Does Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment Affect Outcome in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer? Real World Data Analysis

A B S T R A C T

Introduction: Rectal cancer is a common and lethal disease, with approximately 44,180 new cases of diagnosed annually in the United States and a five-year survival of 67% [1, 2]. The interval from diagnosis to chemoradiation treatment, or waiting time (WT), is considered to be an important quality indicator for cancer care and has been demonstrated to be associated with oncologic outcomes in various cancers [3, 4]. The current recommendation for pre-treatment staging evaluation includes rigid proctoscopy, PET CT, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and often rectal MRI. These diagnostic procedures may significantly postpone the start of treatment. We aim to examine the effect of WT on overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) of rectal cancer patients.
Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed in a detailed database of patients with resectable primary rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation between January 2000 and January 2019. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard regressions were conducted in order to evaluate the effect of WT on oncological outcomes.
Results: 387 patients were enrolled in our database; of them 297 patients were eligible by the inclusion criteria. Median WT was 6.3 weeks (IQR 4.3-8.7). Multivariate analysis showed adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for OS increases by 1.07 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in all age groups (p=0.025). Furthermore, focusing on the majority of patients in the age group 45 - 70 years, adjusted HR for OS increases by 1.12 for each additional week of therapeutic delay (p=0.011). Adjusted HR for DFS increases by 1.06 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in all age groups (p=0.045) and an increment by 1.09 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in age group 45-70 years (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Prolonged WT leads to significant poorer overall survival in patients with primary rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation and curative surgical treatment. This marks the importance of efficient diagnostic evaluation and clinical multidisciplinary decision making in a timeframe of 6 weeks in order to not jeopardize oncological outcomes.

Keywords

Rectal cancer, chemoradiation, diagnostic delay

Background

Rectal cancer is a common and lethal disease, with approximately 44,180 new cases diagnosed annually in the United State and a five-year survival of 67% [1, 2]. According to current guidelines, the recommended treatment for stage III rectal cancer includes long-term neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (hereafter, chemoradiotherapy) followed by surgery. Diagnostic procedure recommended prior to the initiation of CRT include trans-rectal US and pelvic MRI, aiming at local assessment of the tumor and FDG-PET CT aiming at the assessment of metastatic spread [6]. Adverse effects of delaying radiation treatment on survival is well known in various malignancies, including small cell lung cancer and breast cancer [8, 9].

Over the past three decades, the association between WT and mortality has been the subject of several studies based on data from symptomatic colon and/or rectal cancer patients [10, 12, 13, 15, 16]. The studies report either no statistically significant association or the waiting time paradox (findings of higher mortality for short delays was caused by hidden confounders like the tumor's speed of growth and/or its ability to spread) [17, 20]. According to this theory, aggressive tumors are associated with shorter delays because they are easier to appraise [3]. Most of the studies focus on diagnostic intervals from symptoms to biopsy rather than WT from biopsy to initiation of chemoradiation. A recent study found that prolonged treatment delay does not lead to poorer overall or cancer-free survival in patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent curative surgical treatment [21].

In Israel, all required diagnostic procedures are accessible and universally reimbursed. Yet, their completion is often prolonged due to long waiting times, thus delaying the start of chemoradiotherapy. We report here on the association between time to treatment and survival in a consecutive population of stage III rectal cancer patients, treated at a single institution.

Patients and Methods

I Study Design

We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively entered database on 297 consecutive patients with biopsy–proven locally advanced (T3-4 or N1 and/or clinically bulky) low (at or below 5 cm from the anal verge) and mid– (6–11 cm from the anal verge) rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) for curative intent between October 2000 and December 2019.

The examined parameters included date of diagnosis, beginning of radiation therapy, clinical staging, final pathology, imaging modalities, radiation dose and survival data. The pre-treatment staging was based on rigid rectoscopy for localization of the tumor in the rectum, endorectal ultrasonography (EUS), and computerized tomography (CT) of the pelvis for local tumor status, abdominal CT, chest X-ray, and/or chest CT to rule out distant metastases. The neoadjuvant regimen included high–dose radiation therapy of 45–50.4 Gy, usually with concomitant 5-fluorouracil (FU)– based chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was administered 5 days per week for 5.5 weeks. Patients were treated with 5-FU either in continuous infusion (180 mg/m2 / day) for 5 days per week during 5 weeks or as oral preparations. Surgery was planned 6-8 weeks following the completion of preoperative therapy but was changed according to bed availability on the surgical ward.

Routine postoperative follow-up of patients included physical examination and serum carcinoembryonic antigen every 3-4 months in the first 2 years after surgery and then every 6 months. Colonoscopy was performed a year after surgery and if normal every 3 years thereafter. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was done yearly in the first 2 years of follow-up. Survival was considered the interval between surgery and last follow-up or death (OS) or the date of last follow-up or recurrence (DFS). Patterns of disease recurrence (local and/or distant), DFS, and OS were analyzed. Waiting time was defined from day of biopsy to initiation of chemorad (Figure 1). The institutional Helsinki Committee approved this study.

Figure 1: Study timeline and variables.

II Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. OS and DFS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimators. P-values for difference in the survival curves were determined using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazards were conducted in order to evaluate the effect of WT on oncological outcomes. For all analyses, two-sided p-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The institutional database included 297 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who met the inclusion criteria of the study. Their median age was 63, 114 were females, 183 were males. 66% of patients population presented at age 45-70 years. 8% were young adults 45 years and younger, 26.3% were elderly above 70 years. (Table 1). All patients completed rigid proctoscopy, 89% completed TRUS and 62% completed a PET-CT. Most patients had positive lymph nodes on imaging studies (68%). Only 3% of patients had T2NO disease, 24% had T3NO, and 0.7% had T4NO. The median WT was 6.3 weeks (range, 4.3-8.7 weeks) (Figure 2). All patients completed radiation therapy; of those, 95.9% of patients received 5-FU/Xeloda. Median waiting time from the end of chemoradiation to surgery was 8.6 weeks (range 7-11.3 weeks). Most patients (71%) underwent low anterior resection (LAR) and the rest underwent abdominal perineal resection (APR). TME was conducted in 68% of the patients. Pathologic disease stage was complete response (20%), stage I (30%), stage II (24%), stage III (25%). 241 patients (88%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (Table 2).

Figure 2: Disease free survival and overall survival in patients population.
Overall description of the patients population median DFS and OS. Dashed line stands for confidence interval.

Figure 3: WT effect on DFS using multivariant predictive model.
Predicted DFS from the relevant multivariate Cox-PH model is provided. The co-variants adjusted included: age at diagnosis, clinical stage and surgery waiting time (from end of radiotherapy to surgery date). Each graph in the figure represent different model values: in red Q1 of the WT (4.43 weeks), in purple Q2 (median) of the WT (6.29 weeks) and in green Q3 of the WT (8.71 weeks). As the WT increases, the DFS worsens, in accordance with adjusted HR 1.06 in all age groups (p=0.045) A and HR 1.09 in age group 45-70 years (p=0.02) B.

Survival

At a median follow up of 115 months 7.4% of patient population experienced local recurrence and 29.6% deceased. Median DFS and OS were 163 and 170 months, respectively (Figure 3). WT effect on DFS and OS was evaluated using a univariate cox-model which showed a trend to significant HR 1.04 (p =0.067) for OS in age group 45-70. Therefore, a multivariate analysis was conducted and was adjusted to age, clinical stage and surgery waiting time. Adjusted HR for DFS was increased by 1.06 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in all age groups (p=0.045) and a significant increment by 1.09 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in age group 45-70 years (p=0.02) (Figure 4). The effect on overall survival, was also estimated by multivariate analysis adjusted to age, clinical stage and surgery waiting time. Adjusted HR for OS was increased by 1.07 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in all age groups (p=0.025) and an increment by 1.12 for each additional week of therapeutic delay in age group 45-70 years (p=0.011) (Figure 5).

Discussion

Our study indicates significant association between longer WT and reduced survival in stage III rectal cancer patients. Prolonged diagnostic WT can be attributed to multiple ‘second opinions’ and inappropriate referral to imaging tests. Potential outcomes of delay could include decreased patient satisfaction, increased patient worry, and inefficient or wasteful use of medical services if inappropriate tests are ordered. Moreover, treatment delay in rectal cancer patients is affected not only by clinicopathological factors, but also by sociocultural ones. Healthcare providers should pay greater attention to social groups with less formal education in order to optimize treatment attention [22].

