Organ preservation for clinical T2N0 distal rectal cancer using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision (ACOSOG Z6041): results of an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional, phase 2 trial

Validated Pretreatment Prediction Models for Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Pretreatment response prediction is crucial to select those patients with rectal cancer who will benefit from organ preservation strategies following (intensified) neoadjuvant therapy and to avoid unnecessary toxicity in those who will not. The combination of individual predictors in multivariable prediction models might improve predictive accuracy. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise validated pretreatment prediction models (other than radiomics-based models or image-based deep learning models) for response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with rectal cancer and provide evidence-based recommendations for future research. MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase.com, and Scopus were searched for eligible studies published up to November 2022. A total of 5006 studies were screened and 16 were included for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). All selected models were unique and grouped into five predictor categories: clinical, combined, genetics, metabolites, and pathology. Studies generally included patients with intermediate or advanced tumor stages who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Evaluated outcomes were pathological complete response and pathological tumor response. All studies were considered to have a high risk of bias and none of the models were externally validated in an independent study. Discriminative performances, estimated with the area under the curve (AUC), ranged per predictor category from 0.60 to 0.70 (clinical), 0.78 to 0.81 (combined), 0.66 to 0.91 (genetics), 0.54 to 0.80 (metabolites), and 0.71 to 0.91 (pathology). Model calibration outcomes were reported in five studies. Two collagen feature-based models showed the best predictive performance (AUCs 0.83-0.91 and good calibration). In conclusion, some pretreatment models for response prediction in rectal cancer show encouraging predictive potential but, given the high risk of bias in these studies, their value should be evaluated in future, well-designed studies.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for the Surgical Management of T2 and T3 Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic surgery is an organ-sparing treatment for early rectal cancer. Patients with advanced lesions are recommended for total mesorectal excision. However, some patients have prohibitive comorbidities or refuse major surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cancer outcomes of patients with T2 or T3 rectal cancers who received transanal endoscopic surgery as their sole surgical treatment.

DESIGN

This study used a prospectively maintained database.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital in Canada.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent transanal endoscopic surgery for pathology-confirmed T2 or T3 rectal adenocarcinomas from 2007-2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease-free survival and overall survival, stratified by tumor stage and reason for transanal endoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Among the included 132 patients (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36), average follow-up was 22 months. Twenty-eight decline oncologic resection, whereas 104 had preclusive comorbidities. Fifteen patients (11.4%) had disease recurrence (4 local, 11 metastatic). Three-year disease-free survival was 86.5% (95% CI, 77.1-95.9) for T2 and 67.9% (95% CI, 46.3-89.5) for T3 tumors. Mean disease-free survival was longer for T2 (75.0 mo; 95% CI, 67.8-82.1) compared to T3 cancers (50 mo; 95% CI, 37.7-62.3; p = 0.037). Three-year disease-free survival for patients who declined radical excision was 84.0% (95% CI, 67.1-100) versus 80.7% (95% CI, 69.7-91.7) in patients too comorbid for surgery. Three-year overall survival rate was 84.9% (95% CI, 73.9-95.9) for T2 and 49.0% (95% CI, 26.7-71.3) for T3 tumors. Patients who declined radical resection had similar 3-year overall survival (89.7%; 95% CI, 76.2-100) compared to patients who were unable to undergo excision because of medical comorbidities (98.1%; 95% CI, 95.6-100).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample, single institution, and surgeon experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologic outcomes are compromised in patients treated by transanal endoscopic surgery for T2 and T3 rectal cancer. Transanal endoscopic surgery remains an option for informed patients who prefer to avoid radical resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 .

RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS DE LA CIRUGA ENDOSCPICA TRANSANAL PARA EL MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CNCER DE RECTO T Y T

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía endoscópica transanal es un tratamiento de conservación de órganos para el cáncer de recto en estadio temprano. A los pacisentes con lesiones avanzadas se les recomienda la escisión total del mesorrecto. Sin embargo, algunos pacientes tienen comorbilidades prohibitivas o rechazan una cirugía mayor.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados del cáncer de pacientes con cáncer de recto T2 o T3 que recibieron cirugía endoscópica transanal como único tratamiento quirúrgico.DISEÑO:Este estudio utilizó una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLINICO:Un hospital terciario en CanadáPACIENTES:Aquellos que se sometieron a cirugía endoscópica transanal por adenocarcinomas rectales T2 o T3 confirmados por patología de 2007-2020. Se excluyeron los pacientes cuya cirugía se realizó por recurrencia del cáncer o posteriormente fueron sometidos a resección radical.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Supervivencia libre de enfermedad y supervivencia global, estratificada por estadio del tumor y motivo de la cirugía endoscópica transanal.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 132 pacientes (T2, n = 96; T3, n = 36). El seguimiento medio fue de 22 meses (DE ± 23,4). 104 pacientes tenían comorbilidades significativas, mientras que 28 rechazaron la resección oncológica. Quince pacientes (11,4%) tuvieron recurrencia de la enfermedad (4 locales, 11 metastásicos). La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los tres años para los tumores T2 fue del 86,5 % (IC del 95%: 77,1-95,9) y del 67,9% (IC del 95%: 46,3-89,5) para los tumores T3. La supervivencia libre de enfermedad media fue más prolongada para los cánceres T2 (75,0 meses, IC del 95%: 67,8 a 82,1) en comparación con los cánceres T3 (50 meses, IC del 95%: 37,7 a 62,3, p = 0,037). La supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años para los pacientes que rechazaron la escisión mesorrectal total fue del 84,0% (IC del 95%: 67,1-100), mientras que los pacientes con demasiada comorbilidad médica para la cirugía tuvieron una supervivencia sin enfermedad a los tres años del 80,7% (IC del 95%: 69.7-91.7). La supervivencia general a los tres años fue del 84,9% (IC del 95%: 73,9 a 95,9) para los tumores T2 y del 49,0% (IC del 95%: 26,7 a 71,3) para los tumores T3. Los pacientes que rechazaron la resección radical tuvieron una supervivencia general similar a los tres años (89,7%, IC del 95%: 76,2-100), en comparación con los pacientes que no pudieron someterse a una escisión mesorrectal total debido a comorbilidades médicas (98,1%, IC del 95%: 95,6-100).LIMITACIONES:Muestra pequeña, institución única, experiencia del cirujano.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados oncológicos están comprometidos en pacientes tratados con cirugía endoscópica transanal por cáncer de recto T2 y T3. Sin embargo, la cirugía endoscópica transanal sigue siendo una opción para pacientes informados que prefieren evitar la resección radical. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C200 . (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Towards Response ADAptive Radiotherapy for organ preservation for intermediate-risk rectal cancer (preRADAR): protocol of a phase I dose-escalation trial

INTRODUCTION

Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4-8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (NL8997; https://trialsearch.who.int).

