key: cord-0888250-8wzi5stt authors: Burke, J. R.; Brown, P.; Quyn, A.; Lambie, H.; Tolan, D.; Sagar, P. title: Tumour growth rate of carcinoma of the colon and rectum: retrospective cohort study date: 2020-09-30 journal: BJS Open DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50355 sha: cb5bfac6efa358593aae5181f48fbe6e99d8f1b9 doc_id: 888250 cord_uid: 8wzi5stt BACKGROUND: The growth pattern of colorectal cancer is seldom investigated. This cohort study aimed to explore tumour growth rate in colorectal cancers managed non‐surgically or deemed not resectable, and to determine its implication for prognosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients with colonic or rectal adenocarcinoma were identified through the colorectal multidisciplinary team database at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust over a 2‐year interval. Patients who received no treatment (surgery, stenting, colonic defunctioning procedures, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) and who underwent CT twice more than 5 weeks apart were included. Multidetector CT/three‐dimensional image analysis was performed independently by three experienced radiologists. RESULTS: Of 804 patients reviewed, 43 colorectal cancers were included in the final analysis. Median age at first CT was 80 (73–85) years and the median interval between scans was 150 (i.q.r. 72–471) days. An increase in T category was demonstrated in 31 of 43 tumours, with a median doubling time of 211 (112–404) days. The median percentage increase in tumour volume was 34·1 (13·3–53·9) per cent per 62 days. The all‐cause 3‐year mortality rate was 81 per cent (35 of 43) with a median survival time of 1·1 (0·4–2·2) years after the initial diagnostic scan. In those obstructed, the relative risk of death from subsequent perforation was 1·26 (95 per cent c.i. 1·07 to 1·49; P = 0·005). CONCLUSION: This study documented a median doubling time of 211 days, with a concerning suggestion of tumour progression, which has implications for the current management standard. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in men and second most common in women internationally, with an increasing incidence in those aged less than 50 years 1,2 . Screening guidelines vary worldwide 3 ; paired faecal occult blood testing and endoscopic investigation have been shown to increase the detection rate of asymptomatic cancers. As a result, mortality has decreased by 30 per cent in participants, but with an increase in cancer numbers requiring operation and patients therefore waiting longer for surgery [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . There is, however, a paucity of evidence surrounding the rate at which colorectal tumours grow once they are established. Tumour growth and invasion is paramount to oncological outcomes as cancer advances through multiple distinct stages in its transition from indolent to invasive disease 12, 13 . In the UK, guidelines to reduce the time that patients wait for cancer care and specific time standards from referral to first definitive treatment were introduced in 2009, and are now enshrined in the National Health Service (NHS) constitution. Although introduced with a laudable aim, the current 62-day standard does not have a scientific basis 14 . To date, evaluation of colorectal cancer growth patterns is limited, predominantly because of the inherent ethical issues associated with a prospective longitudinal study of leaving diagnosed colorectal cancer untreated without clinical justification. Few studies have investigated the growth patterns of colorectal tumours endoscopically, and even fewer radiologically [15] [16] [17] [18] . A serial double-contrast barium enema study 19 conducted in 1963 demonstrated a median tumour doubling time of 620 days. Since then, only one study has assessed the growth of colorectal tumours using modern imaging techniques (Table S1 , supporting information) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] . Current treatment strategies are determined by the stage of disease, associated co-morbidities, likely prognosis and patient preference. Staging for colorectal cancer is dependent on cross-sectional imaging, which is pivotal in the assessment of recurrence and metastatic disease in patients who have received treatment [26] [27] [28] [29] . Use of imaging to help stratify patients is vitally important as neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options continue to advance. There is a growing demand for accurate quantification of tumour growth to optimize the timing of surgery or to assess the potential benefits of non-surgical therapy [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] . Precise quantification of tumour growth would have a significant impact for patients who choose non-surgical therapy in terms of both prognosis and informed consent. However, this also has medicolegal implications in terms of missed cancers, and in the consequences of a delay to standard investigations and surgical care. The aim of this study was to measure tumour growth rates in a subgroup of untreated colorectal cancers, to provide prognostic value in patients with tumours managed non-surgically or deemed not resectable, and to determine the implications of delay to diagnosis. Consecutive patients with colonic or rectal adenocarcinoma treated between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017 were identified through the institutional colorectal multidisciplinary team (MDT) database