Figure 4: WT effect on OS using multivariant predictive model.
Predicted OS from the relevant multivariate Cox-PH model is provided. The co-variants adjusted included: age at diagnosis, clinical stage and surgery waiting time (from end of radiotherapy to surgery date). Each graph in the figure represent different model values: in red Q1 of the WT (4.43 weeks), in purple Q2 (median) of the WT (6.29 weeks) and in green Q3 of the WT (8.71 weeks). As the WT increases, the OS worsens, in accordance with adjusted HR 1.07 in all age groups (p=0.025) A and HR 1.12 in age group 45-70 years (p=0.011) B.

Table 1: Demographic and presenting clinical parameters of the study cohort.

N

297

    Gender

Female(%)

Male(%)

 

114 (38.4)

183 (61.6)

Median years of age

Age at presentation (%)

>45

45-70

<70

63

 

23 (7.7)

196 (66)

78 (26.3)

Completion of imaging studies (%)

Rigid proctoscopy

TRUS

PET CT

 

297 (100)

258 (89)

186 (62.8)

Clinical Staging (%)

T2 NO (sphincter involvement)

T3 NO

T4 NO

Any T Positive Lymph Nodes

 

9 (3.3)

65 (24)

2 (0.7)

183 (67.5)

Completion of Radiotherapy (%)

297 (100)

Completion of Xeloda/5fu (%)

(during radiatiotherapy)

282 (95.9)

Surgical Procedure (%)

APR

LAR

OTHERS

 

82 (27.6)

212 (71.4)

3 (1)

TME (%)

Complete

Incomplete

 

78 (68.4)

36 (31.6)


It is important to differentiate between diagnostic delays, treatment delays and surgery delays which are often discussed together. Diagnostic delays greater than 60 days has been shown to be significantly associated with more advanced stage at diagnosis [23]. On systematic review, 20 of 26 studies on Colorectal cancer (CRC) delays showed no association between diagnostic or treatment delays and survival, and four studies actually showed that longer delay was associated with better prognosis [24]. In a companion meta-analysis, no statistically significant association was found between diagnostic and treatment delays and disease stage when considering colon and rectal cancers collectively. Analyzed separately, longer delays were associated with later stages for rectal cancer, but earlier stages for colon cancer [16, 25-27]. The above mixed findings in literature can be attributed in part to method limitations, including analyzing colon and rectal cancers together and having smaller cohort samples.

Table 2: Treatment outcomes: recurrences and survival data.

Pathological staging (%)

0 (complete response)

1

2

3

 

56 (18.9)

91 (30.6)

70 (23.5)

79 (26.5)

Tumor Grade (%)

Well differentiated

Moderate differentiated

Poorly differentiated

Mucinous

 

21 (11.9)

113 (64.2)

13 (7.4)

29 (16.5)

Adjuvant chemotherapy (%)

Yes

No

 

258 (86.9)

39 (13.1)

Local recurrence (%)

Yes

No

Missing data

 

19 (7.4)

239 (92.6)

39

Death (any cause) (%)

Yes

no

 

88 (29.6)

209 (70.4)


Different health systems abroad have adopted timeliness guidelines. For example, according to UK guidelines, patients with suspected cancer should see a specialist within 2 weeks and treatment should begin within a month of diagnosis [28]. The key strength of this study lies in the large number of cases reflecting real life data of Israeli patients diagnosed, treated and operated by the same team in a tertiary referral center. Contrary to previous studies, our patient population includes primary rectal cancer only. The present study carries a number of limitations that need to be considered for proper interpretation of the results. Perhaps the main limitation of this study is its retrospective design, which makes it vulnerable to information bias from inaccurate clinical records and missing data. Data regarding MRI evaluation was not collected. Other measured confounding variables such as comorbidities or emergency admission may also have influenced the results and were not recorded.

In conclusion, clinicians should complete diagnostic evaluation within scheduled timeframe up to 6 weeks. Our statistical model approves that each additional week of therapeutic delay significantly jeopardizes oncological outcomes and prognosis. Further prospective research on similar combined data sets from longitudinal studies should be conducted to confirm the relative impact of diagnostic intervals on outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Financial Disclosure

None.

Funding

None.

Article Info

Article Type
Research Article
Publication history
Received: Mon 09, Mar 2020
Accepted: Tue 24, Mar 2020
Published: Tue 31, Mar 2020
Copyright
© 2023 Shira Peleg Hasson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.COR.2020.03.06

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Shira Peleg Hasson
Oncology Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Figures & Tables

Table 1: Demographic and presenting clinical parameters of the study cohort.