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial investigating Consolidation Chemotherapy with and without oxaliplatin in distal rectal cancer and Watch & Wait

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation(nCRT) has been considered the preferred initial treatment strategy for distal rectal cancer. Advantages of this approach include improved local control after radical surgery but also the opportunity for organ preserving strategies (Watch and Wait-WW). Consolidation chemotherapy(cCT) regimens using fluoropyrimidine-based with or without oxalipatin following nCRT have demonstrated to increase complete response and organ preservation rates among these patients. However, the benefit of adding oxaliplatin to cCT compared to fluoropirimidine alone regimens in terms of primary tumor response remains unclear. Since oxalipatin-treatment may be associated with considerable toxicity, it becomes imperative to understand the benefit of its incorporation into standard cCT regimens in terms of primary tumor response. The aim of the present trial is to compare the outcomes of 2 different cCT regimens following nCRT (fluoropyrimidine-alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin) for patients with distal rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this multi-centre study, patients with magnetic resonance-defined distal rectal tumors will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive long-course chemoradiation (54 Gy) followed by cCT with fluoropyrimidine alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin. Magnetic resonance(MR) will be analyzed centrally prior to patient inclusion and randomization. mrT2-3N0-1 tumor located no more than 1 cm above the anorectal ring determined by sagittal views on MR will be eligible for the study. Tumor response will be assessed after 12 weeks from radiotherapy(RT) completion. Patients with clinical complete response (clinical, endoscopic and radiological) may be enrolled in an organ-preservation program(WW). The primary endpoint of this trial is decision to organ-preservation surveillance (WW) at 18 weeks from RT completion. Secondary endpoints are 3-year surgery-free survival, TME-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, local regrowth-free survival and colostomy-free survival.

DISCUSSION

Long-course nCRT with cCT is associated with improved complete response rates and may be a very attractive alternative to increase the chances for organ-preservation strategies. Fluoropyrimidine-based cCT with or without oxaliplatin has never been investigated in the setting of a randomized trial to compare clinical response rates and the possibility of organ-preservation. The outcomes of this study may significantly impact clinical practice of patients with distal rectal cancer interested in organ-preservation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT05000697; registered on August 11^th, 2021.

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision After Favourable Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Low Rectal Cancer: a Multi-centre Experience

The gold standard surgical management of curable rectal cancer is proctectomy with total mesorectal excision. Adding preoperative radiotherapy improved local control. The promising results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy raised the hopes for conservative, yet oncologically safe management, probably using local excision technique. This study is a prospective comparative phase III study, where 46 rectal cancer patients were recruited from patients attending Oncology Centre of Mansoura University and Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth University Hospital NHS with a median follow-up 36 months. The two recruited groups were as follows: group (A), 18 patients who underwent conventional radical surgery by TME; and group (B), 28 patients who underwent trans-anal endoscopic local excision. Patients of resectable low rectal cancer (below 10 cms from anal verge) with sphincter saving procedures were included: cT1-T3N0. The median operative time for LE was 120 min versus 300 in TME (p < 0.001), and median blood loss was 20 ml versus 100 ml in LE and TME, respectively (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 3.5 days versus 6.5 days (p = 0.009). No statistically significant difference in median DFS (64.2 months for LE versus 63.2 months for TME, p = 0.85) and median OS (72.9 months for LE versus 76.3 months for TME, p = 0.43). No statistically significant difference in LARS scores and QoL was observed between LE and TME (p = 0.798, p = 0.799). LE seems a good alternative to radical rectal resection in carefully selected responders to neoadjuvant therapy after thorough pre-operative evaluation, planning and patient counselling.

Total neoadjuvant treatment and organ preservation strategies in the management of localized rectal cancer: A narrative review and evidence-based algorithm

The multimodal approach with total mesorectal excision preceded by neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy represented the mainstay treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) for a long time. However, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of distant relapse reduction is limited. Recently, chemotherapy regimens administered before surgery and incorporated with (chemo)radiotherapy in total neoadjuvant treatment protocols have been established as new options in the management of LARC. Meanwhile, patients with clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment can benefit from organ preservation strategies, aimed at sparing surgery and long-term post-operative morbidities, while preserving an adequate disease control. However, the introduction of a non-operative management in clinical practice is a matter of debate with some concerns regarding the risk of local recurrence and long-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss how these recent advances are reshaping the multimodal management of localized rectal cancer and propose an algorithm to place them in the clinical practice.

Surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection is typically the standard treatment for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer as local resection may result in a high rate of recurrence and risk of distant metastasis. A growing number of studies have shown that local excision after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy can significantly reduce recurrence rates and is a feasible strategy to preserve the rectum as an alternative to conventional radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with radical surgery for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

Clinical trials comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with early- to mid-stage rectal cancer were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, and Cochrane databases, and a total of 5 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study trials were included.

RESULTS

In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS [HR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.85, 1.15), p = 0.858], DFS [HR = 1.01, 95%CI (0.64, 1.58), p = 0.967], distant metastasis rate [RR = 0.76, 95%CI (0.36,1.59), p = 0.464], and local recurrence rate [RR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.69, 2.47), p = 0.420]. However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications [RR = 0.49, 95% CI (0.33, 0.72), p < 0.001], length of hospital stays [WMD =  - 5.13, 95%CI (- 6.22, - 4.05), p < 0.001], enterostomy [RR = 0.13, 95%CI (0.05, 0.37), p < 0.001], operative time [- 94.31, 95%CI (- 117.26, - 71.35), p < 0.001], and emotional functioning score [WMD = 2.34, 95% CI (0.94, 3.74), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy may be an effective alternative to radical surgery in patients with early and middle rectal cancer.

Geriatric Radiation Oncology: What We Know and What Can We Do Better?

Elderly patients represent a growing subgroup of cancer patients for whom the role of radiation therapy is poorly defined. Older patients are still clearly underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in very limited high-level evidence. Moreover, elderly patients are less likely to receive radiation therapy in similar clinical scenarios compared to younger patients. However, there is no clear evidence for a generally reduced radiation tolerance with increasing age. Modern radiation techniques have clearly reduced acute and late side effects, thus extending the boundaries of the possible regarding treatment intensity in elderly or frail patients. Hypofractionated regimens have further decreased the socioeconomic burden of radiation treatments by reducing the overall treatment time. The current review aims at summarizing the existing data for the use of radiation therapy or chemoradiation in elderly patients focusing on the main cancer types. It provides an overview of treatment tolerability and outcomes with current standard radiation therapy regimens, including possible predictive factors in the elderly population. Strategies for patient selection for standard or tailored radiation therapy approaches based on age, performance score or comorbidity, including the use of prediction tests or geriatric assessments, are discussed. Current and future possibilities for improvements of routine care and creation of high-level evidence in elderly patients receiving radiation therapy are highlighted.

Long-term Quality of Life and Functional Outcome of Patients With Rectal Cancer Following a Watch-and-Wait Approach

Importance

A watch-and-wait approach for patients with rectal cancer and a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy is associated with better quality of life and functional outcome. Nevertheless, prospective data on both parameters are scarce.

