Prognostic Significance of Bulky Nodal Disease in Anal Cancer Management: A Multi-institutional Study

Seok-Joo Chun; Eunji Kim; Won Il Jang; Mi-Sook Kim; Hyun-Cheol Kang; Byoung Hyuck Kim; Eui Kyu Chie

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.258

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 56(4); 2024 > Article

Original Article Gastrointestinal cancer Prognostic Significance of Bulky Nodal Disease in Anal Cancer Management: A Multi-institutional Study: Seok-Joo Chun^1,2, Eunji Kim³, Won Il Jang⁴, Mi-Sook Kim⁴, Hyun-Cheol Kang¹, Byoung Hyuck Kim^1,3,, Eui Kyu Chie^1,5,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2024;56(4):1197-1206.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.258
Published online: April 11, 2024

¹Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Radiation Oncology, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea

³Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Radiation Oncology, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea

⁵Institute of Radiation Medicine, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Byoung Hyuck Kim, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, 20 Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 07061, Korea
Tel: 82-2-870-1683 Fax: 82-2-870-1689 E-mail: karlly71@snu.ac.kr

Co-correspondence: Eui Kyu Chie, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea
Tel: 82-2-2072-3705 Fax: 82-2-765-3317 E-mail: ekchie93@snu.ac.kr

*Seok-Joo Chun and Eunji Kim contributed equally to this work.
*Part of the manuscript in abstract form was presented at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (J Clin Oncol 2024;42(3 Suppl):abstr 1). License agreement for not-for-profit publication was made between Professor Eui Kyu Chie, MD, PhD, the corresponding author, and Wolters Kluwer Health Inc., the publisher of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

• Received: March 13, 2024 • Accepted: April 9, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1,387 Views
72 Download
1 Crossref
1 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance of bulky nodal involvement in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy.
Materials and Methods
We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients diagnosed with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent definitive chemoradiotherapy at three medical centers between 2004 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included distant metastasis at diagnosis, 2D radiotherapy, and salvage treatment for local relapse. Bulky N+ was defined as nodes with a long diameter of 2 cm or greater.
Results
A total of 104 patients were included, comprising 51 with N0, 46 with non-bulky N+, and seven with bulky N+. The median follow-up duration was 54.0 months (range, 6.4 to 162.2 months). Estimated 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), and overall survival (OS) rates for patients with bulky N+ were 42.9%, 42.9%, and 47.6%, respectively. Bulky N+ was significantly associated with inferior PFS, LRRFS, and OS compared to patients without or with non-bulky N+, even after multivariate analysis. We proposed a new staging system incorporating bulky N+ as N2 category, with estimated 5-year LRRFS, PFS, and OS rates of 81.1%, 80.6%, and 86.2% for stage I, 67.7%, 60.9%, and 93.3% for stage II, and 42.9%, 42.9%, and 47.6% for stage III disease, enhancing the predictability of prognosis.
Conclusion
Patients with bulky nodal disease treated with standard chemoradiotherapy experienced poor survival outcomes, indicating the potential necessity for further treatment intensification.
Key words: Anus neoplasms, Bulky nodes, Chemoradiotherapy

Introduction

Anal cancer is a rare malignancy, representing approximately 0.1% of all newly diagnosed cancers [1,2]. The predominant histologic subtype is squamous cell carcinoma, accounting for 70%-90% of anal cancers [2]. Definitive chemoradiotherapy is the current standard of care for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, with a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 80% [3,4].

Factors that are widely known to affect survival are tumor size, nodal metastasis and sex [5]. Additionally, as etiology of anal cancer is closely related with human papillomavirus (HPV) or human immunodeficiency virus infection, immunologic factors such as p16 expression, leukocytopenia, neutropenia, and lymphocytosis have been related with improved survival [6-11].

Nodal staging for anal cancer was divided into four groups; N0, N1a, N1b, and N1c in previous American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th staging system [12]. However, current AJCC staging system 9th edition incorporate nodal staging as either N0 and N1. Meanwhile, there have been several reports that the size of nodal metastasis affects survival and treatment outcomes in squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix and oropharynx [13-15]. Moreover, the size of lymph node metastasis is incorporated in oropharyngeal cancer staging system [15]. As cancer of uterine cervix, oropharyngeal cancer, and anal cancer share biologic similarities due to association with squamous entity and chronic HPV infection, we hypothesized that the nodal size may also be a prognosticator for anal cancer. Additionally, we aimed to incorporate bulky nodes into nodal staging to better predict treatment outcomes. Of note, preliminary analysis on the potential impact of bulky nodes in anal cancer was recently reported in abstract form as detailed in the declaration section [16].

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

Medical records of patients with anal squamous cell cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2021 at three institutions were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were pathologically confirmed by biopsy and had either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer staging work up. Positron emission tomography was selectively performed for patients with advanced disease to rule out any distant metastasis. Patients who had distant metastasis or patients with past medical history of double primary cancer within 5 years from the diagnosis of anal cancer were excluded from analysis. Patients treated with abdominoperineal resection or patients undergoing salvage treatment for recurrence were also excluded. Factors such as T category, N category according to AJCC 8th edition, nodal size, age, sex, p16 presentation, baseline and post-treatment complete blood count test were collected. This study was approved by Institutional Review Board at participating institutions.