N

297

    Gender

Female(%)

Male(%)

 

114 (38.4)

183 (61.6)

Median years of age

Age at presentation (%)

>45

45-70

<70

63

 

23 (7.7)

196 (66)

78 (26.3)

Completion of imaging studies (%)

Rigid proctoscopy

TRUS

PET CT

 

297 (100)

258 (89)

186 (62.8)

Clinical Staging (%)

T2 NO (sphincter involvement)

T3 NO

T4 NO

Any T Positive Lymph Nodes

 

9 (3.3)

65 (24)

2 (0.7)

183 (67.5)

Completion of Radiotherapy (%)

297 (100)

Completion of Xeloda/5fu (%)

(during radiatiotherapy)

282 (95.9)

Surgical Procedure (%)

APR

LAR

OTHERS

 

82 (27.6)

212 (71.4)

3 (1)

TME (%)

Complete

Incomplete

 

78 (68.4)

36 (31.6)


Table 2: Treatment outcomes: recurrences and survival data.

Pathological staging (%)

0 (complete response)

1

2

3

 

56 (18.9)

91 (30.6)

70 (23.5)

79 (26.5)

Tumor Grade (%)

Well differentiated

Moderate differentiated

Poorly differentiated

Mucinous

 

21 (11.9)

113 (64.2)

13 (7.4)

29 (16.5)

Adjuvant chemotherapy (%)

Yes

No

 

258 (86.9)

39 (13.1)

Local recurrence (%)

Yes

No

Missing data

 

19 (7.4)

239 (92.6)

39

Death (any cause) (%)

Yes

no

 

88 (29.6)

209 (70.4)


Science Repository

Figure 1: Study timeline and variables.


Science Repository

Figure 2: Disease free survival and overall survival in patients population.
Overall description of the patients population median DFS and OS. Dashed line stands for confidence interval.


Science Repository

Figure 3: WT effect on DFS using multivariant predictive model.
Predicted DFS from the relevant multivariate Cox-PH model is provided. The co-variants adjusted included: age at diagnosis, clinical stage and surgery waiting time (from end of radiotherapy to surgery date). Each graph in the figure represent different model values: in red Q1 of the WT (4.43 weeks), in purple Q2 (median) of the WT (6.29 weeks) and in green Q3 of the WT (8.71 weeks). As the WT increases, the DFS worsens, in accordance with adjusted HR 1.06 in all age groups (p=0.045) A and HR 1.09 in age group 45-70 years (p=0.02) B.


Science Repository

Figure 4: WT effect on OS using multivariant predictive model.
Predicted OS from the relevant multivariate Cox-PH model is provided. The co-variants adjusted included: age at diagnosis, clinical stage and surgery waiting time (from end of radiotherapy to surgery date). Each graph in the figure represent different model values: in red Q1 of the WT (4.43 weeks), in purple Q2 (median) of the WT (6.29 weeks) and in green Q3 of the WT (8.71 weeks). As the WT increases, the OS worsens, in accordance with adjusted HR 1.07 in all age groups (p=0.025) A and HR 1.12 in age group 45-70 years (p=0.011) B.