Objective

To prospectively evaluate quality of life and functional outcome, including bowel, urinary, and sexual function, of patients following a watch-and-wait approach.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A total of 278 patients with rectal cancer and a clinical complete response or near-complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy were included in 2 prospective cohort studies: a single-center study (March 2014 to October 2017) and an ongoing multicenter study (from September 2017). Patients were observed by a watch-and-wait approach. Additional local excision or total mesorectal excision was performed for residual disease or regrowth. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2021, and August 27, 2021, for patients with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quality of life was evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30), EORTC-QLQ-CR38, or EORTC-QLQ-CR29 and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. The score for the questionnaires and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey ranges from 0 to 100. For some scales, a high score indicates a high level of functioning, and for others it indicates a high level of complaints and symptomatology. Functional outcome was assessed by the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score, Vaizey incontinence score, International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index.

Results

Of 278 patients included, 187 were male (67%), and the median age was 66 years (range, 34-85 years). In the first 24 months, 221 patients (80%) were observed by a watch-and-wait approach without requiring surgery, 18 patients (6%) underwent additional local excision, and 39 patients (14%) underwent total mesorectal excision. In general, patients observed by a watch-and-wait approach reported good quality of life, with limited variation over time. At 3 months, 56 of 221 patients (25.3%) reported major bowel dysfunction; at 12 months, 53 patients (24.0%) reported it; and at 24 months, 55 patients (24.9%) reported it. At 24 months, 48 of 151 male patients (31.8%) reported severe erectile dysfunction. For female patients, sexual satisfaction and overall sexual function decreased during follow-up. Patients who underwent local excision reported more major bowel dysfunction (10 of 18 patients [55.6%]) compared with those without additional surgery. Quality-of-life scores, however, were comparable. After total mesorectal excision, patients scored significantly worse on several quality-of-life subscales.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study suggest that patients with rectal cancer who were observed by a watch-and-wait approach had good quality of life, with some patients reporting bowel and sexual dysfunction. Quality of life and functional outcome deteriorated when patients required surgery. These data will be useful in daily care to counsel patients on what to expect from a watch-and-wait approach.

Organ preservation strategy: new therapeutic alternative in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic modalities for nonmetastatic rectal cancer are presently undergoing major changes. The standard treatment is multidisciplinary, combining radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. The aim of this minireview is to provide an update on the place of organ preservation in the treatment of nonmetastatic rectal cancer in 2022.

MAIN TEXT

The multimodal strategy based on initial radiochemotherapy followed by radical surgery with excision of the mesorectum has improved oncological results but at the expense of morbidity and sequelae altering life quality. The strategy of rectal preservation has been proposed since the 2000s after the publication of the results of the Brazilian study that proposed a simple surveillance after radiochemotherapy without surgery in good responders. In fact, preoperative radiochemotherapy was able to obtain a complete histological response in 10 to 30% of case. In view of this non-negligible percentage of tumor sterilization, which may well increase with the standardization of total neoadjuvant treatment, a strategy of organ preservation can be proposed in these patients to avoid morbidity and postoperative sequelae.

SHORT CONCLUSION

This nonoperative approach is currently widely studied in certain patients who have a complete response (clinical, endoscopic, and radiological). However, the selection of these patients is not simple and still complex.

Guidance for Treating the Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The need for evidence-based data in the rapidly growing group of older patients is vast and more elderly-specific studies are desperately needed, for which there is clear demand from both patients and providers. Notably, many of the studies discussed in this review included unplanned subset analyses based on age and/or were not originally stratified by age; therefore, these data, particularly overall survival data, need to be interpreted with some caution as they may not be statistically valid based on the initial trial design and statistical plan. As we await data from ongoing elderly-specific trials, our recommendation for managing older patients with CRC should include geriatric screening tools (e.g., CSGA, VES-13, G8, CARG, CRASH) to help guide treatment adjustments for improved tolerability without sacrificing efficacy. For patients with a positive screen for significant geriatric concerns, a full geriatric assessment is recommended to guide treatment approach and supportive care. Prior data support the use of all approved medications for CRC in older adults who are fit; however, treatment breaks and dose attenuation with potential escalation are reasonable options for these patients. Ultimately, management decisions in the care of older adults with mCRC must be made through shared decision-making with the patient with consideration for the patient's functional status, comorbidities, goals of care, social support, as well as potential toxicities and possible effect on QoL.

Lymph node metastasis in T1-2 colorectal cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to identify predictive factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) and analyze the impact of LNM on the prognosis of patients with T1-2 colorectal cancer (CRC), with the intention of providing guidance for the treatment.

METHODS

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result database was used to identify 20,492 patients diagnosed with T1-2 stage CRC between 2010 and 2019, who underwent surgery and lymph node evaluation and had complete prognostic information. Clinicopathological data of patients with T1-2 stage colorectal cancer treated with surgery at Peking University People's Hospital from 2017 to 2021 with complete clinical information were retrieved. We identify and confirm the risk factors for positive lymph node involvement, and the results of follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Age, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, perineural invasion, and primary tumor site were independent risk factors for LNM in T1-2 CRC based on the analysis of the SEER database, while tumor size and histology of mucinous carcinoma were also independent risk factors in T1 CRC. We then make the nomogram model for predicting LNM risk and showed an acceptable consistency and calibration capability. Survival analysis showed that LNM was an independent prognostic indicator of 5-year disease-specific survival (P = 0.013) and disease-free survival (P < 0.001) in patients with T1 and T2 CRC.

CONCLUSION

Age, CEA level and primary tumor site should be taken into consideration before making the surgical decision in T1-2 CRC patients. The tumor size and histology of mucinous carcinoma also need to be thought about in T1 CRC. Conventional imaging tests do not appear to provide a precise assessment for this issue.

Rectal Cancer after Prostate Radiation: A Complex and Controversial Disease

A small proportion of rectal adenocarcinomas develop in patients many years after the treatment of a previous cancer using pelvic radiation, and the incidence of these rectal cancers depends on the length of follow-up from the end of radiotherapy. The risk of radiation-associated rectal cancer (RARC) is higher in patients treated with prostate external beam radiotherapy than it is in patients treated with brachytherapy. The molecular features of RARC have not been fully investigated, and survival is lower compared to non-irradiated rectal cancer patients. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the worse outcomes are related to differences in patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, or tumor biology. Radiation is widely used in the management of rectal adenocarcinoma; however, pelvic re-irradiation of RARC is challenging and carries a higher risk of treatment complications. Although RARC can develop in patients treated for a variety of malignancies, it is most common in patients treated for prostate cancer. This study will review the incidence, molecular characteristics, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer. For clarity, we will distinguish between rectal cancer not associated with prostate cancer (RCNAPC), rectal cancer in non-irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCNRPC), and rectal cancer in irradiated prostate cancer patients (RCRPC). RARC represents a unique but understudied subset of rectal cancer, and thus requires a more comprehensive investigation in order to improve its treatment and prognosis.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta- analysis

PURPOSE

In the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer, a growing number of studies have shown that transanal endoscopic microsurgery is one of the alternatives to radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision that can reduce the incidence of adverse events without compromising treatment outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and treatment effect of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision to provide a basis for clinical treatment selections.

