PURPOSE: Currently, neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by total mesorectal resection is considered the standard of care for treating locally advanced rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of adding induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant CRT in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: This phase-II clinical trial included 54 patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced (clinical T3–4 and/or N1–2, M0) rectal cancer. All patients were treated with 3 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy using the XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) regimen before and after a concurrent standard long course of CRT (45–50.4 Gy) followed by standard radical surgery. Pathologic complete response (PCR) rate and toxicity were the primary and secondary end-points, respectively. RESULTS: The study participants included 37 males and 17 females, with a median age of 59 years (range, 20–80 years). Twenty-nine patients (54%) had clinical stage-II disease, and 25 patients (46%) had clinical stage-III disease. Larger tumor size (P = 0.006) and distal rectal location (P = 0.009) showed lower PCR compared to smaller tumor size and upper rectal location. Pathologic examinations showed significant tumor regression (6.1 ± 2.7 cm vs. 1.9 ± 1.8 cm, P < 0.001) with 10 PCRs (18.5%) compared to before the intervention. The surgical margin was free of cancer in 52 patients (96.3%). Treatment-related toxicities were easily tolerated, and all patients completed their planned treatment without interruption. Grade III and IV toxicities were infrequent. CONCLUSION: The addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant CRT is an effective and well-tolerated treatment approach in patients with rectal cancer.
Drug Therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Induction Chemotherapy ; Male ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Standard of Care

PROPOSE: In this study, we re-assessed the criteria defined by the radiological society of North America (RSNA) to determine novel radiological findings helping the physicians differentiating COVID-19 from pulmonary contusion. METHODS: All trauma patients with blunt chest wall trauma and subsequent pulmonary contusion, COVID-19-related signs and symptoms before the trauma were enrolled in this retrospective study from February to May 2020. Included patients (Group P) were then classified into two groups based on polymerase chain reaction tests (Group Pa for positive patients and Pb for negative ones). Moreover, 44 patients from the pre-pandemic period (Group PP) were enrolled. They were matched to Group P regarding age, sex, and trauma-related scores. Two radiologists blindly reviewed the CT images of all enrolled patients according to criteria defined by the RSNA criteria. The radiological findings were compared between Group P and Group PP; statistically significant ones were re-evaluated between Group Pa and Group Pb thereafter. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of each significant findings were calculated. The Chi-square test was used to compare the radiological findings between Group P and Group PP. RESULTS: In the Group PP, 73.7% of all ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and 80% of all multiple bilateral GGOs were detected (p < 0.001 and p = 0.25, respectively). Single bilateral GGOs were only seen among the Group PP. The Chi-square tests showed that the prevalence of diffused GGOs, multiple unilateral GGOs, multiple consolidations, and multiple bilateral consolidations were significantly higher in the Group P (p = 0.001, 0.01, 0.003, and 0.003, respectively). However, GGOs with irregular borders and single consolidations were more significant among the Group PP (p = 0.01 and 0.003, respectively). Of note, reticular distortions and subpleural spares were exclusively detected in the Group PP. CONCLUSION We concluded that the criteria set by RSNA for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are not appropriate in trauma patients. The clinical signs and symptoms are not always useful either. The presence of multiple unilateral GGOs, diffused GGOs, and multiple bilateral consolidations favor COVID-19 with 88%, 97.62%, and 77.7% diagnostic accuracy.
COVID-19 ; Contusions/diagnostic imaging* ; Humans ; Lead ; Lung/diagnostic imaging* ; Lung Injury/etiology* ; Retrospective Studies ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods*