Meta-analysis of oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer requiring adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy or completion surgery

Endoscopic Resection of Stage T1 Colorectal Adenocarcinoma Followed by Surgical Intervention: a Single-center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Domestic and international guidelines recommend endoscopic resection for stage T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma with indications. However, completion surgery remains imperative for patients exhibiting high-risk factors subsequent to endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the evidence, pathological features, and surgical outcomes of completion surgery in patients with T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma following endoscopic resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively collect data on the clinical features and treatment outcomes of patients with stage T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic resection followed by surgical resection and those who initially completed surgical intervention at Peking University International Hospital between January 2019 and October 2022, with the aim of assessing the necessity and feasibility of surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (Group A) with high-risk factors following endoscopic procedure, especially with deep submucosal invasion and vascular or lymphatic invasion, experienced further surgical resection. The median interval between endoscopic resection and completion surgery was 23.71 days ± 15.89. Sixteen patients (Group B) underwent radical resection without any prior interventions. The surgical approach involves integration of laparoscopy and colonoscopy for precise localization and quantitative diagnosis, followed by radical surgery. The two groups demonstrated significant differences statistically with reference to tumor diameter (1.65 cm ± 0.77 vs 3.36 cm ± 1.39, P = 0.000) and the attainment of standard lymph node count (cases of detected lymph nodes larger than or equal to 12, 5 vs 12, P = 0.015). Postoperative complications and hospital stay manifested no significant disparity statistically in two groups. Patients who underwent completion surgery had no inferior outcomes compared with those who underwent direct surgery in terms of 5-year disease-free survival (Log rank test: P = 0.083, Breslow test: P = 0.089). The two groups also exhibited no significant differences statistically in the context of overall survival (Log rank test: P = 0.652, Breslow test: P = 0.758).

CONCLUSION

Completion surgery is a safe and feasible treatment option for T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma patients with high-risk factors, particularly those with deep submucosal invasion and vascular or lymphatic invasion following endoscopic treatment. Furthermore, subsequent treatment should be chosen based on a comprehensive analysis of the patient's history of abdominal surgery, willingness, and pathological features.

Chinese national clinical practice guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in China are increasing in recent years. The clarified pathogenesis and detectable precancerous lesions of CRC make it possible to prevent, screen, and diagnose CRC at an early stage. With the development of endoscopic and surgical techniques, the choice of treatment for early CRC is also worth further discussion, and accordingly, a standard follow-up program after treatment needs to be established.

METHODS

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed following the recommended process of the World Health Organization, adopting Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in assessing evidence quality, and using the Evidence to Decision framework to formulate clinical recommendations, thereby minimizing bias and increasing transparency of the CPG development process. We used the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) as reporting and conduct guides to ensure the guideline's completeness and transparency.

RESULTS

This CPG comprises 46 recommendations concerning prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of CRC. In these recommendations, we have indicated protective and risk factors for CRC and made recommendations for chemoprevention. We proposed a suitable screening program for CRC based on the Chinese context. We also provided normative statements for the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of CRC based on existing clinical evidence and guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The 46 recommendations in this CPG are formed with consideration for stakeholders' values and preferences, feasibility, and acceptability. Recommendations are generalizable to resource-limited settings with similar CRC epidemiology pattern as China.

Local Excision for Early-Stage Rectal Adenocarcinomas

ABSTRACT

Although total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the standard of care for rectal cancer, including early-stage T1/T2 rectal adenocarcinoma, local excision may be warranted for these early-stage tumors in a select group of patients who may decline surgery or may be nonoptimal surgical candidates. Operative approaches for transanal local excision include transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery for tumors <4 cm, occupying <40% of the rectal circumference and <10 cm from the dentate line. The use of preoperative chemoradiation therapy may help to downstage tumors and allow for more limited resections, and chemoradiation may also be employed postoperatively. Local excision approaches appear to result in improved quality of life compared with TME, but limited resections may also compromise survival rates compared with TME. Multidisciplinary management and shared decision-making can allow for the desired patient outcomes.

Precision endoscopy in colorectal polyps' characterization and planning of endoscopic therapy

Precision endoscopy in the management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer has emerged as the standard of care. It includes optical characterization of polyps and estimation of submucosal invasion depth of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps to select the appropriate endoscopic resection modality. Over time, several imaging modalities have been implemented in endoscopic practice to improve optical performance. Among these, image-enhanced endoscopy systems and magnification endoscopy represent now well-established tools. New advanced technologies, such as endocytoscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy, have recently shown promising results in predicting the histology of colorectal polyps. In recent years, artificial intelligence has continued to enhance endoscopic performance in the characterization of colorectal polyps, overcoming the limitations of other imaging modes. In this review we retrace the path of precision endoscopy, analyzing the yield of various endoscopic imaging techniques in personalizing management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer.

Point/Counterpoint #2: Current Clinical Considerations With Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer

ABSTRACT

Locally advanced rectal cancer has historically been treated with multimodal therapy consisting of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and total mesorectal excision. However, recent prospective trials and registry studies have demonstrated similar disease outcomes with nonoperative management for patients who experience an excellent clinical response to radiation and chemotherapy. This article reviews data regarding nonoperative management for rectal cancer, and highlights current challenges and limitations in a point-counterpoint format, in the context of two clinical cases.

Management after local excision of small rectal cancers. Indications for completion total mesorectal excision and possible alternatives

The treatment of superficial rectal cancers (local excision, or proctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Endoscopy and endorectal ultrasonography are essential for the precise initial definition of these small cancers. During endoscopy, the depth of the lesion can be estimated using virtual chromoendoscopy with magnification, thereby aiding the assessment of the possibilities of local excision. Current international recommendations indicate completion proctectomy after wide local excision for cases where the pathologic examination reveals poorly-differentiated lesions, lymphovascular invasion, grade 2 or 3 tumor budding, and incomplete resection. But debate persists regarding whether the depth of submucosal invasion can accurately predict the risk of lymph node spread. Recent data from the literature suggest that the depth of submucosal invasion should no longer, by itself, be an indication for additional oncological surgery. Adjuvant radio-chemotherapy could be an alternative to completion proctectomy in patients with pT1 rectal cancer and unfavorable histopathological criteria. A Dutch randomized controlled trial is underway to validate this strategy.

Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation

OPINION STATEMENT

The introduction of total mesorectal excision into the radical surgery of rectal cancer has significantly improved the oncological outcome with longer survival and lower local recurrence. Traditional treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer, relying on radical surgery, while effective, take their own set of risks, including surgical complications, potential damage to the anus, and surrounding structure owing to the pursuit of thorough resection. The progress of operating methods as well as the integration of systemic therapies and radiotherapy into the peri-operative period, particularly the exciting clinical complete response of patients after neoadjuvant treatment, have paved the way for organ preservation strategy. The non-inferiority oncological outcome of "watch and wait" compared with radical surgery underscores the potential of organ preservation not only to control local recurrence but also to reduce the need for treatments followed by structure destruction, hopefully improving the long-term quality of life. Radical radiotherapy provides another treatment option for patients unwilling or unable to undergo surgery. Organ preservation points out the direction of treatment for distal rectal cancer, while additional researches are needed to answer remaining questions about its optimal use.

Survival outcomes of salvage surgery in the watch-and-wait approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) approach versus radical surgery (RS) in rectal cancers with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched to identify relevant articles. WW and RS were compared through meta-analyses of pooled proportions. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis rates. Pooled salvage surgery rates and outcomes were also collected. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1,112 rectal cancer patients showing cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included. Of these patients, 378 were treated nonoperatively with WW, 663 underwent RS, and 71 underwent local excision. The 2-year OS (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; P = 0.94), 5-year OS (RR, 2.59; P = 0.25), and distant metastasis rates (RR, 1.05; P = 0.80) showed no significant differences between WW and RS. Local recurrence was more frequent in the WW group (RR, 6.93; P < 0.001), and 78.4% of patients later underwent salvage surgery (R0 resection rate, 97.5%). The 2-year DFS (RR, 1.58; P = 0.05) and 5-year DFS (RR, 2.07; P = 0.02) were higher among RS cases. However, after adjustment for R0 salvage surgery, DFS showed no significant between-group difference (RR, 0.82; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rates are higher for WW than RS, but complete salvage surgery is often possible with similar long-term outcomes. WW is a viable strategy for rectal cancer with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but further research is required to improve patient selection.

[Transanal Tumor Resection: Indication, Surgical Technique and Management of Complications]

Transanal resection procedures are special operations for the minimally invasive treatment of rectal tumours. Apart from benign tumours, this procedure is suitable for the excision of low-risk T1 rectal carcinomas, if these can be completely removed (R0 resection). With stringent patient selection, very good oncological results are achieved. Various international trials are currently evaluating whether local resection procedures are oncologically sufficient if there is a complete or near complete response after neoadjuvant radio-/chemotherapy. Numerous studies have shown that the functional results and the postoperative quality of life after local resection are excellent, especially considering the well-known functional deficits of alternative operations, such as low anterior or abdominoperineal resection.Severe complications are very rare. Most complications, such as urinary retention or subfebrile temperatures, are minor in nature. Suture line dehiscences are usually clinically unremarkable. Major complications comprise significant haemorrhage and the opening of the peritoneal cavity. The latter must be recognized intraoperatively and can usually be managed by primary suture. Infection, abscess formation, rectovaginal fistula, injury of the prostate or even urethra are extremely rare complications.

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.

Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: a new endoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

The risk of lymph node metastasis associated with deep submucosal invasion should be balanced against the mortality and morbidity of total mesorectal excision (TME). Dissection through the submucosa hinders radical deep resection, and full-thickness resection may influence the outcome of completion TME. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) in between the circular and longitudinal part of the muscularis propria could potentially provide an R0 resection while leaving the rectal wall intact.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, the data of patients treated with EID for suspected deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer between 2018 and 2020 were analyzed. Study outcomes were the percentages of technical success, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events.

RESULTS

67 patients (median age 67 years; 73 % men) were included. The median lesion size was 25 mm (interquartile range 20-33 mm). The rates of overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection were 96 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %), 81 % (95 %CI 70 %-89 %), and 45 % (95 %CI 33 %-57 %). Only minor adverse events occurred in eight patients (12 %).

CONCLUSION

EID for deep invasive T1 rectal cancer appears to be feasible and safe, and the high R0 resection rate creates the potential of rectal preserving therapy in 45 % of patients.

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

PURPOSE

The optimal surgical approach for early-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. Radical resection is considered to be the gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. More and more studies show that local resection can replace traditional radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer. This research aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision and radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer and report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.

RESULTS

Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. 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 = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway.

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.

GEC ESTRO ACROP consensus recommendations for contact brachytherapy for rectal cancer

•

CXB appears to be an efficacious technique for rectal cancer treatment and may allow rectal preservation in selected patients.

•

These GEC ESTRO ACROP recommendations recommend dose schemes in for rectal CXB.

•

These recommendations advise reporting of tumour depth to enable future refinement of dose prescription and target definition.

•

The routine collection and publication of outcome data including patient reported outcomes (PROs) is recommended.

Purpose

To issue consensus recommendations for contact X-Ray brachytherapy (CXB) for rectal cancer covering pre-treatment evaluation, treatment, dosimetric issues and follow-up. These recommendations cover CXB in the definitive and palliative setting.

Methods

Members of GEC ESTRO with expertise in rectal CXB issued consensus-based recommendations for CXB based on literature review and clinical experience. Levels of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence based medicine guidance are presented where possible.

Results

The GEC ESTRO ACROP consensus recommendations support the use of CXB to increase the chances of clinical complete remission and cure for patients who are elderly with high surgical risk, surgically unfit or refusing surgery. For palliative treatment, the use of CXB is recommended for symptomatic relief and disease control. The use of CXB in an organ-preservation setting in surgically fit patients is recommended within the setting of a clinical trial or registry.

Conclusions

The GEC ESTRO ACROP recommendations for CXB are provided. Recommendations towards standardisation of reporting and prescription are given. Practitioners are encouraged to follow these recommendations and to develop further clinical trials to examine this treatment modality and increase the evidence base for its use. The routine collection of outcomes both clinical and patient-reported is also encouraged.

The Role of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for Early Rectal Cancer

Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES), which is performed through a variety of transanal endoluminal multitasking surgical platforms, was developed to facilitate endoscopic en bloc excision of rectal lesions as a minimally invasive alternative to radical proctectomy. Although the oncologic safety of TES in the treatment of malignant rectal tumors has been an area of vigorous controversy over the past two decades, TES is currently accepted as an oncologically safe approach for the treatment of carefully selected early and superficial rectal cancers. TES can also serve as both a diagnostic and potentially curative treatment of partially resected unsuspected malignant polyps. In this article, indications and contraindications for transanal endoscopic excision of early rectal cancer lesions are reviewed, as well as selection criteria for the most appropriate transanal excisional approach. Preoperative preparation and surgical technique for complications of TES will be reviewed, as well as recommended surveillance and management of upstaged tumors.

Short- and long-term outcomes of local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy in high-risk T1 rectal cancer patients

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Local Excision ± Chemoradiotherapy vs. Total Mesorectal Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Long-Term Results

Background: Our aim was to compare the bowel function and oncologic outcomes following these two treatment modalities. Materials and methods: This was a single-center study with 67 patients included between 2009 and 2018. A total of 32 patients underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) group and 35 transanal local excisions (LE) ± chemoradiation. We performed a case-matched analysis: we matched the patients by age, cancer stage, and comorbidities. Duration of operation, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and long-term functional and oncological outcomes were compared. We calculated oncological outcomes using Kaplan-Meier Cox diagrams. In addition, we used a low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score for the bowel function assessment. Results: Mean operation time in the LE group was 58.8 ± 45 min compared with the TME group that was 121.1 ± 42 min (p = 0.032). Complications were seen in 5.7% in LE group and 15.62% in TME group (p = 0.043). ~85.2% of the patients had no LARS in LE group compared with 54.5% in TME group (p = 0.018). Minor LARS was 7.4% in LE group compared with 31.8% in TME group (p = 0.018); major LARS was 7.4 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.474). Hospital stay was 2.77 days in LE group compared with 9.21 days in TME group (p = 0.036). The overall survival was 68.78 months in LE group compared with 74.81 months in TME group (p = 0.964). Conclusion: Our results of a small sample size showed that local excision ± chemoradiation is a rather safe method for early rectal cancer compared with gold standard treatment. In addition, better bowel function is preserved with less postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays.

Early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after organ preservation failure in rectal cancer does not worsen postoperative outcomes compared to primary TME: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

While oncological outcomes of early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after local excision (LE) have been well studied, the impact of LE before TME on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to compare early sTME with a primary TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with the random-effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

We retrieved eleven relevant articles including 1728 patients (350 patients in the sTME group and 1438 patients in the TME group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (OR = 0.90, 95%CI [0.21 to 3.77], p = 0.88), morbidity (OR = 1.19, 95%CI [0.59 to 2.38], p = 0.63), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.34, 95%CI [0.61 to 2.94], p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (OR = 1.38, 95%CI [0.50 to 3.83], p = 0.53), hospital stay (MD = 0.23 day, 95%CI [- 1.63 to 2.10], p < 0.81), diverting stoma rate (OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.44 to 1.09], p = 0.11), abdominoperineal resection rate (OR = 1.47, 95%CI [0.91 to 2.37], p = 0.11), local recurrence (OR = 0.94, 95%CI [0.44 to 2.04], p = 0.88), and distant recurrence (OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.52 to 1.48], p = 0.62). sTME was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD = 25.62 min, 95%CI[11.92 to 39.32], p < 0.001) lower number of harvested lymph nodes (MD =  - 2.25 lymph node, 95%CI [- 3.86 to - 0.65], p = 0.006), and higher proportion of incomplete TME (OR = 0.25, 95%CI [0.11 to 0.61], p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

sTME is not associated with increased postoperative morbidity, mortality, or local recurrence. However, the operative times are longer and yield a poor specimen quality.

Can adjuvant pelvic radiation therapy after local excision or polypectomy for T1 and T2 rectal cancer offer an alternative option to radical surgery?

•

Adjuvant radiation therapy post local excision o f T1/T2 rectal cancer offers good disease control.

•

There were no locoregional recurrences at median follow up of 51 months.

•

This approach was well tolerated.

•

This approach may offer an alternative to TME surgery.

Purpose

To determine outcomes after adjuvant pelvic local radiation therapy (RT) +/− concurrent chemotherapy for T1 and T2 rectal carcinomas treated with local excision or polypectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively identified adult patients with histologically proven T1 and T2 rectal adenocarcinoma, diagnosed incidentally at time of local excision or polypectomy between 01 January 2007 and 31 December 2019, and appropriately staged to confirm N0 M0 status. Patients were excluded if they had recurrent cancer or had received total mesorectal excision (TME): anterior resection (AR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). Patient, tumour and treatment factors, together with disease and toxicity outcomes were collected from institutional medical records, correspondence and investigation reports. Descriptive statistical analyses were employed. The primary endpoint was loco-regional control and secondary endpoints were treatment-related toxicity, disease free survival, overall survival and rate of surgical salvage for pelvic recurrence.