METHOD

We searched the literatures of four major databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library, without limitation of time. The literatures included randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing two surgical procedures of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision. Treatment effectiveness and safety results of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery were extracted from the included literatures and statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4 and stata17.

RESULT

Ultimately, 13 papers were included in the study including 5 randomized controlled studies and 8 cohort studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the treatment effect and safety of both transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery in distant metastasis (RR, 0.59 (0.34, 1.02), P > 0.05), overall recurrence (RR, 1.49 (0.96, 2.31), P > 0.05), disease-specific-survival (RR, 0.74 (0.09, 1.57), P > 0.05), dehiscence of the sutureline or anastomosis leakage (RR, 0.57 (0.30, 1.06), P > 0.05), postoperative bleeding (RR, 0.47 (0.22, 0.99), P > 0.05), and pneumonia (RR, 0.37, (0.10, 1.40), P > 0.05) were not significantly different. However, they differ significantly in perioperative mortality (RR, 0.26 (0.07, 0.93, P < 0.05)), local recurrence (RR, 2.51 (1.53, 4.21), P < 0.05),_overall survival_ (RR, 0.88 (0.74, 1.00), P < 0.05), disease-free-survival (RR, 1.08 (0.97, 1.19), P < 0.05), temporary stoma (RR, 0.05 (0.01, 0.20), P < 0.05), permanent stoma (RR, 0.16 (0.08, 0.33), P < 0.05), postoperative complications (RR, 0.35 (0.21, 0.59), P < 0.05), rectal pain (RR, 1.47 (1.11, 1.95), P < 0.05), operation time (RR, -97.14 (-115.81, -78.47), P < 0.05), blood loss (RR, -315.52 (-472.47, -158.57), P < 0.05), and time of hospitalization (RR, -8.82 (-10.38, -7.26), P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery seems to be one of the alternatives to radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer, but more high-quality clinical studies are needed to provide a reliable basis.

Watch-and-Wait is an Option in Rectal Cancer Patients: From Controversy to Common Clinical Practice

Overview of the introduction of organ preservation in rectal cancer patients and future challenges.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: An Overview of the Dutch Perspective and Recent Developments

Although current guidelines on rectal cancer treatment often recommend rectal resection with or without neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, there is growing interest in organ-preserving treatment approaches among patients and clinicians in the Netherlands. Currently, multiple ongoing studies are investigating the value of different non-operative treatment modalities to improve tumour response rates and increase the chance of successful organ preservation. Papillon contact X-ray brachytherapy is a promising treatment modality to improve the chance of organ preservation, which seems especially relevant for elderly and frail patients unable or refusing to undergo total mesorectal excision surgery. The elderly and frail patient with rectal cancer poses a significant challenge and warrants a thorough multidisciplinary approach to provide the most optimal organ-preserving treatment. In this overview, an insight into the Dutch perspectives and developments within the field of organ preservation and the set-up of a Papillon facility to complete the spectrum of organ-preserving treatment options in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment has been provided.

Endoscopy and MRI for restaging early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment

AIM

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has great potential to downstage rectal cancer. Response assessment has been investigated in locally advanced rectal cancer but not in early stage rectal cancer. The aim is to characterize the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy performed by surgical endoscopists compared to (diffusion-weighted, DWI) MRI only and a multimodal approach combining (DWI-)MRI and endoscopic information both analysed by an abdominal radiologist for response assessment in early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT for early distal rectal cancer (cT1-3 N0) followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery were included. Three separate reassessment groups were analysed for response assessment using endoscopic evaluation alone versus (DWI-)MRI alone versus the combination of endoscopy with (DWI-)MRI with a focus on sensitivity and specificity and analysis using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Three cohorts (N = 36, N = 25 and N = 25, respectively) were analysed for response assessment. Of the endoscopy cohort, 16 of the 36 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve was 0.69 (0.66-0.74; pooled sensitivity 55.3%, pooled specificity 80.0%). Agreement for scoring separate endoscopic features was poor to moderate. Of the (DWI-)MRI cohort, 11 of the 25 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve for (DWI-)MRI alone was 0.55 (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 42.9%). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved to 0.68 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 75.0%) when (DWI-)MRI was combined with endoscopic information, with 11 out of 25 patients with a complete response. The most accurate response assessment was made by combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI with a high negative predictive value (90.9%).

CONCLUSION

Good and complete responders after chemoradiation of early stage rectal cancer can be best assessed using a multimodality approach combining endoscopy and (DWI-)MRI.

Achieving a Cure Without Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Adenocarcinoma

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Rectal cancer is a curable disease, yet curing the disease can be associated with lifelong morbidity because of the nature of the curative-intent treatment strategies. A major focus of modern prospective trials has been to maintain current cure rates, while minimizing lifelong lifestyle alterations and maximizing quality of life. Navigating the complex landscape of therapeutic options for rectal adenocarcinoma with a focus to accomplish this quality-of-life improvement is a critical focus area for future clinical trials. Many challenges remain on the path to optimizing cure and minimizing morbidity, and include improving initial staging accuracy, more precise selection of neoadjuvant therapy used for each patient, choosing the optimal surgical management strategy, and ensuring modern radiation therapy approaches are being used. Finally, organ preservation strategies have moved to the forefront in the management of both early and locally advanced rectal cancers and hold the potential for significant changes to come for patients with rectal cancer. Herein, we highlight some of the challenges remaining in the field, progress made, and how the recent data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase II trial can be put into context with the ACOSOG Z6041, CARTS, and GRECCAR2 trials.

Chemoradiation and Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies

OBJECTIVE

Compare oncological long-term and short-term outcomes between patients with distal cT2NO rectal cancer treated with chemoradio-therapy and local excision (CRT + LE) and patients treated with total mesorectal excision (TME).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Previous studies showed that CRT + LE is equivalent to TME in local tumor control and survival for T2N0 rectal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients with cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT + LE in the ACOSOG Z6041 trial were compared to a cohort of 79 patients with pT2N0 tumors treated with upfront TME in the Dutch TME trial. Survival, short-term outcomes, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three patients (4%) in the CRT + LE group required abdominoperineal resection, compared with 31 (40%) in the TME group. Forty TME patients (51%) required a permanent stoma. CRT-related toxicity occurred in 43% of the CRT + LE patients; however, TME patients had a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation (1 vs 9%; P = 0 .03). Five-year disease-free survival {88.2% [confidence interval (CI), 77.7%-93.9%] vs 88.3% [CI, 78.7%-93.7%]; P = 0.88} and overall survival [90.3% (CI, 80.8%-95.3%) vs 88.4% (CI, 78.9%-93.8%); P = 0 .82] were similar in the 2 groups. Compared to baseline, overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in the TME group. In both groups, patients with sphincter preservation had worse HRQOL scores 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: In patients who underwent CRT + LE, oncological outcomes were similar to those of patients who underwent TME, with fewer complications requiring reoperation but significant CRT toxicity. Although overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in TME patients, when considering anorectal function, results were worse in both groups.