at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, and through a prospectively maintained radiology discrepancy and educational database at the same institution. Patients were included if they had undergone CT twice at least 5 weeks apart (at least 1 within the tertiary referral centre) between April 2009 and September 2018 (any indication for repeat CT was considered), and during the same interval had received no tumour treatment: surgery (including stent insertion or colonic defunctioning procedures), chemotherapy, radiotherapy or any combination. Exclusion criteria were: patients with synchronous malignancies (those with altered tumour biology such as patients receiving systemic treatments); inability to identify the tumour or tumour margins (very small tumours or where artefact rendered CT image interpretation impossible); and non-adenocarcinoma subtype. Electronic clinical and radiological databases were used to obtain patient demographic details, clinical history, treatment data, clinical outcome and follow-up duration. Electronic records included the institutional radiology information system (Computerised Radiology Information System; Healthcare Software Systems, Mansfield, UK) and the oncology electronic patient record system (Patient Pathway Manager; EHR Development Team, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK). Mortality was determined through hospital electronic records, which are paired with community and bereavement systems. Prospective consent was obtained from all patients at the time of imaging for use of anonymized CT imaging data in research and service development projects. Formal ethics committee approval was waived for this study, which was considered by the institutional review board to represent evaluation of a routine clinical service. All patient examinations were re-examined retrospectively by three consultant radiologists. Multidetector CT (Siemens, Munich, Germany; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA) was used with full abdominal and pelvic acquisition in a single breath hold. The scan was acquired at 120 kV, 80 mA, tube rotation time 0⋅5 s per rotation, and pitch 6. Images had a collimation and slice thickness of at least 5 mm (median 3 mm) but were often acquired at 1 mm slice thickness. All images were acquired using iterative reconstruction. Image analysis was performed on the thinnest slice thickness available. Where iodinated intravenous contrast material was administered, the image was acquired in the portal venous phase after administration of 100 ml contrast. Postprocessing and image analysis included three-dimensional lesion measurement using Advanced Workstation software (AW 3.2; GE Healthcare). The primary tumour was delineated using a semiautomated technique based on thresholding of the tumour using the lesion density (seeding around a set Hounsfield unit) within the tumour. This was then adjusted manually to outline the peripheral contours of the tumour on each image. This was performed in the axial plane with correlation on coronal and sagittal plane imaging. The tumour volume was calculated automatically by the software by multiplication of the cross-sectional area by the slice thickness. This process was repeated independently on the baseline and Length growth rate (mm/day) = (diameter follow-updiameter baseline )/(time follow-up -time baseline ). Length growth rate % of baseline size = ((diameter follow-up -diameter baseline )/diameter baseline ) × 100. % increase in tumour length per 62 days = (tumour length growth rate % of baseline size/(time follow-up -time baseline )) × 62. Volume growth rate (cm 3 /day) = (volume follow-upvolume baseline )/(time follow-up -time baseline ). Volume growth rate % of baseline size = ((volume follow-upvolume baseline )/volume baseline ) × 100. % increase in tumour volume per 62 days = (volume growth rate % of baseline size/(time follow-uptime baseline )) × 62. Tumour doubling time = (ln2(time follow-up -time baseline ))/ (ln2(volume follow-up -volume baseline )). All data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel ® (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA). Continuous data are presented as median (i.q.r.). Subgroups were compared by means of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA. All statistical analysis comparing tumour sizes, stages and growth rates was completed using SPSS ® version 23 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). During the study interval, 804 patients were referred to the colorectal MDT, of whom 67 met the inclusion criteria Right colon (n = 21) 335 (115-650) Yes (n = 10) 227 (96-379) T category change Values are median (i.q.r.). *Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA. and all reviewed examinations were deemed of satisfactory quality. Twenty-four were subsequently excluded, leaving 43 tumours for inclusion in the analysis (Fig. 1) Growth calculation results are shown in Table 3 . For all tumours, the median change in tumour length was 9⋅5 (2⋅0-22⋅3) mm; expressed as a percentage of the baseline tumour size, the specific growth rate (length) was 23⋅5 (3⋅4-53⋅5) per cent. The median change in tumour volume was 18⋅3 (7⋅9-48⋅0) cm 3 In subgroup analysis, a greater percentage volume increase from baseline was observed for right-sided colonic tumours versus left-sided colonic and rectal tumours: median 175⋅2 (69⋅0-462⋅8), 55⋅8 (0⋅2-204⋅1) and 26⋅9 (7⋅7-57⋅9) per cent respectively; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0⋅059) ( Table 3) . There was a