2. Treatment

All patients underwent definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients who were treated with conventional radiotherapy technique were excluded for treatment homogeneity, leaving either 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as employed radiotherapy technique. Prescribed dose to the pelvis was 40-50 Gy followed by sequential boost of 5.4-10.8 Gy, depending on the extent or residuum of disease for 3D-CRT. Simultaneous integrated boost of 50-55 Gy to gross primary and nodal disease and 40-45 Gy to elective pelvic nodes were common prescription for IMRT. Nodal size was measured as the longest axis in pretreatment CT or MRI. Bulky N+ was defined as longest axis nodal size of 2 cm or greater. For patients with lymphocyte less than 500/μL was defined as having lymphopenia.

3. Statistics

R project ver. 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for all statistical analysis. For comparing variables between multiple groups, one-way ANOVA was used for continuous variables while chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival plots. Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS were defined as time between the day of diagnosis to the corresponding event. Log-rank test was used to compare survival and Cox model was used for univariate analysis. Factors with p-value less than 0.10 in univariate analysis was selected for multivariate Cox regression model with backward elimination method. Factors with p-value less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

Results

One hundred four patients meeting inclusion criteria were accrued. Median age was 60 years and 76% were female. T1/T2 disease consisted of 77.7% of the patients and approximately half of patients (51.0%) had nodal involvement. Average prescription radiation dose was 54.1 Gy (range, 40.0 to 64.8 Gy) for primary and gross nodal diseases and 44.1 Gy (range, 32.0 to 54.0 Gy) for elective nodal station, respectively. Most patients (80.4%) received concurrent chemoradiotherapy with two cycles of 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C (Table 1). Among 104 patients, 83 patients received elective inguinal radiotherapy, with a median dose of 45 Gy ranging from 30.6 to 54.0 Gy.

With a median follow-up of 54.0 months (range, 6.4 to 162.2 months), 18 relapses (17.3%) were observed. There were 15 loco-regional failure, with seven local, two local and regional, and six regional relapses. Among regional relapse, four were in pelvic, three were in inguinal, and one in both pelvic and inguinal region. Eleven patients (10.6%) experienced distant metastasis with three in liver, five in lung, and three in non-regional lymph node such as para-aortic and mediastinal stations. Three patients had distant metastasis without loco-regional relapse. During the follow-up, 19 patients (18.3%) expired, of which nine were cancer-related. Estimated 5-year LRRFS, PFS, and OS of entire study population were 76.2%, 74.8%, and 84.5%, respectively.

In univariate analysis, performance status, tumor grade, advanced T category, and bulky N+ were related with poor LRRFS. Performance status and bulky N+ remained statistically significant after multivariate analysis. For PFS, performance status, tumor grade, advanced T category, and bulky N+ were poor prognosticators. T category remained statistically significant after multivariate analysis, while bulky N+ was marginally significant (p=0.089). Bulky N+ and performance status were related with OS in both univariate and multivariate analysis. When compared to the combined entity of N0 and non-bulky N+ disease, bulky N+ exhibited hazard ratios of 4.11 for LRRFS (p=0.007), 2.60 for PFS (p=0.089), and 4.51 for OS (p=0.029) (Table 2). However, no significant LRRFS or PFS difference was observed between the N0 and non-bulky N+ groups (S1 Table).

There were 51 patients as N0, 46 with non-bulky N+, and seven with bulky N+. Between three groups, there were more patients with T3/T4 disease in node-positive groups compared to N0 group (p=0.002). Additionally, higher dose was given to primary site and gross nodes in bulky N+ group (Table 3). Detailed patient characteristics of seven patients with bulky N+ is separately shown in S2 Table. Five patients had bulky nodes at the inguinal station, while two patients had bulky nodes at the internal iliac station. Estimated 5-year LRRFS, PFS, and OS of patients with bulky N+ were 42.9%, 42.9%, and 47.6%, respectively (Fig. 1).

In current study, both AJCC 8th and 9th edition staging system failed to demonstrate a significant survival difference between stages (S3 Fig.). As bulky N+ was closely related with poor prognosis compared to the remaining patients, bulky N+ was designated as new N2 entity. Patient groups were divided into five categories, incorporating bulky nodal component to current staging system: T1-2N0, T3-4N0, T1-2N1, T3-4N1, and any N2. Interestingly, similar outcomes between the T1-2N0 and T1-2N1 groups, as well as between the T3-4N0 and T3-4N1 groups were observed (S4 Fig.). Thus, a new staging system was revised, categorizing T1-2N0-1 as stage I, T3-4N0-1 as stage II, and any N2 disease as stage III. Estimated LRRFS, PFS, and OS at 5 years were as follows: 81.1%, 80.6%, and 86.2%; 67.7%, 60.9%, and 93.3%; and 42.9%, 42.9%, and 47.6% for patients with stage I, II, and III disease, respectively (p=0.005 for LRRFS, p=0.005 for PFS, p=0.099 for OS) (Fig. 2), demonstrating improved predictive value of newly constructed staging system over others.

Acute adverse event of grade 2 or greater were observed in 38 patients (36.5%), from which all patients recovered. Eleven patients (10.6%) experienced delayed adverse event of grade 2 or greater. Specifically, seven patients had grade 2 toxicity, including three cases of proctitis, two of anal fibrosis and two of vagina fistula. Three patients suffered grade 3 toxicities: two proctitis and one anal perforation. One patient succumbed to mitomycin C–induced thrombotic microangiopathy within 5 months from undergoing treatment.