Short- and long-term outcomes in ypT2 rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy and local excision: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.

Feasibility study of a Response Surveillance Program in locally advanced mid and low rectal cancer to increase organ preservation

BACKGROUND

Assessment of tumor response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment by MRI (Tumour Regression Grade, TRG 1-5) is well standardized. The overall timing and method of defining complete response (cCR) remain controversial. The aim of this work was to evaluate the feasibility of a defined Response Surveillance Program (RSP) to increase organ preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment.

METHODS

A standardized program of clinical (CR), radiological (RR) and metabolic (MR) assessment of tumor response is defined over a 6 month period from completion of NACRT with formal assessment performed every 2 months (M). Patients with TRG1-3 at M2 and TRG1-2 at M4 continue in the program up to M6 assessment. Patients managed with this protocol from 2016 to 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was rectal preservation rate. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival and overall survival at 3 years.

RESULT

314 potentially suitable patients were enrolled in the RSP and 50 patients completed the six month program and were successfully enrolled into watch and wait. Fourteen (28%) were T2 tumor stage, 27 (54%) T3 and nine (18%) were T4. During watch and wait, patients with locoregional recurrence (n = 11) were treated with local excision (n = 3), endocavitary radiotherapy (n = 1), TME (n = 5) and APR (n = 2). With a median follow-up of 32 months, the rectal preservation rate was 88%, with a 3-year disease-free survival of 67% and an overall survival of 98%.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the feasibility of the practical implementation of a Response Surveillance Program to increase organ preservation rates without compromising oncological outcomes in rectal cancer.

Short-term outcomes of chemoradiotherapy and local excision versus total mesorectal excision in T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancer: a multicentre randomised, controlled, phase III trial (the TAU-TEM study)

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports of the combination of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have shown reductions in local recurrence. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of local recurrence and the improvement in morbidity achieved with CRT-TEM compared with TME. Here we describe morbidity rates and pathological outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial including patients with rectal adenocarcinoma staged as T2-T3ab,N0,M0. Patients were randomised to the CRT-TEM or the TME group. Patients included, tolerance of CRT and its adverse effects, surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo and Comprehensive Complication Index classifications) and pathological results (complete response in the CRT-TEM group) were recorded in both groups. Patients attended follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01308190.

RESULTS

From July 2010 to October 2021, 173 patients from 17 Spanish hospitals were included (CRT-TEM: 86, TME: 87). Eleven were excluded after randomisation (CRT-TEM: 5, TME: 6). Modified intention-to-treat analysis thus included 81 patients in each group. There was no mortality after CRT. In the CRT-TEM group, one patient abandoned CRT, 1/81 (1.2%). The CRT-related morbidity rate was 29.6% (24/81). Post-operative morbidity was 17/82 (20.7%) in the CRT-TEM group and 41/81 (50.6%) in the TME group (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 42.9% to 16.7%). One patient died in each group (1.2%). Of the 81 patients in the CRT-TEM group who received the allocated treatment, 67 (82.7%) underwent organ preservation. Pathological complete response in the CRT-TEM group was 44.3% (35/79). In the TME group, pN1 were found in 17/81 (21%).

CONCLUSION

CRT-TEM treatment obtains high pathological complete response rates (44.3%) and a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. We await the results of the follow-up regarding cancer outcomes and quality of life.

Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84-99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group.

METHODS

Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed.

FINDINGS

Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67-80] vs 65 years [61-71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6-12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups.

INTERPRETATION

The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK.

Case-Matched Comparison of Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes of Local Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Following Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the standard curative treatment for mid- to low-rectal cancer. However, the combination of these treatments may affect patients' GI and genitourinary functions and their quality of life. In the cases of good clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment, local excision is a rectal sparing strategy that would limit these side effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of local excision or conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

The design is a retrospective study.

SETTING

The setting used is a single tertiary center.

PATIENTS

Patients with mid- to low-rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and accessible via conservative surgery at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were included. Patients undergoing local excision were matched 1 to 1 with the patients undergoing total mesorectal excision by age, sex, body mass index, tumor height, and year of surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life and digestive and genitourinary functions were measured using validated questionnaires. The socioeconomic impact was also assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients undergoing local excision agreed to participate and were matched with 44 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. Patients who underwent local excision reported a more favorable global health status ( p < 0.01), emotional function ( p = 0.035), social function ( p = 0.04), and body image ( p = 0.04). The low anterior resection syndrome score (rate of major syndrome, 23.8% vs 54.5%; p < 0.01) and the specific fecal incontinence subscale score ( p < 0.01) were more favorable in the local excision group. Sexual and urinary outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Local excision had a lower impact on the professional status (35.7% vs 76.5%; p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

The study limitations include its retrospective design and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

When indicated, local excision improves the bowel function and quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy compared with total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 .

COMPARACIN DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS DE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y DE CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LA ESCISIN LOCAL Y LA ESCISIN TOTAL DE MESORECTO DESPUS DE QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA EN CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:La quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía radical es el tratamiento curativo estándar para el cáncer de recto medio-bajo. Sin embargo, la combinación de estos tratamientos puede afectar las funciones gastrointestinales y genitourinarias de los pacientes y su calidad de vida. En casos de buena respuesta clínica al tratamiento neoadyuvante, la escisión local es una estrategia conservadora del recto que limitaría estos efectos secundarios.OBJETIVO:Este estudio comparó los efectos de la escisión local o escisión total de mesorecto laparoscópica convencional después de quimiorradioterapia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro terciario único.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer de recto medio-bajo tratados con quimiorradioterapia y accesibles mediante cirugía conservadora en nuestro hospital entre enero del 2010 y diciembre del 2018. Los pacientes sometidos a escisión local se emparejaron uno a uno con los sometidos a escisión total de mesorecto por edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal, altura del tumor y año de cirugía.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La calidad de vida, las funciones digestivas y genitourinarias se midieron mediante cuestionarios validados. También se evaluó el impacto socioeconómico.RESULTADOS:Cuarenta y cuatro pacientes sometidos a escisión local aceptaron participar y fueron emparejados con 44 pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total. Los pacientes que se sometieron a escisión local informaron un estado de salud global más favorable ( p <0,01), función emocional ( p = 0,035), función social ( p = 0,04) e imagen corporal ( p = 0,04). La puntuación baja del síndrome de resección anterior (tasa de síndrome mayor: 23,8 % frente a 54,5 %; p <0,01) y la puntuación de la subescala de incontinencia fecal específica ( p <0,01) fueron más favorables en el grupo de escisión local. Los resultados sexuales y urinarios fueron comparables entre los dos grupos. La escisión local tuvo un menor impacto en el estatus profesional (35,7% vs 76,5%; p = 0,03).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Cuando está indicada, la escisión local mejora la función intestinal y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto después de quimiorradioterapia en comparación con escisión total de mesorecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B997 . (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Zebrafish Avatars of rectal cancer patients validate the radiosensitive effect of metformin