significant association between mucinous subtype and increase in median volume growth. Mucinous tumours had double the growth rate of non-mucinous tumours per 62 days: median 13⋅86 (8⋅02 to 29⋅46) versus 6⋅20 (1⋅53-8⋅70) cm 3 (P = 0⋅003). The median absolute growth per 62 days was greater for more advanced tumours that progressed from T3 to T4 than for lesions that progressed from T2 to T3/T4: 2⋅57 (1⋅04-8⋅69) versus 0⋅91 (0⋅23-2⋅62) mm (P = 0⋅035). The all-cause 3-year mortality rate was 81 per cent (35 of 43), with a median life span of 1⋅1 (0⋅4-2⋅2) years after the initial diagnostic CT; the cause of death was a direct result of bowel obstruction and subsequent perforation in five patients. Eight patients were alive at the study conclusion, with a median follow-up time of 3⋅4 (2⋅1-6⋅1) years after the initial diagnostic CT. Seven patients had the initial scan during an unscheduled admission. Eighteen patients had the second CT as an emergency, with a median of 237 (93-462) days between scans. For patients who died compared with the sample as a whole, the relative risk of undergoing a second scan as an emergency within the study period was 1⋅34 (95 per cent c.i. 1⋅01 to 1⋅77; P = 0⋅040) and in those who were obstructed the relative risk of dying from bowel perforation was 1⋅26 (1⋅07 to 1⋅49; P = 0⋅005). Delays to cancer investigation and management are of concern both to patients and clinicians. The present results suggest that tumour volume can increase by a median of 34⋅1 per cent within the current NHS constitutional 62-day standard, which brings into question this standard. Furthermore, this standard could be compromised when there is a shortage of resources for delivery of elective surgical care in patients with colorectal cancer, such as during the current COVID pandemic 37 . To date, seven studies [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] have determined tumour growth rate including a total of 177 colorectal cancers, with tumour doubling times ranging from 18 to 2593 days (Table S1, supporting information). These studies demonstrated no significant association between tumour growth rate and any change in tumour stage, nor its potential impact on treatment planning and prognosis. However, the majority of studies used barium enemas to assess tumour diameter and volume through measurement of filling defects, and were therefore limited in terms of accurate measurement of volume. Findings were also limited in terms of reproducibility owing to observed inaccuracies in tumour dimension measurements in altered views used during initial and follow-up investigations. These studies did, however, highlight that tumour growth rate may be dependent on primary tumour location and that tumour growth rate appears to be linear 20, 22, 23 . Colorectal cancer cell type heterogeneity, and differences in genetic mutations, epigenetic regulation and the microenvironment in which tumours reside mean that predicting tumour behaviour, independent of sample size, is difficult 38 . Considering tumour growth specifically, tumour hypoxia 39 , expression of growth factors 40, 41 and necrosis 42 may be limiting factors. An association between progression in TNM stage and tumour growth rate was demonstrated here, as expected. This study also evaluated the relationship between tumour growth rate and location (which determines non-luminal diameter), and the findings have implications for symptom onset, time to obstruction and therefore planning of operative management. The results suggest that the more distal the tumour, the greater the median volume growth per 62 days, with a greater median absolute growth per 62 days observed in tumours that progressed from T3 to T4 compared with other stage changes. A median tumour doubling time of 211 days for the whole cohort is similar to that in the only other comparable study using CT 20 . Eighteen of 43 patients in this cohort underwent the second CT as an emergency after the decision had been made to proceed with a non-surgical strategy. Accepting the small sample size in this study, an all-cause mortality rate of 81 per cent around 1 year after diagnosis is a worrying finding in this underinvestigated group. These patients are at significantly increased risk of bowel obstruction with subsequent perforation 43 . This has significant implications for the communication of prognosis with the patient, consent discussion when considering management strategy and emergency presentations 44 . Mucinous adenocarcinomas have distinct genetic and clinicopathological features compared with non-mucinous tumours. These tumours have previously been shown to be more frequently located in the proximal colon 45 , but there are no current data on rate of progression compared with non-mucinous tumours. The ten mucinous tumours in the present cohort (6 right-sided and 4 left-sided) showed double the growth rate of non-mucinous tumours over 62 days. If tumour growth rate could be correlated further with specific anatomical location, stage and histology, it would be possible to stratify patients in terms of risk, further prioritize management and provide a more informed consent process. The main limitations of this study are the inherent selection bias of the study population and small sample size. The study is biased towards the inclusion of older subjects who may have more indolent tumours than a younger cohort 46 . Patient socioeconomic status and race may also affect tumour location and behaviour 46 . Inferring tumour growth rates from the