Discussion

In this study, bulky N+ was a poor prognosticator in patients with anal cancer. Additionally, new staging system was proposed with bulky N+ designated as N2 disease, which clearly corresponds better to treatment outcomes in current analysis.

Among seven patients with bulky N+, four patients experienced loco-regional recurrence and two patients with distant metastasis eventually succumbed to disease. Even though relatively high dose radiotherapy with median 58.9 Gy (range, 54.0 to 60.4 Gy) was prescribed to both primary and gross lymph nodes, more than half of patients have failed loco-regionally. It is noteworthy that though radiation dose and chemotherapy regimen failed to demonstrate prognostic value in all patients, only one patient out of four with bulky N+ treated with radiation dose higher than 55 Gy and concurrent chemotherapy experienced disease relapse. This suggests the possibility that higher radiation dose may be required for effective cancer control. Although ACCORD 03 failed to demonstrate the benefit of boost dose escalation, post-hoc analysis of ACT II suggested possible radiation dose-response relationship [17,18]. Currently on-going PLATO ACT5 trial is investigating dose intensification, comparing standard arm 53.2 Gy against escalated arm 58.8 or 61.6 Gy, in patients with advanced anal cancer, which may help to elucidate the role of dose intensification in advanced anal cancer [19].

As aforementioned, etiology of uterine cervical cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and anal cancer are quite similar. First, they are all related to HPV infection. Population-based cohort from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results have reported that uterine cervical cancer survivors had 4.36 increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer and 2.20 of anal cancer diagnosis [20]. Additionally, meta-analysis has reported that each of HPV-associated tumors has increased incidence of other HPV-associated tumors [20]. Moreover, p16 expression was related with improved survival in not only oropharyngeal cancer, but also in anal cancer [21]. There have been multiple reports regarding nodal size in oropharyngeal and uterine cervical cancer, but not in anal cancer (S5 Table) [13-15,22-24]. In uterine cervical cancer, nodal size more than 1.5-2.0 cm has been reported to have more recurrences, compared to others [13,14,24]. Additionally, bulky lymph nodes have been related with poor OS or disease-free survival in oropharyngeal or oral cavity cancer, though definition of bulky nodes in oropharyngeal cancer was quite large at 6 cm or larger [15,22,23].

Although HPV infection or p16 expression was closely related with nodal involvement in both oral cavity cancer and oropharyngeal cancer [15,25,26], p16 expression is related with superior treatment outcomes in oropharyngeal cancer [15,27]. In anal cancer, two studies have reported on HPV and p16 status, where HPV expression was related with improved local control [6,7]. In current study, p16 or HPV infection were not routinely tested, thus relationship between p16 status and bulky nodal involvement was not explored. Considering findings related with p16 expression in anal cancer and head and neck cancers, it would be necessary to evaluate relationship between p16 status and bulky nodal disease in future studies.

In addition to HPV infection, immune system is known to play a role in treatment outcomes for anal cancer. Previous studies have suggested that leukocyte related factors, such as neutrophilia, higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), leukocytosis, and lymphopenia, are associated with deteriorated treatment outcomes [5,8-10]. Although current study showed increase of hazard ratio related with higher NLR or lymphopenia, statistical significance was not found (Table 2). It would be important to note that both current study and previous studies had a small proportion of patients with neutrophilia or lymphopenia. To validate the impact of leukocyte-related factors in anal cancer, further research with larger cohort would be required.

As previously mentioned, currently employed AJCC 9th edition staging system for anal cancer employs nodal involvement without further substaging. As a result, current staging system lacks the ability to account for the diversity of nodal involvement. Furthermore, nodal disease was downstaged in the AJCC staging system 9th edition compared to the 8th edition, for example, T1-2N1, which was stage IIIA in the AJCC 8th edition, is now IIB in the AJCC 9th edition. However, in current cohort, we identified three cases of bulky nodes with T stage 1-2, and among them, two patients experienced treatment failure. This suggests that the current staging system would underestimate the poor prognosis associated with bulky N+.

Nodal status failed to demonstrate statistically significance in terms of LRRFS and PFS. Additionally, when patients with nodal disease was subdivided to non-bulky N+ against bulky N+, no significant difference was observed between patients with N0 and non-bulky N+. As a result, we proposed a 3-tier staging system stressing the bulky nodal disease, which accurately predict survival outcomes in the studied cohort. While nodal status is recognized as one of the key prognostic factors, we observed that the distinction between N0 and non-bulky N+ disease becomes less pronounced, while that of bulky node disease retained the impact.

This study is not free from the limitations. Limitations of this study stems from retrospective design. Several cofounding factors that are known to affect treatment outcomes were not evenly distributed. However, many factors were not closely related in this study, and multivariate analysis showed that nodal size retained its impact on both LRRFS and PFS. Additionally, as the number of patients with bulky nodes was relatively small, statistical significance of analyzed parameters including predictive value of current staging system may have been underscored and further analysis such as propensity score matching was not possible. Lastly, suggested new staging model was not validated externally. Considering the limited number of patients in both the overall cohort and the bulky N+ group, there is a possibility of selection bias, which should be externally validated. Nevertheless, bulky N+ in patients with anal cancer carries distinctive prognosis and thus may be incorporated into tumor staging, as suggested in current analysis, for improved predictability.