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by surgery represents the standard of care in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Increasing radiotherapy (RT) doses and chemotherapy cycles with 5FU have been associated with increased rates of complete response, however these strategies imply significant toxicity. In the last years, epidemiologic findings have demonstrated that metformin is associated with significantly higher rates of pathological complete response to nCRT. Also, pre-clinical studies using cell lines provide evidence for the radiosensitive effect of metformin. However, no studies have been performed using rectal cancer patient samples to test this radiosensitive effect of metformin and compared it to the standard 5FU. Here, we designed an experimental study to compare both radiosensitizers in the zebrafish xenograft model (zAvatar), using rectal cancer surgical specimens and diagnostic biopsies. Patient zAvatars confirmed that metformin has indeed a powerful in vivo radiosensitizer effect, similar to 5FU. Our work confirms that metformin constitutes a promising less toxic alternative to the standard 5FU, which could be game changing in elderly/frail patients to optimize tumor regression.

Consolidation chemotherapy with capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: Propensity score study

BACKGROUND

The effects of consolidation chemotherapy (CC) in neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) have been explored. However, the optimal neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and surgery interval, regimen, and cycles of chemotherapy remains unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of one to two cycles of CC with capecitabine on high-risk patients with LARC without extending NCRT and surgery interval.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated high-risk patients with LARC, who were defined as having at least one of the following factors by magnetic resonance imaging: depth of invasion beyond the muscularis propria of more than 5 mm (cT3c-cT3d), T4, meso-rectal fascia or extramural vascular invasion positive, and treatment date between January 2015 and July 2019 in our center. Patients were divided into the CC and non-CC group according to whether they received CC (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily from days 1 to 14 every 21 d) after NCRT. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) were used to balance the differences between the two groups. The main outcome was the complete response (CR) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled: 136 patients in the CC group and 129 patients in the non-CC group. The median interval was 70 d (range, 37-168). The CR rate was 24.3% and 16.3% (P = 0.107) in the CC and non-CC groups’ original samples, respectively. After PSM and IPTW, the CR rate in the CC group was higher than that in non-CC group (27.6% vs 16.2%, P = 0.045; 25.9% vs 16.3%, P = 0.045). The median follow-up was 39.8 mo (range, 2.9-74.8), and there were no differences in 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival nor overall survival in the original samples (73.2% vs 71.9%, P = 0.913; 92.3% vs 86.7%, P = 0.294), PSM (73.2% vs 73.5%, P = 0.865; 92.5% vs 89.3%, P = 0.612), and IPTW (73.8% vs 72.1%, P = 0.913; 92.4% vs 87.4%, P = 0.294). There was also no difference in grade 2 or higher acute toxicity during neoadjuvant therapy in the two groups (49.3% vs 53.5%, P = 0.492).

CONCLUSION

One to two cycles of CC with capecitabine after NCRT was safe and increased the CR rate in high-risk LARC but failed to improve the long-term outcomes.

[Organ preservation for rectal cancer: What are the arguments in favor of radiotherapy?]

Standard care for rectal cancers relies on both tumor (location relative to the sphincter, T and N stage, sphincter involvement) and patients characteristics. Radical surgery (total mesorectal excision) following short-course radiotherapy (RT) or standard chemo-radiotherapy, associated with induction or consolidation chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant treatment), remains the cornerstone of locally advanced rectal cancer (T3cd, T4 and/or N+) treatment. Nevertheless, for early stages, this radical resection could be avoided in favor of conservative approaches combining RT (external, contact, brachytherapy) with or without chemotherapy (concurrent, induction or consolidative), or even be limited, for good responders, to a local excision with view of organ-preservation strategies. This conservative approach could also be offered selectively to patients with complete clinical response after the induction sequence, irrespective of initial tumor characteristics. The Watch and Wait strategy relies on clinical, endoscopic and radiological evaluations, as well as sustained surveillance. Ongoing studies aim to improve response rates, either with chemotherapy intensification, or RT boost dose escalation with brachytherapy or contact-therapy.

Towards personalized treatment of T2N0 rectal cancer: A systematic review of long-term oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the treatment of choice in T2N0 tumors. However, evidence suggest that one-size-fits-all approach is not always beneficial for this group of patients. The aim of this study is to synthesize data on long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by local excision (LE) in T2N0 rectal cancer patients in the perspective of a rectal-preserving strategy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases was conducted until October 2021 to identify studies comparing LE after NAT and TME or reporting oncologic outcomes after conservative approach. A pooled analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model in the case of non-significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1), and a random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) when significant heterogeneity was present (P < 0.1) CRD42022300344.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. Three of them were comparative studies. The pooled 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year OS, 5-year OS, local and distant recurrence rates were 92.8% (95% CI 81.6-99.5%), 91.3% (95% CI 88.3-94.3%), 96.1% (95% CI 90.5-100%), 72.6% (95% CI 57.5-87.7%), 4% (95% CI 18-63%), and 4.9% (95% CI 2-7.8%), respectively, in subjects treated with NAT followed by LE. No heterogeneity was found for all these analyses, except for the 5-year OS sub-analysis (I2 95.5%, P < 0.001). Complete pathological response (ypT0) rate after NAT and LE ranges from 26.7% to 59%.

CONCLUSION

LE following neoadjuvant CRT may provide comparable survival benefit to radical surgery for patients with clinical stage T2N0 in selected patients although the evidence is still limited to provide solid recommendations. A personalized therapeutic approach taking into account tumor and patient-related factors should be considered.

Genomic and transcriptomic determinants of response to neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer

The incidence of rectal cancer is increasing in patients younger than 50 years. Locally advanced rectal cancer is still treated with neoadjuvant radiation, chemotherapy and surgery, but recent evidence suggests that patients with a complete response can avoid surgery permanently. To define correlates of response to neoadjuvant therapy, we analyzed genomic and transcriptomic profiles of 738 untreated rectal cancers. APC mutations were less frequent in the lower than in the middle and upper rectum, which could explain the more aggressive behavior of distal tumors. No somatic alterations had significant associations with response to neoadjuvant therapy in a treatment-agnostic manner, but KRAS mutations were associated with faster relapse in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by consolidative chemotherapy. Overexpression of IGF2 and L1CAM was associated with decreased response to neoadjuvant therapy. RNA-sequencing estimates of immune infiltration identified a subset of microsatellite-stable immune hot tumors with increased response and prolonged disease-free survival.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: review of contemporary management

BACKGROUND

Organ preservation as a successful management for rectal cancer is an evolving field. Refinement of neoadjuvant therapies and extended interval to response assessment has improved tumour downstaging and cCR rates.