References

  1. Colorectal Cancer Source: Globocan 2018 Number of New Cases in 2018, Both Sexes, All Ages. 2018.
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RGS et al. (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67: 177-193. [Crossref]
  3. Neal RD, Tharmanathan P, France B, Din NU, Cotton S et al. (2015) Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer 112: S92-S107. [Crossref]
  4. Visser MR, van Lanschot JJ, van der Velden J, Kloek JJ, Gouma DJ et al. (2006) Quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients waiting for surgery is seriously impaired. J Surg Oncol 93: 571-577. [Crossref]
  5. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG et al. (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116: 544-573. [Crossref]
  6. Muthusamy VR, Chang KJ (2007) Optimal Methods for Staging Rectal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13: 6877s-6884s. [Crossref]
  7. Sauer R, Liersch T, Merkel S, Fietkau R, Hohenberger W et al. (2012) Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 Randomized Phase III Trial After a Median Follow-Up of 11 Years. J Clin Oncol 30: 1926-1933. [Crossref]
  8. Murray N, Coy P, Pater JL, Hodson I, Arnold A et al. (1993) Importance of timing for thoracic irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 11: 336-344. [Crossref]
  9. Buchholz TAAustin-Seymour MMMoe REEllis GKLivingston RB et al. (1993) Effect of delay in radiation in the combined modality treatment of breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26: 23-35. [Crossref]
  10. Polissar L, Sim D, Francis A. (1981) Survival of colorectal cancer patients in relation to duration of symptoms and other prognostic factors. Dis Colon Rectum 24: 364-369. [Crossref]
  11. Karlsson P, Cole BF, Price KN, Gelber RD, Coates AS et al. (2016) Timing of Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Long-Term Results From International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VI and VII. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96: 273-279. [Crossref]
  12. Hillon P, Faivre J, Milan C, Bedenne L, Piard F et al. (1985) [Cancers of the rectum and colon in the Côte-d’Or department: treatment, prognosis]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 9: 704-711. [Crossref]
  13. Auvinen A (1992) Social class and colon cancer survival in finland. Cancer 70: 402-409. [Crossref]
  14. Fisher DA, Zullig LL, Grambow SC, Abbott DH, Sandler RS et al. (2010) Determinants of Medical System Delay in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Within the Veteran Affairs Health System. Dig Dis Sci 55: 1434-1441. [Crossref]
  15. Stapley S, Peters TJ, Sharp D, Hamilton W (2006) The mortality of colorectal cancer in relation to the initial symptom at presentation to primary care and to the duration of symptoms: a cohort study using medical records. Br J Cancer 95: 1321-1325. [Crossref]
  16. Terhaar sive Droste JS, Oort FA, van der Hulst RW, Coupé VM, Craanen ME et al. (2010) Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study. BMC Cancer 10: 332. [Crossref]
  17. Pescatori M, Maria G, Beltrani B, Mattana C (1982) Site, emergency, and duration of symptoms in the prognosis of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 25: 33-40. [Crossref]
  18. Pruitt SL, Harzke AJ, Davidson NO, Schootman M (2013) Do diagnostic and treatment delays for colorectal cancer increase risk of death? Cancer Causes Control 24: 961-977. [Crossref]
  19. Pita-Fernández S, González-Sáez L, López-Calviño B, Seoane-Pillado T, Rodríguez-Camacho E et al. (2016) Effect of diagnostic delay on survival in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 16: 664. [Crossref]
  20. Rupassara KS, Ponnusamy S, Withanage N, Milewski PJ (2006) A paradox explained? Patients with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic colorectal cancer have good prognosis. Color Dis 8: 423-429. [Crossref]
  21. Strous MTA, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Vogelaar FJ (2019) Impact of therapeutic delay in colorectal cancer on overall survival and cancer recurrence - is there a safe timeframe for prehabilitation? Eur J Surg Oncol 45: 2295-2301 [Crossref]
  22. Zarcos-Pedrinaci I, Fernández-López A, Téllez T, Rivas-Ruiz F, Rueda A et al. (2017) Factors that influence treatment delay in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 8: 36728-36742. [Crossref]
  23. Korsgaard M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT, Laurberg S (2006) Reported symptoms, diagnostic delay and stage of colorectal cancer: a population-based study in Denmark. Colorectal Dis 8: 688-695. [Crossref]
  24. Ramos M, Esteva M, Cabeza E, Campillo C, Llobera J et al. (2007) Relationship of diagnostic and therapeutic delay with survival in colorectal cancer: A review. Eur J Cancer 43: 2467-2478. [Crossref]
  25. Iversen LH, Antonsen S, Laurberg S, Lautrup MD (2009) Therapeutic delay reduces survival of rectal cancer but not of colonic cancer. Br J Surg 96: 1183-1189. [Crossref]
  26. Jullumstrø E, Lydersen S, Møller B, Dahl O, Edna TH. (2009) Duration of symptoms, stage at diagnosis and relative survival in colon and rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45: 2383-2390. [Crossref]
  27. Tørring ML, Frydenberg M, Hamilton W, Hansen RP, Lautrup MD et al. (2012) Diagnostic interval and mortality in colorectal cancer: U-shaped association demonstrated for three different datasets. J Clin Epidemiol 65: 669-678. [Crossref]
  28. Mulka O (2005) NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Br J Gen Pract 55: 580-581. [Crossref]