Bulky nodal disease was distinctive prognosticator for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of anus undergoing standard of care chemoradiotherapy, which calls for further treatment intensification. Additionally, newly suggested staging system incorporating bulky nodal disease as N2 disease showed promise in improving patient outcomes prediction.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2024-258-S1-Table.pdf

crt-2024-258-S2-Table.pdf

crt-2024-258-S3-Fig.pdf

crt-2024-258-S4-Fig.pdf

crt-2024-258-S5-Table.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by Institutional Review Board at participating institutions. Informed consent was waived according to institutional policies.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Chun SJ, Kim E, Kim BH, Chie EK.

Collected the data: Chun SJ, Kim E, Jang WI, Kim MS, Kang HC.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Chun SJ, Jang WI, Kim MS, Kang HC, Kim BH, Chie EK.

Performed the analysis: Chun SJ.

Wrote the paper: Chun SJ, Kim E, Jang WI, Kim MS, Kang HC, Kim BH, Chie EK.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.

Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (A), progression-free survival (B), and overall survival (C) of patients with N0, non-bulky N+, and bulky N+.

Fig. 2.

Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (A), progression-free survival (B), and overall survival (C) of patients according to newly suggested stage.

Table 1.

Patient, tumor, treatment characteristics of anal cancer patients

Variable	No. of patients (n=104)
Age (yr)	61.4±10.3
≤ 60	52 (50.0)
> 60	52 (50.0)
Sex
Female	79 (76.0)
Male	25 (24.0)
HIV^a)
Yes	3 (3.8)
No	76 (96.2)
ECOG PS
0-1	101 (97.1)
2-3	3 (2.9)
Local excision
Yes	20 (19.2)
No	84 (80.8)
p16 expression
Yes	14 (13.5)
No	0
N/A	90 (86.5)
Tumor grade
W/D or M/D	47 (45.2)
P/D	21 (20.2)
N/A	36 (34.6)
T category
T1/T2	81 (77.9)
T3/T4	23 (22.1)
N category
N0	51 (49.0)
N1	53 (51.0)
Stage (AJCC 8th)
I	16 (15.4)
II	33 (31.7)
III	55 (52.9)
Baseline NLR^a)
< 2.5	74 (75.5)
≥ 2.5	24 (24.5)
Baseline lymphopenia^a) (500/μL)
No	97 (99.0)
Yes	1 (1.0)
Post-treatment NLR
< 2.5	55 (52.9)
≥ 2.5	49 (47.1)
Post-treatment lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	90 (86.5)
Yes	14 (13.5)
Radiation technique
3D-CRT	60 (57.7)
IMRT	44 (42.3)
Radiation dose (primary tumor) (Gy)	54.0±4.5
≥ 45, < 50	11 (10.6)
≥ 50, < 55	49 (47.1)
≥ 55	44 (42.3)
Radiation dose (gross nodes)^a) (Gy)	53.9±5.2
Radiation dose (elective nodes) (Gy)	44.1±3.7
Radiotherapy to inguinal nodes
Yes	83 (79.8)
No	21 (20.2)
Chemotherapy regimen
MMC included	84 (80.8)
MMC excluded	20 (19.2)

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%). AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ECOG PS, European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; M/D, moderately differentiated; MMC, mitomycin C; N/A, not available; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; P/D, poorly differentiated; SD, standard deviation; W/D, well differentiated; 3D-CRT, 3-dimensional-conformal radiotherapy.

^a) Analysis of available data.

Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with anal cancer

Factor	LRRFS				PFS				OS
	Univariate		Multivariate		Univariate		Multivariate		Univariate		Multivariate
	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (yr) (≤ 60 vs. > 60)	0.90 (0.41-1.99)	0.791	-	-	0.90 (0.42-1.93)	0.785	-	-	1.64 (0.60-4.52)	0.335	-	-
Sex (female vs. male)	1.58 (0.68-3.70)	0.291	-	-	1.38 (0.60-3.18)	0.446	-	-	2.64 (0.98-7.09)	0.055	2.72 (0.92-8.01)	0.069
ECOG PS (continuous)	2.40 (1.12-5.13)	0.024	2.47 (1.17-5.21)	0.018	1.94 (0.89-4.22)	0.093	-	-	3.75 (1.50-9.35)	0.005	3.51 (1.20-10.25)	0.022
Local excision (no vs. yes)	0.67 (0.23-1.98)	0.470	-	-	0.85 (0.32-2.27)	0.745	-	-	1.08 (0.34-3.37)	0.897	-	-
p16 (N/A vs. yes)	1.45 (0.49-4.27)	0.499	-	-	1.28 (0.44-3.72)	0.654	-	-	1.10 (0.25-4.89)	0.903	-	-
Tumor grade (continuous)	0.69 (0.49-0.98)	0.040	-	-	0.74 (0.54-1.03)	0.075	0.76 (0.55-1.05)	0.095	0.88 (0.61-1.29)	0.518	-	-
T category (T1/2 vs. T3/4)	2.68 (1.17-6.16)	0.020	-	-	2.83 (1.28-6.27)	0.010	2.51 (1.11-5.66)	0.026	2.32 (0.84-6.45)	0.106	-	-
N category (N0 vs. N1)	1.24 (0.56-2.75)	0.590	-	-	1.47 (0.68-3.17)	0.330	-	-	0.92 (0.35-2.39)	0.858	-	-
Bulky nodal status (N0, non-bulky N+ vs. bulky N+)	4.11 (1.37-12.35)	0.012	4.60 (1.51-14.06)	0.007	3.41 (1.15-10.09)	0.026	2.60 (0.86-7.89)	0.089	3.67 (1.28-10.98)	0.045	4.51 (1.17-17.4)	0.029
Baseline NLR (< 2.5 vs. ≥ 2.5)	1.58 (0.66-3.80)	0.302	-	-	1.70 (0.74-3.90)	0.211	-	-	3.75 (1.28-10.98)	0.016	2.80 (0.90-8.77)	0.077
Post-treatment NLR (< 2.5 vs. ≥ 2.5)	1.37 (0.63-2.97)	0.424	-	-	1.32 (0.63-2.79)	0.460	-	-	1.10 (0.44-2.79)	0.834	-	-
Post-treatment lymphopenia (no vs. yes)	0.71 (0.24-2.09)	0.534	-	-	0.57 (0.22-1.53)	0.268	-	-	0.60 (0.17-2.13)	0.427	-	-
RT technique (3D-CRT vs. IMRT)	1.01 (0.43-2.35)	0.981	-	-	1.04 (0.47-2.34)	0.919	-	-	1.76 (0.63-4.92)	0.281	-	-
RT dose (≤ 54 vs. > 54)	1.08 (0.48-2.42)	0.846	-	-	1.11 (0.51-2.40)	0.795	-	-	0.85 (0.32-2.27)	0.750	-	-
Chemotherapy (MMC vs. non-MMC)	1.50 (0.63-3.56)	0.356	-	-	1.34 (0.57-3.11)	0.504	-	-	0.99 (0.34-2.91)	0.988	-	-

CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; LRRFS, loco-regional recurrence-free survival; MMC, mitomycin C; N/A, not available; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; RT, radiotherapy; 3D-CRT, 3-dimensional-conformal radiotherapy.

Table 3.

Patient characteristics by treatment groups classified by nodal size

Variable	N0 (n=51)	Non-bulky N+ (n=46)	Bulky N+ (n=7)	p-value
Age (yr)	62.2±10.7	60.8±9.5	60.6±13.4	0.816
≤ 60	27 (52.9)	22 (47.8)	3 (42.9)
> 60	24 (47.1)	24 (52.2)	4 (57.1)
Sex
Female	41 (80.4)	33 (71.7)	5 (71.4)	0.584
Male	10 (19.6)	13 (28.3)	2 (28.6)
HIV
Yes	3 (8.8)	0	0	0.127
No	31 (91.2)	38 (100)	7 (100)
Local excision
Yes	13 (25.5)	7 (15.2)	0	0.180
No	38 (74.5)	39 (84.8)	7 (100)
p16
Yes	8 (15.7)	6 (13.0)	0	0.519
No	0	0	0
N/A	43 (84.3)	40 (87.0)	7 (100)
Tumor grade
W/D or M/D	21 (41.2)	22 (47.8)	4 (57.1)	0.927
P/D	11 (21.6)	9 (19.6)	1 (14.3)
N/A	19 (37.3)	15 (32.6)	2 (28.6)
T category
T1/T2	47 (92.2)	30 (65.2)	4 (57.1)	0.002
T3/T4	4 (7.8)	16 (34.8)	3 (42.9)
N category
N0	51 (100)	0	0	< 0.001
N1	0	46 (100)	7 (100)
Stage (AJCC 8th)
I	16 (31.4)	0	0	< 0.001
II	33 (64.7)	0	0
III	2 (3.9)	46 (100)	7 (100)
Baseline NLR
< 2.5	39 (81.2)	33 (75.0)	2 (33.3)	0.036
≥ 2.5	9 (18.8)	11 (25.0)	4 (66.7)
Baseline lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	48 (100)	43 (97.7)	6 (100)	0.538
Yes	0	1 (2.3)	0
Post-treatment NLR
< 2.5	26 (51.0)	28 (60.9)	1 (14.3)	0.066
≥ 2.5	25 (49.0)	18 (39.1)	6 (85.7)
Post-treatment lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	47 (92.2)	37 (80.4)	6 (85.7)	0.240
Yes	4 (7.8)	9 (19.6)	1 (14.3)
Radiation technique
3D-CRT	30 (58.8)	25 (54.3)	5 (71.4)	0.678
IMRT	21 (41.2)	21 (45.7)	2 (28.6)
Radiation dose (primary tumor) (Gy)	52.1±4.5	55.5±3.8	57.4±2.9	< 0.001
≥ 45, < 50	9 (17.6)	2 (4.3)	0	0.001
≥ 50, < 55	31 (60.8)	16 (34.8)	2 (28.6)
≥ 55	11 (21.6)	28 (60.9)	5 (71.4)
Radiation dose (gross nodes) (Gy)		53.1±5.0	58.9±3.5	0.005
Radiation dose (elective nodes) (Gy)	43.6±3.6	44.1±3.5	47.4±5.0	0.041
Radiotherapy to inguinal nodes
Yes	33 (64.7)	43 (93.5)	7 (100)	0.001
No	18 (35.3)	3 (6.5)	0
Chemotherapy regimen
MMC included	44 (86.3)	35 (76.1)	5 (71.4)	0.361
MMC excluded	7 (13.7)	11 (23.9)	2 (28.6)

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%). AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy; M/D, moderately differentiated; MMC, mitomycin C; N/A, not available; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; P/D, poorly differentiated; SD, standard deviation; W/D, well differentiated; 3D-CRT, 3-dimensional-conformal radiotherapy.