observation of tumour volumes at two time points has been documented previously, but there is currently no consensus regarding the growth patterns exhibited by solid tumours or how they can be measured. The calculations applied here are based on the assumption that colorectal tumours follow a linear growth pattern, a characteristic that has yet to be established but is in line with current limited evidence (Table S1, supporting information) 47, 48 . The inclusion and exclusion criteria potentially biased selection towards slow-growing tumours in frail patients who underwent no treatment following diagnosis. This is because tumours that are large and obstructing may be subject to prompt treatment or result in morbidity. In addition, patients with smaller slow-growing tumours that are causing minimal obstructive symptoms may be more likely to select a non-operative treatment plan. This bias is difficult to avoid owing to the ethical considerations associated with a prospective, observational cancer growth study. Tumour growth rate remains an important underevaluated variable in colorectal cancer, and is essential for screening, choice of management (operative versus non operative) and prognosis. To date, growth rate and doubling time have shown no true correlation with cancer stage or location, with limited studies pairing these parameters with histological analysis. The present results highlight particular concern regarding mucinous tumours, lesions that arise in the right colon, and tumours diagnosed as T3 that progress. Cancers Fact Sheets: Colorectal Cancer Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults in Europe over the last 25 years Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: summarizing the current global recommendations Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality related to annual fecal occult blood screening -13 year follow-up of 46 000 subjects Randomized study of biennial screening with a faecal occult blood test: results after nine screening rounds Survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer Reduction in risk of mortality from colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood screening with immunochemical hemagglutination test. A case-control study Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression Comparative lesion sequencing provides insights into tumor evolution Delivering Cancer Waiting Times Growth rate and malignant potential of colonic polyps: early results Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years Epidemiology of polyps in the rectum and colon. Recovery and evaluation of unresected polyps 2 years after detection Growth rate of colon polyps and cancer The rates and patterns of growth of 375 tumours of the large intestine and rectum observed serially by double contrast enema study (Malmoe technique) Evaluation of the growth pattern of carcinoma of colon and rectum by MDCT Roentgenologic observations of growth rates of colonic polyps and carcinoma Appearance and growth of early carcinomas of the colon-rectum Carcinoma of the colon and rectum -growth rate Growth rates of colorectal carcinoma and adenoma by roentgenologic follow-up observations Natural history of superficial depressed colorectal cancer: retrospective radiographic and histologic analysis Correction to: magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Colorectal Cancer: Diagnosis and Management Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI): guidelines for the management of cancer of the colon, rectum and anus (2017) -diagnosis, investigations and screening Adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial Engineered nanoparticles for imaging and drug delivery in colorectal cancer FOxTROT: an international randomised controlled trial in 1052 patients (pts) evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for colon cancer A watch-and-wait approach for locally advanced rectal cancer after a clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis FOLFOX plus cetuximab for a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer with icterus due to multiple liver metastases The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more 'personalized' approach to cancer staging Considerations for Multidisciplinary Management of Patients with Colorectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic Tumor heterogeneity in primary colorectal cancer and corresponding metastases. Does the apple fall far from the tree Hypoxia promotes colorectal cancer cell migration and invasion in a SIRT1-dependent manner Colon cancer and the epidermal growth factor receptor: current treatment paradigms, the importance of diet, and the role of chemoprevention Fibroblast growth factor-10 and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in colorectal cancer Clinical impact and network of determinants of tumour necrosis in colorectal cancer Malignant bowel obstruction: natural history of a heterogeneous patient population followed prospectively over two years Palliation of gastrointestinal obstruction Two subtypes of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: clinicopathological and genetic features The effect of race/ethnicity on the age of colon cancer diagnosis Estimating tumor growth rates in vivo The model muddle: in search of tumor growth laws This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) infrastructure at Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust and the University of Leeds. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.