METHODS

This was a narrative review of the current evidence for all aspects of organ preservation in rectal cancer management, together with a review of the future direction of this field.

RESULTS

Patients can be selected for organ preservation opportunistically, based on an unexpectedly good tumour response, or selectively, based on baseline tumour characteristics that predict organ preservation as a viable treatment strategy. Escalation in oncological therapy and increasing the time interval from completion of neaodjuvant therapy to tumour assessment may further increase tumour downstaging and complete response rates. The addition of local excision to oncological therapy can further improve organ preservation rates. Cancer outcomes in organ preservation are comparable to those of total mesorectal excision, with low regrowth rates reported in patients who achieve a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Successful organ preservation aims to achieve non-inferior oncological outcomes together with improved functionality and survivorship. Future research should establish consensus of follow-up protocols, and define criteria for oncological and functional success to facilitate patient-centred decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Modern neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer and increasing the interval to tumour response increases the number of patients who can be managed successfully with organ preservation in rectal cancer, both as an opportunistic event and as a planned treatment strategy.

Prognosis of Patients Over 60 Years Old With Early Rectal Cancer Undergoing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery – A Single-Center Experience

Aim

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is widely performed in early rectal cancer. This technique offers greater organ preservation and decreases the risk of subsequent surgery. However, postoperative local recurrence and distant metastasis remain challenges for patients with high-risk pathological factors. This single-center study reports the prognosis of early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old after TEM.

Methods

The data of the patients over 60 years old who underwent local anal resection were collected retrospectively. Moreover, the 5-year follow-up data were analyzed to determine the 5-year DFS and OS.

Results

47 early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old underwent TEM. There were 27 patients with high-risk factors and 20 patients without high-risk factors. Two patients underwent radical surgery after TEM and ten patients received adjuvant treatment. Local recurrence occurred in 7 patients, of which 4 underwent salvage surgery. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75.6%, which was lower in the high-risk patients group (69.6%) than in the non-high-risk patients group (83.3%) (P&gt;0.05). The 5-year OS was 90.2%, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (high-risk patients 87.0%, non-high-risk patients 94.4%). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in DFS and OS between people over and under 70 years old.

Conclusion

Some high-risk factor patients over 60 years old do not have inferior 5-year DFS and OS to the non-high-risk patients. TEM is an option for old patients with high surgical risks. Even if postoperative pathology revealed high-risk factors, timely surgical treatment after local recurrence would be beneficial to improve the 5-year DFS and OS.

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC)? Protocol for the international, multicentre, rolling phase II/III partially randomized patient preference trial evaluating long-course concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy organ preservation approaches

AIM

Organ-saving treatment for early-stage rectal cancer can reduce patient-reported side effects compared to standard total mesorectal excision (TME) and preserve quality of life. An optimal strategy for achieving organ preservation and longer-term oncological outcomes are unknown; thus there is a need for high quality trials.

METHOD

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal surgery following (chemo)Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC) is an international three-arm multicentre, partially randomized controlled trial incorporating an external pilot. In phase III, patients with cT1-3b N0 tumours, ≤40 mm in diameter, who prefer organ preservation are randomized 1:1 between mesorectal long-course chemoradiation versus mesorectal short-course radiotherapy, with selective transanal microsurgery. Patients preferring radical surgery receive TME. STAR-TREC aims to recruit 380 patients to organ preservation and 120 to TME surgery. The primary outcome is the rate of organ preservation at 30 months. Secondary clinician-reported outcomes include acute treatment-related toxicity, rate of non-operative management, non-regrowth pelvic tumour control at 36 months, non-regrowth disease-free survival at 36 months and overall survival at 60 months, and patient-reported toxicity, health-related quality of life at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Exploratory biomarker research uses circulating tumour DNA to predict response and relapse.

DISCUSSION

STAR-TREC will prospectively evaluate contrasting therapeutic strategies and implement new measures including a smaller mesorectal target volume, two-step response assessment and non-operative management for complete response. The trial will yield important information to guide routine management of patients with early-stage rectal cancer.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for localized rectal cancer (2021)

The management of localized rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach to optimize outcomes, reduce morbidity and prevent under or overtreatments. While early stages may obtain benefit of local resections without any additional therapies, locally advanced rectal cancer becomes a challenge defining the better sequential strategy of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The latest results of international phase III studies have positioned the total neoadjuvant therapy as a potential new standard of care in high risk rectal cancers, however, the best schedule is still not well defined.

Measuring Rectal Cancer Tumor Height: Concordance Between Clinical Examination and MRI

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is categorized into categories on the basis of tumor height measurements. Tumor height is used to guide initial treatment and determines the eligibility for clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the concordance between tumor heights measured by MRI and by clinical examination.

DESIGN

This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis of MRI and the clinical measurements of tumor height.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single university center that was accredited by the Commission on Cancer National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer.

PATIENTS

Ninety-five patients who were treated between 2015 and 2019 and who had an MRI and clinical evaluation were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The mean difference of tumor height between MRI and clinical examination was calculated. Secondary outcomes were to assess whether position in the rectum, age, BMI, or sex would affect the difference and how the measurements would change eligibility for rectal cancer trials.

RESULTS

Tumor height measurement by MRI and clinical examination had a good correlation, with r = 0.89 and p < 0.001. The mean absolute difference of measurement of tumor height was 1.56 cm. Higher tumors had a larger absolute difference between measurements. Body mass index was significantly associated with the difference in measurements. The discordance in measurements led to a change in eligibility for clinical trials for 38.9% of patients. Clinical trial eligibility was not significantly associated with tumor height category, sex, or patient age.

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted at a single center with retrospective methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

Although MRI and clinical measurements showed a strong correlation, nearly 40% of our patients had a change in clinical trial eligibility depending on measurement modality. We suggest that trial investigators be consistent in establishing measurement technique as their inclusion criterion. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B756.

