS staged T3N0, 4 cm lesion at 3 cm from verge. KPS ≥70.

Treatment Appropriateness Rating Comments
Treatment Options

Preoperative RT + chemo followed by surgery

9 ELAR if possible.

Preoperative RT followed by surgery

1  

ELAR followed by adjuvant treatment if T3 and/or LN+

1  

APR followed by adjuvant treatment if T3 and/or LN+

1  
If Preoperative RT: RT Dose

45 Gy/1.8 Gy

7  

50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

9  

54 Gy/1.8 Gy

7 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy.

59.4 Gy/1.8 Gy

2 If small bowel is completely excluded after 50.4 Gy. For fixed lesions only.

5 Gy X 5

1  
Simulation

Patient prone

9 Unless physically unable

Small bowel contrast at simulation

9  

Patient immobilized

9  

Use belly board

9  

Perineal scar marker

9  

Bladder full at simulation

7  
If Preoperative RT: RT Volume

Pelvis to L5/S1 + boost

9  

Local field only

1  

Pelvis to L2/L3 + boost

1  

Pelvis to L5/S1 + inguinal LN + boost

1 If extensive involvement of anal cancer.
RT Technique

3 or 4 field with photons

9 Depending on clinical situation.

AP/PA

1  

3 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

4 field with electron boost to perineum

3  

IMRT

1 Investigational use only.
If Preoperative RT + Chemo: time between RT & surgery

2 weeks

1  

4 weeks

1  

6 weeks

9  

8 weeks

7  
Appropriateness Criteria Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = Least appropriate 9 = Most appropriate

Note: Abbreviations used in the tables are listed at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Summary of Literature Review

In what arguably may be the most pivotal recent trial in the area of resectable rectal cancer management, a randomized trial from Germany has established a regimen of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery followed by additional cycles of chemotherapy alone as the standard of care for clinical stages T3 or T4, or for node-positive rectal cancer. Other clinical studies from the United States, Europe, and Asia have also influenced the treatment strategies of operable rectal cancer, as various approaches using preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, have been examined. A summary of the major randomized clinical trials spanning the past several decades is provided below.

Postoperative Radiotherapy with or without Chemotherapy

Several classic trials have examined the use of postoperative irradiation alone or in combination with chemotherapy; in three of these (GITSG, NCCTG, Norway), radiotherapy delivered with concurrent chemotherapy improved both local control and survival.

The method of administration of chemotherapy appears to be important in obtaining optimal results. Infusional 5-FU was found to be superior to bolus 5-FU and is considered to be a standard adjuvant therapy; more recent studies have investigated alternate means of optimizing chemotherapy. The timing of early versus late radiotherapy with respect to chemotherapy may also be important according to the preliminary results of a recent randomized study and warrants further investigation.

Preoperative Radiotherapy with or without Chemotherapy

Exploring the role of preoperative radiotherapy alone (25 Gy in 5 fractions), a Swedish trial showed improvements in both local control and survival. However, given its long-term treatment toxicity and the inability to combine the hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen with systemic chemotherapy, this approach is rarely used. More importantly, three recent trials from Europe have examined the role of incorporating concurrent chemotherapy with preoperative irradiation using standard radiotherapy fractionation, in keeping with the postoperative combined chemoradiotherapy model. Two studies (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] 22921, Fondation Française de Cancérologie Digestive [FFCD] 9203) demonstrated a significant improvement in local control, in the absence of a survival or sphincter-preservation benefit, with the addition of chemotherapy. The third trial from Poland reported no differences with respect to local control, survival, or late toxicity between the two arms. As expected, acute toxicity was increased with the addition of chemotherapy, as had been noted in the French trial (FFCD 9203).

Preoperative versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy

The important question of comparing preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy, as noted above, was addressed by a randomized trial from Germany. The preoperative regimen was associated with significantly improved local control and increased sphincter-preservation rates with no differences in disease-free or overall survival. It also resulted in decreased rates of acute and chronic treatment toxicity, when compared to the postoperative approach. Another randomized trial (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] R03) exploring the same question in the United States was terminated early due to poor accrual. However, it did show a trend towards improved survival; clinical response to the preoperative therapy was associated with significantly improved disease-free and overall survival. The current standard of care in the United States is, therefore, to provide preoperative chemoradiotherapy, using standard radiotherapy fractionation and concurrent fluorouracil for clinical stages T3 or T4, or for node-positive rectal cancer.

Need for Future Trial

Despite the published data from randomized trials that support the shift to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, a subset of patients will require surgical resection upfront for a variety of clinical reasons. A pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials in the United States suggests clinical reasons. A pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials in the United States suggests that not all patients with resected tumors may require a trimodality (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) treatment approach. Patients with favorable or "intermediate-risk" (T3N0 or T1-2N1) tumors were found to have benefited equally from either postoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone. A future clinical study is warranted to validate the appropriateness of such a risk-adapted treatment-minimization strategy.

Abbreviations

  • AP/PA, anteroposterior/posteroanterior
  • APR, abdominoperineal resection
  • CBC, complete blood count
  • CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen
  • CT, computed tomography
  • EUS, endoscopic ultrasound
  • IMRT, intensity modulated radio therapy
  • INV, invasive
  • KPS, Karnofsky performance scale
  • LAR, low anterior resection
  • MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
  • PET, positron emission tomography
  • RT, radiotherapy
  • US, ultrasound

CLINICAL ALGORITHM(S)

None provided

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations are based on analysis of the current literature and expert panel consensus.

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND AVAILABILITY

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCE(S)

  • Suh WW, Johnstone PA, Blackstock AW, Herman J, Konski AA, Mohiuddin M, Poggi MM, Regine WF, Rich TA, Cosman BC, Saltz L, Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology-Rectal/Anal Cancer. Resectable rectal cancer. [online publication]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology (ACR); 2007. 7 p. [16 references]

ADAPTATION

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

DATE RELEASED

2007

GUIDELINE DEVELOPER(S)

American College of Radiology - Medical Specialty Society

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING

The American College of Radiology (ACR) provided the funding and the resources for these ACR Appropriateness Criteria®.

GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Committee on Appropriateness Criteria, Expert Panel Radiation Oncology-Rectal/Anal Cancer

COMPOSITION OF GROUP THAT AUTHORED THE GUIDELINE

Panel Members: W. Warren Suh, MD; Peter A. Johnstone, MD; A. William Blackstock, MD; Joseph Herman, MD, MSc; Andre A. Konski, MD; Mohammed Mohiuddin, MD; Matthew M. Poggi, MD; William F. Regine, MD; Tyvin A. Rich, MD; Bard C. Cosman, MD; Leonard Saltz, MD

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Not stated

GUIDELINE STATUS

This is the current release of the guideline.

The appropriateness criteria are reviewed annually and updated by the panels as needed, depending on introduction of new and highly significant scientific evidence.

GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Web site.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Anytime, Anywhere™ (PDA application). Available from the ACR Web site.

Print copies: Available from the American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191. Telephone: (703) 648-8900.

AVAILABILITY OF COMPANION DOCUMENTS

PATIENT RESOURCES

None available

NGC STATUS

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on December 17, 2007.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

DISCLAIMER

NGC DISCLAIMER

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.


 

 

   
DHHS Logo