U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Treatment of Stages I-III Squamous Cell Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Treatment of Stages I-III Squamous Cell Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 273

, M.B.B.S., M.P.H., , M.D., , M.D., , M.D., , M.D., , M.L.I.S., , M.D., , M.D., , Ph.D., , M.D., M.P.H., , M.D., and , Ph.D., M.B.A.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: AHRQ 24-EHC026Report No.: PCORI 2024-SR-03

Structured Abstract

Objectives:

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of initial treatment and posttreatment surveillance strategies for stages I–III squamous cell anal cancer.

Data sources:

MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 through March 2024; reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies; and a Federal Register notice.

Review methods:

Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing strategies for chemotherapy, radiation therapy (RT), and surgery; modalities, doses, volumes, and fractionation schema for RT; dose de-escalation or escalation in chemoradiation (CRT); immunotherapy; and posttreatment surveillance. We evaluated risk of bias (RoB) using the RoB2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs and strength of evidence (SOE) using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program methods for prespecified outcomes (PROSPERO registration number CRD42023456886).

Results:

We included 33 articles from 8 RCTs (6 with low to moderate RoB and 2 with high RoB) and 20 NRSIs (all with serious to critical RoB). Compared with RT alone, doublet CRT with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) plus mitomycin C (MMC) showed lower locoregional failure rate (LRF) and greater disease-specific and colostomy-free survival (CFS) (moderate to low SOE), greater hematologic toxicity (low SOE), greater overall acute harms (moderate SOE), and no difference in late harms (low SOE). Doublet CRT with 5FU plus MMC showed lower LRF (low SOE) and greater CFS and disease-free survival (DFS) (low SOE) than CRT with 5FU, and evidence was insufficient to compare harms. Compared with CRT with 5FU plus MMC, CRT with 5FU plus cisplatin did not improve several effectiveness outcomes up to 5 years, or overall acute or late harms (moderate to low SOE), showed lower hematologic toxicity (moderate SOE), and had conflicting, insufficient evidence for CFS. Triplet CRT with paclitaxel plus capecitabine plus MMC showed greater CFS, DFS, overall survival, and overall acute harms than doublet CRT with capecitabine plus MMC (low SOE). Remaining comparisons had insufficient evidence. Patients with older age, immunocompromised status, or minoritized racial/ethnic identities were underrepresented in included studies.

Conclusions:

Doublet CRT is likely more effective but may have greater hematologic toxicity compared with RT alone or CRT with 5FU. Adding paclitaxel to doublet CRT may increase treatment efficacy and toxicity. Evidence is insufficient for optimal posttreatment surveillance strategies, quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes. Future RCTs should increase inclusion of historically underrepresented patients, and future real-world evidence generation must prioritize methodological rigor.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 5600, Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www.ahrq.gov and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, 1333 New Hampshire Ave, NW, Ste. 1200, Washington, DC 20036; www.pcori.org, Contract No. 75Q80120D00008 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center Minneapolis, MN

Suggested citation:

Parikh RR, Troester A, Southwell B, Ester E, Sultan S, Claussen AM, Greeno E, Arsoniadis E, Church TR, Wilt TJ, Goffredo P, Butler M. Treatment of Stages I–III Squamous Cell Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 273. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 75Q80120D00008.) AHRQ Publication No. 24-EHC026. PCORI® Publication No. 2024-SR-03. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER273. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page.

This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 75Q80120D00008). The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®) funded the report (PCORI® Publication No. 2024-SR-03). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ or PCORI®, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of PCORI®, AHRQ, or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Nonfinancial conflict of interest was reported by the investigators as follows: Dr. Paolo Goffredo and Dr. Elliot Arsoniadis are colorectal surgeons who treat patients with anal cancer, prescribe treatments examined in this report, and have published research related to anal cancer; Dr. Elizabeth Ester is a radiation oncologist who treats patients with anal cancer and prescribes treatments examined in this report; Dr. Edward Greeno is a medical oncologist who treats patients with anal cancer and prescribes treatments examined in this report; Dr. Bronwyn Southwell is an anesthesiologist; Dr. Shahnaz Sultan is a gastroenterologist. None of the investigators reported any financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Most AHRQ documents are publicly available to use for noncommercial purposes (research, clinical or patient education, quality improvement projects) in the United States, and do not need specific permission to be reprinted and used unless they contain material that is copyrighted by others. Specific written permission is needed for commercial use (reprinting for sale, incorporation into software, incorporation into for-profit training courses) or for use outside of the United States. If organizational policies require permission to adapt or use these materials, AHRQ will provide such permission in writing.

PCORI®, AHRQ, or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.

A representative from AHRQ served as a Contracting Officer’s Representative and reviewed the contract deliverables for adherence to contract requirements and quality. AHRQ did not directly participate in the literature search, determination of study eligibility criteria, data analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation or drafting of this report.

AHRQ and PCORI® appreciate appropriate acknowledgment and citation of their work. Suggested language for acknowledgment: This work was based on an evidence report, Treatment of Stages I–III Squamous Cell Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review, by the Evidence-based Practice Center Program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI®).

Bookshelf ID: NBK608904PMID: 39504392DOI: 10.23970/AHRQEPCCER273

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (2.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...