REFERENCES

1. Kang MJ, Won YJ, Lee JJ, Jung KW, Kim HJ, Kong HJ, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2019. Cancer Res Treat. 2022;54:330–44. Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Johnson LG, Madeleine MM, Newcomer LM, Schwartz SM, Daling JR. Anal cancer incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results experience, 1973-2000. Cancer. 2004;101:281–8. Article PubMed
3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Anal cancer (ver sion 2.2023) [Internet]. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2023. [cited 2023 May 7]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/anal.pdf
4. Rao S, Guren MG, Khan K, Brown G, Renehan AG, Steigen SE, et al. Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1087–100. Article PubMed
5. Theophanous S, Samuel R, Lilley J, Henry A, Sebag-Montefiore D, Gilbert A, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with anal cancer treated with conformal radiotherapy-a systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:607.Article PubMed PMC PDF
6. Rodel F, Steinhauser K, Kreis NN, Friemel A, Martin D, Wieland U, et al. Prognostic impact of RITA expression in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;126:214–21. Article PubMed
7. Balermpas P, Martin D, Wieland U, Rave-Frank M, Strebhardt K, Rodel C, et al. Human papilloma virus load and PD-1/PD-L1, CD8(+) and FOXP3 in anal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy: Rationale for immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6:e1288331Article PubMed PMC
8. Schernberg A, Escande A, Rivin Del Campo E, Ducreux M, Nguyen F, Goere D, et al. Leukocytosis and neutrophilia predicts outcome in anal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;122:137–45. Article PubMed
9. Schernberg A, Huguet F, Moureau-Zabotto L, Chargari C, Rivin Del Campo E, Schlienger M, et al. External validation of leukocytosis and neutrophilia as a prognostic marker in anal carcinoma treated with definitive chemoradiation. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124:110–7. Article PubMed
10. Kim E, Kim TH, Jung W, Kim K, Chang AR, Park HJ, et al. Prognostic impact of neutrophilia and lymphopenia on survival in anal cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2022;27:553–62. Article PubMed PDF
11. Shakir R, Adams R, Cooper R, Downing A, Geh I, Gilbert D, et al. Patterns and predictors of relapse following radical chemoradiation therapy delivered using intensity modulated radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106:329–39. Article PubMed PMC
12. Janczewski LM, Faski J, Nelson H, Gollub MJ, Eng C, Brierley JD, et al. Survival outcomes used to generate version 9 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for anal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:516–23. Article PubMed
13. Tiwari R, Narayanan GS, Reddy VP, Vishwanathan B, Narayanan S, Venugopal R. Impact of nodal boost irradiation and MR-based brachytherapy on oncologic outcomes in node-positive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;163:110–6. Article PubMed
14. Grigsby PW, Singh AK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Lymph node control in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:706–12. Article PubMed
15. O’Sullivan B, Huang SH, Su J, Garden AS, Sturgis EM, Dahlstrom K, et al. Development and validation of a staging system for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer by the International Collaboration on Oropharyngeal cancer Network for Staging (ICON-S): a multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:440–51. Article PubMed
16. Chie EK, Chun SJ, Kim E, Jang WI, Kim MS, Kang HC, et al. Bulky nodal disease as distinctive prognosticator in anal cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(3 Suppl):1.Article PubMed
17. Peiffert D, Tournier-Rangeard L, Gerard JP, Lemanski C, Francois E, Giovannini M, et al. Induction chemotherapy and dose intensification of the radiation boost in locally advanced anal canal carcinoma: final analysis of the randomized UNICANCER ACCORD 03 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1941–8. Article PubMed
18. Glynne-Jones R, Meadows HM, Lopes A, Muirhead R, SebagMontefiore D, Adams R, et al. Impact of compliance to chemoradiation on long-term outcomes in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus: results of a post hoc analysis from the randomised phase III ACT II trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1376–85. Article PubMed
19. Gilbert A, McParland L, Webster J, Bell S, Copeland J, Adams RA, et al. Pre-specified pilot analysis of a randomised pilot/phase II/III trial comparing standard dose vs dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in anal cancer (PLATOACT5). Ann Oncol. 2019;30(Suppl 5):V203–4. Article
20. Gilbert DC, Wakeham K, Langley RE, Vale CL. Increased risk of second cancers at sites associated with HPV after a prior HPV-associated malignancy, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2019;120:256–68. Article PubMed PDF
21. Sun G, Dong X, Tang X, Qu H, Zhang H, Zhao E. The prognostic value of HPV combined p16 status in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2018;9:8081–8. Article PubMed
22. Spector ME, Gallagher KK, Bellile E, Chinn SB, Ibrahim M, Byrd S, et al. Patterns of nodal metastasis and prognosis in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2014;36:1233–40. Article PubMed PMC
23. Ho AS, Kim S, Tighiouart M, Gudino C, Mita A, Scher KS, et al. Metastatic lymph node burden and survival in oral cavity cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3601–9. Article PubMed PMC
24. Olthof EP, Wenzel H, van der Velden J, Spijkerboer AM, Bekkers R, Beltman JJ, et al. Treatment of bulky lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer: boosting versus debulking. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:861–8. Article PubMed PMC
25. Li P, Fang Q, Yang Y, Chen D, Du W, Liu F, et al. Survival significance of number of positive lymph nodes in oral squamous cell carcinoma stratified by p16. Front Oncol. 2021;11:545433.Article PubMed PMC
26. Bauwens L, Baltres A, Fiani DJ, Zrounba P, Buiret G, Fleury B, et al. Prevalence and distribution of cervical lymph node metastases in HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2021;157:122–9. Article PubMed
27. Porceddu SV, Milne R, Brown E, Bernard A, Rahbari R, Cartmill B, et al. Validation of the ICON-S staging for HPV-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma using a pre-defined treatment policy. Oral Oncol. 2017;66:81–6. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

MR Imaging of Anal Cancer
Josip Nincevic, Gaiane M. Rauch, Jennifer S. Golia Pernicka
Radiologic Clinics of North America.2025;[Epub] CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Prognostic Significance of Bulky Nodal Disease in Anal Cancer Management: A Multi-institutional Study

Cancer Res Treat. 2024;56(4):1197-1206. Published online April 11, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.258

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Prognostic Significance of Bulky Nodal Disease in Anal Cancer Management: A Multi-institutional Study

Fig. 1. Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (A), progression-free survival (B), and overall survival (C) of patients with N0, non-bulky N+, and bulky N+.

Fig. 2. Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (A), progression-free survival (B), and overall survival (C) of patients according to newly suggested stage.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Prognostic Significance of Bulky Nodal Disease in Anal Cancer Management: A Multi-institutional Study

Variable	No. of patients (n=104)
Age (yr)	61.4±10.3
≤ 60	52 (50.0)
> 60	52 (50.0)
Sex
Female	79 (76.0)
Male	25 (24.0)
HIV^a)
Yes	3 (3.8)
No	76 (96.2)
ECOG PS
0-1	101 (97.1)
2-3	3 (2.9)
Local excision
Yes	20 (19.2)
No	84 (80.8)
p16 expression
Yes	14 (13.5)
No	0
N/A	90 (86.5)
Tumor grade
W/D or M/D	47 (45.2)
P/D	21 (20.2)
N/A	36 (34.6)
T category
T1/T2	81 (77.9)
T3/T4	23 (22.1)
N category
N0	51 (49.0)
N1	53 (51.0)
Stage (AJCC 8th)
I	16 (15.4)
II	33 (31.7)
III	55 (52.9)
Baseline NLR^a)
< 2.5	74 (75.5)
≥ 2.5	24 (24.5)
Baseline lymphopenia^a) (500/μL)
No	97 (99.0)
Yes	1 (1.0)
Post-treatment NLR
< 2.5	55 (52.9)
≥ 2.5	49 (47.1)
Post-treatment lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	90 (86.5)
Yes	14 (13.5)
Radiation technique
3D-CRT	60 (57.7)
IMRT	44 (42.3)
Radiation dose (primary tumor) (Gy)	54.0±4.5
≥ 45, < 50	11 (10.6)
≥ 50, < 55	49 (47.1)
≥ 55	44 (42.3)
Radiation dose (gross nodes)^a) (Gy)	53.9±5.2
Radiation dose (elective nodes) (Gy)	44.1±3.7
Radiotherapy to inguinal nodes
Yes	83 (79.8)
No	21 (20.2)
Chemotherapy regimen
MMC included	84 (80.8)
MMC excluded	20 (19.2)

Factor	LRRFS				PFS				OS
	Univariate		Multivariate		Univariate		Multivariate		Univariate		Multivariate
	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Age (yr) (≤ 60 vs. > 60)	0.90 (0.41-1.99)	0.791	-	-	0.90 (0.42-1.93)	0.785	-	-	1.64 (0.60-4.52)	0.335	-	-
Sex (female vs. male)	1.58 (0.68-3.70)	0.291	-	-	1.38 (0.60-3.18)	0.446	-	-	2.64 (0.98-7.09)	0.055	2.72 (0.92-8.01)	0.069
ECOG PS (continuous)	2.40 (1.12-5.13)	0.024	2.47 (1.17-5.21)	0.018	1.94 (0.89-4.22)	0.093	-	-	3.75 (1.50-9.35)	0.005	3.51 (1.20-10.25)	0.022
Local excision (no vs. yes)	0.67 (0.23-1.98)	0.470	-	-	0.85 (0.32-2.27)	0.745	-	-	1.08 (0.34-3.37)	0.897	-	-
p16 (N/A vs. yes)	1.45 (0.49-4.27)	0.499	-	-	1.28 (0.44-3.72)	0.654	-	-	1.10 (0.25-4.89)	0.903	-	-
Tumor grade (continuous)	0.69 (0.49-0.98)	0.040	-	-	0.74 (0.54-1.03)	0.075	0.76 (0.55-1.05)	0.095	0.88 (0.61-1.29)	0.518	-	-
T category (T1/2 vs. T3/4)	2.68 (1.17-6.16)	0.020	-	-	2.83 (1.28-6.27)	0.010	2.51 (1.11-5.66)	0.026	2.32 (0.84-6.45)	0.106	-	-
N category (N0 vs. N1)	1.24 (0.56-2.75)	0.590	-	-	1.47 (0.68-3.17)	0.330	-	-	0.92 (0.35-2.39)	0.858	-	-
Bulky nodal status (N0, non-bulky N+ vs. bulky N+)	4.11 (1.37-12.35)	0.012	4.60 (1.51-14.06)	0.007	3.41 (1.15-10.09)	0.026	2.60 (0.86-7.89)	0.089	3.67 (1.28-10.98)	0.045	4.51 (1.17-17.4)	0.029
Baseline NLR (< 2.5 vs. ≥ 2.5)	1.58 (0.66-3.80)	0.302	-	-	1.70 (0.74-3.90)	0.211	-	-	3.75 (1.28-10.98)	0.016	2.80 (0.90-8.77)	0.077
Post-treatment NLR (< 2.5 vs. ≥ 2.5)	1.37 (0.63-2.97)	0.424	-	-	1.32 (0.63-2.79)	0.460	-	-	1.10 (0.44-2.79)	0.834	-	-
Post-treatment lymphopenia (no vs. yes)	0.71 (0.24-2.09)	0.534	-	-	0.57 (0.22-1.53)	0.268	-	-	0.60 (0.17-2.13)	0.427	-	-
RT technique (3D-CRT vs. IMRT)	1.01 (0.43-2.35)	0.981	-	-	1.04 (0.47-2.34)	0.919	-	-	1.76 (0.63-4.92)	0.281	-	-
RT dose (≤ 54 vs. > 54)	1.08 (0.48-2.42)	0.846	-	-	1.11 (0.51-2.40)	0.795	-	-	0.85 (0.32-2.27)	0.750	-	-
Chemotherapy (MMC vs. non-MMC)	1.50 (0.63-3.56)	0.356	-	-	1.34 (0.57-3.11)	0.504	-	-	0.99 (0.34-2.91)	0.988	-	-

Variable	N0 (n=51)	Non-bulky N+ (n=46)	Bulky N+ (n=7)	p-value
Age (yr)	62.2±10.7	60.8±9.5	60.6±13.4	0.816
≤ 60	27 (52.9)	22 (47.8)	3 (42.9)
> 60	24 (47.1)	24 (52.2)	4 (57.1)
Sex
Female	41 (80.4)	33 (71.7)	5 (71.4)	0.584
Male	10 (19.6)	13 (28.3)	2 (28.6)
HIV
Yes	3 (8.8)	0	0	0.127
No	31 (91.2)	38 (100)	7 (100)
Local excision
Yes	13 (25.5)	7 (15.2)	0	0.180
No	38 (74.5)	39 (84.8)	7 (100)
p16
Yes	8 (15.7)	6 (13.0)	0	0.519
No	0	0	0
N/A	43 (84.3)	40 (87.0)	7 (100)
Tumor grade
W/D or M/D	21 (41.2)	22 (47.8)	4 (57.1)	0.927
P/D	11 (21.6)	9 (19.6)	1 (14.3)
N/A	19 (37.3)	15 (32.6)	2 (28.6)
T category
T1/T2	47 (92.2)	30 (65.2)	4 (57.1)	0.002
T3/T4	4 (7.8)	16 (34.8)	3 (42.9)
N category
N0	51 (100)	0	0	< 0.001
N1	0	46 (100)	7 (100)
Stage (AJCC 8th)
I	16 (31.4)	0	0	< 0.001
II	33 (64.7)	0	0
III	2 (3.9)	46 (100)	7 (100)
Baseline NLR
< 2.5	39 (81.2)	33 (75.0)	2 (33.3)	0.036
≥ 2.5	9 (18.8)	11 (25.0)	4 (66.7)
Baseline lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	48 (100)	43 (97.7)	6 (100)	0.538
Yes	0	1 (2.3)	0
Post-treatment NLR
< 2.5	26 (51.0)	28 (60.9)	1 (14.3)	0.066
≥ 2.5	25 (49.0)	18 (39.1)	6 (85.7)
Post-treatment lymphopenia (500/μL)
No	47 (92.2)	37 (80.4)	6 (85.7)	0.240
Yes	4 (7.8)	9 (19.6)	1 (14.3)
Radiation technique
3D-CRT	30 (58.8)	25 (54.3)	5 (71.4)	0.678
IMRT	21 (41.2)	21 (45.7)	2 (28.6)
Radiation dose (primary tumor) (Gy)	52.1±4.5	55.5±3.8	57.4±2.9	< 0.001
≥ 45, < 50	9 (17.6)	2 (4.3)	0	0.001
≥ 50, < 55	31 (60.8)	16 (34.8)	2 (28.6)
≥ 55	11 (21.6)	28 (60.9)	5 (71.4)
Radiation dose (gross nodes) (Gy)		53.1±5.0	58.9±3.5	0.005
Radiation dose (elective nodes) (Gy)	43.6±3.6	44.1±3.5	47.4±5.0	0.041
Radiotherapy to inguinal nodes
Yes	33 (64.7)	43 (93.5)	7 (100)	0.001
No	18 (35.3)	3 (6.5)	0
Chemotherapy regimen
MMC included	44 (86.3)	35 (76.1)	5 (71.4)	0.361
MMC excluded	7 (13.7)	11 (23.9)	2 (28.6)

Table 1. Patient, tumor, treatment characteristics of anal cancer patients

Analysis of available data.

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with anal cancer

Table 3. Patient characteristics by treatment groups classified by nodal size