MEDICIN DE LA ALTURA DEL TUMOR DE CNCER DE RECTO CONCORDANCIA ENTRE EL EXAMEN CLNICO Y LA RESONANCIA MAGNTICA

ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer de recto se clasifica en categorías basadas en las mediciones de la altura del tumor. La altura del tumor se usa para guiar el tratamiento inicial y determina la elegibilidad para los ensayos clínicos.OBJETIVO:Determinar la concordancia entre la altura de los tumores medida por resonancia magnética (RMN) y por examen clínico.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis retrospectivo aprobado por el IRB de la resonancia magnética y las mediciones clínicas de la altura del tumor.AJUSTE:Esto se llevó a cabo en un único centro universitario que fue acreditado por el Programa Nacional de Acreditación del Cáncer de Recto de la Comisión de Cáncer.PACIENTE:Se incluyeron 95 pacientes que fueron atendidos entre 2015 y 2019 y que tuvieron una resonancia magnética y evaluación clínica.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Se calculó la diferencia media de la altura del tumor entre la resonancia magnética y el examen clínico. Los resultados secundarios fueron evaluar si la posición en el recto, la edad, el índice de masa corporal (IMC) o el sexo afectarían la diferencia y cómo las mediciones cambiarían la elegibilidad para los ensayos de cáncer de recto.RESULTADOS:La medición de la altura del tumor por resonancia magnética y el examen clínico tuvo una buena correlación con r = 0,89 y p < 0,001. La diferencia absoluta media de medición de la altura del tumor fue de 1,56 cm. Los tumores más altos tenían una diferencia absoluta más grande entre las mediciones. El IMC se asoció significativamente con la diferencia en las mediciones. La discordancia en las mediciones llevó a un cambio en la elegibilidad para los ensayos clínicos para el 38,9% de los pacientes. La elegibilidad para ensayos clínicos no se asoció significativamente con la categoría de altura del tumor, el sexo o la edad del paciente.LIMITACIONES:Se realizó en un solo centro con metodología retrospectiva.CONCLUSIONES:Aunque la resonancia magnética y las mediciones clínicas mostraron una fuerte correlación, casi el 40% de nuestros pacientes tuvieron un cambio en la elegibilidad para los ensayos clínicos según la modalidad de medición. Sugerimos que los investigadores del ensayo sean coherentes al establecer la técnica de medición como criterio de inclusión. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B756.

Transanal Local Excision of Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Is There a Place for It or Should Be Avoided at All Costs?

Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) with tumor downsizing and downstaging has significantly impacted the number of patients considered to be appropriate candidates for transanal local excision (TLE). Some patients may harbor small residual lesions, restricted to the bowel wall. These patients, who exhibit major response ("near-complete") by digital rectal examination, endoscopic assessment, and radiological assessment may be considered for this approach. Although TLE is associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, a few clinical consequences and oncological outcomes must be evaluated in advance and with caution. In the setting of nCRT, a higher risk for clinically relevant wound dehiscences leading to a considerable risk for readmission for pain management has been observed. Worse anorectal function (still better than after total mesorectal excision [TME]), worsening in the quality of TME specimen, and higher rates of abdominal resections (in cases requiring completion TME) have been reported. The exuberant scar observed in the area of TLE also represents a challenging finding during follow-up of these patients. Local excision should be probably restricted for patients with primary tumors located at or below the level of the anorectal ring (magnetic resonance defined). These patients are otherwise candidates for abdominal perineal resections or ultra-low anterior resections with coloanal anastomosis frequently requiring definitive stomas or considerably poor anorectal function.

Total Mesorectal Excision vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Followed by Radiotherapy for T2N0M0 Distal Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an organ-preserving treatment alternative for patients with early rectal cancer. However, TEM alone is associated with greater risk of local recurrence and inferior survival in comparison with total meso-rectal excision (TME). As an important adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy can effectively reduce the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether TEM followed by radiotherapy can be a valid alternative to TME in T2N0M0 distal rectal cancer treatment.

Methods

We plan to recruit 168 participants meeting established inclusion criteria. Following informed consent, participants will randomly receive treatment protocols of TEM followed by radiotherapy (a total dose of 45–50.4 Gy given in 25–28 factions) or TME. Depending on post-operative pathology, the participants will receive either long-term follow-up or further treatment. The primary endpoint of this trial is 3-year local recurrence rate. The secondary end points include 3-year disease-free survival rate, 3-year overall survival rate, 3-year mortality rate, post-operative quality of life, post-operative safety index, intraoperative evaluation index and post-operative short-term evaluation index.

Discussion

This trial is the first prospective randomized trial to investigate the rectum preserving treatment by using transanal local excision followed by radiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098471 on September 20, 2019.

Nonmetastatic ypt0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision: Lessons from a retrospective multicentric cohort of 383 patients

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of pathological features and oncological survival in ypT0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is required to improve patient selection criteria for rectal-preserving approach by local excision. Our aim was to define risk of lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes in ypT0 rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for a nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma classified ypT0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with or without locoregional lymph node involvement (ypN+ or ypN-), in 14 French academic centers between 2002 and 2015 were included. Data were collected retrospectively. Overall and disease-free survival were explored.

RESULTS

Among the 383 ypT0 patients, 6% were ypN+ (23/283). Before chemoradiotherapy, 86% (327/380) were staged cT3-T4 and 41% (156/378) were staged cN+. The risk of ypN+ did not differ between cT3-T4 and cT1-T2 patients (P = .345) or between cN+ and cN- patients (P = .384). After a median follow-up of 61.1 months, we observed 95% confidence interval (92%-97%) of 5-year overall survival and 93% confidence interval (91%-96%) of 5-year disease-free survival. In Cox multivariate analysis, overall survival was altered by intra-abdominal septic complications (hazard ratio = 2.53, confidence interval [1.11-5.78], P = .028). Regarding disease-free survival, ypN+ status and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with a reduced disease-free survival (P = .001 for both). cT3/T4 staging and cN+ staging did not modify overall survival (P = .332 and P = .450) nor disease-free survival (P = .862 and P = .124).

CONCLUSION

The risk of lymph node metastasis and the oncological survival do not depend on the initial cT or cN staging in cases of ypT0 complete rectal tumor regression.

Predicting stage ypT0–1N0 for nonradical management in patients with middle or low rectal cancer who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

It is important to discover predictive factors that can identify rectal cancer patients who will respond well to neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) to develop management strategies, preserve sphincter and avoid over-treatment. This study explored clinical factors that would predict the adequacy of nonradical management after CCRT in patients with middle or low rectal cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 447 patients with middle or low rectal cancer who were treated with curative surgery after neoadjuvant CCRT between January 2010 and December 2019. The good response group comprised patients with stages ypT0–1N0 on resection after CCRT; the remaining patients were included in the poor response group.

Results

Of 447 patients (mean age, 60.37 ± 11.85 years), 108 (24.2%) had ypT0–1N0 (71.3% with ypT0N0, 4.6% with ypTisN0, and 24.1% with ypT1N0). Overall, 19 patients with cT1–2 (50.0% vs. 21.8% with cT3–4, P < 0.001), 22 with well-differentiated tumors (51.2% vs. 21.3% with moderately/poorly differentiated tumors, P < 0.001), 16 with fungating tumors (47.1% vs. 22.3% with other types, P = 0.001), and 66 with anterior/posterior circumference direction (28.9% vs. 19.2% with lateral/encircling direction, P = 0.016) had stage ypT0–1N0. On multivariable analysis, cT1–2 (P = 0.021) and well-differentiated tumor (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of ypT0–1N0. Fungating tumors were not significantly associated with ypT0–1N0 (P = 0.054).

Conclusion

Stage cT1–2 and well differentiation are predictors of ypT0–1N0, while fungating tumors could be considered clinically meaningful, possibly identifying candidates for nonradical treatment post-CCRT.