Results

The median age of the 15 eligible patients was 73 (range 49–82 years). There were 9 men (60%) and 6 women (40%). The majority had T1 disease (80%) and most had received endomucosal resection (80%). All patients received 43-52Gy (EQD2) to the primary and 43-48Gy (EQD2) to the pelvis with 46.6% receiving concurrent chemotherapy (infusional 5-FU or oral capecitabine). At median follow up of 51 months, there were no local or regional recurrences. One patient experienced an isolated distant relapse at 48 months without any locoregional recurrence.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate good locoregional disease control with the use of adjuvant pelvic RT for T1 and T2 rectal adenocarcinoma initially treated with polypectomy or local (non-oncological) excision. These findings indicate that adjuvant pelvic RT may provide an alternative to TME surgery in patients with incidentally detected early rectal cancers.

Transanal excision with adjuvant therapy for pT1N0 rectal tumors with high-risk features offers equivalent survival to radical resection: A National Cancer Database analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines favor transabdominal radical resection (RR) over transanal local excision (TAX) followed by adjuvant therapy (TAXa) for pT1N0 rectal tumors with high-risk features. Comparison of oncologic outcomes between these approaches is limited, although the former is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. We hypothesize that such treatment strategies result in equivalent long-term survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database (2010-2016) to identify patients with pT1N0 rectal adenocarcinoma with high-risk features who underwent TAX or RR for curative intent. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), evaluated with log-rank and Cox-proportional hazards testing.

RESULTS

A total of 1159 patients (age 67.4 ± 12.9 years; 56.6% male; 83.3% White) met study criteria, of which 1009 (87.1%) underwent RR and 150 (12.9%) underwent TAXa. Patients undergoing TAXa had shorter lengths of stay (RR = 6.5 days, TAXa = 2.7 days, p < 0.001). The 5-year OS was equivalent between groups. TAX without adjuvant therapy was associated with an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.17-2.78, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to demonstrate equivalent 5-year OS between TAXa and RR for T1N0 rectal cancer with high-risk features. These findings may guide the development of prospective, randomized trials and influence changes in practice recommendations for early-stage rectal cancer.

The outcome of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with high-risk T1 rectal cancer

Introduction:

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is considered the technique of choice for adenoma and low-risk T1 rectal cancer. The adequacy of such treatment for high-risk T1 tumours, however, is still controversial. The aim of the study is to evaluate our results with local excision of high-risk T1 cancers.

Materials and Methods:

Demographic, clinical data pertaining to patients undergoing TEM for T1 rectal cancer between 1999 and 2015 was retrospectively collected. Long-term outcomes were assessed for the entire cohort. Patients were classified into two groups: favourable and high-risk cancer features.

Results:

Three hundred and fifty-five TEM procedures were recorded in the study period. Forty-three patients were included in the present study. There were 20 females and 23 males, the median age was 69 ± 9. The median tumour distance from the anal verge was 6 cm (range 1–13 cm). Post-operative histopathology showed well/moderately differentiated T1 adenocarcinoma in 30 patients and poorly differentiated in 13. The overall survival for patients with favourable and high-risk features groups were 93.5% and 77%, respectively, while the local recurrence (LR) was 3.5% and 23.1%, respectively. Nine patients with high-risk features received adjuvant radiotherapy; one (11.1%) of them experienced LR.

Conclusions:

Local excision by TEM augmented by adjuvant radiotherapy may be a feasible alternative for selected patients with high-risk T1 rectal cancer. The addition of radiotherapy seems to decrease the rates of LR.

Long-term outcomes of patients with poor prognostic factors following transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer

AIM

Management of early rectal cancer following transanal microscopic anal surgery poses a management dilemma when the histopathology reveals poor prognostic features, due to high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of such patients who undergo surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME), receive adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy (CRDT/RT) or receive close surveillance only (no further treatment).

METHODS

We identified patients with poor prognostic factors-pT2 adenocarcinoma, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion (Kikuchi SM3), lymphovascular invasion, tumour budding or R1 resection margin-between 1 September 2012 and 31 January 2020 and report their oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients, 18 had TME, 14 had CRDT and 14 had RT; seven patients did not have any further treatment. The median follow-up was 48 months, 12 developed recurrence and six died. Overall, 5-year survival (OS) was 88.9% and disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.2%. Compared to the surgical group, in which there were eight recurrences and two deaths, there were zero recurrences or deaths in the CRDT group, log-rank test P = 0.206 for OS and P = 0.005 for DFS. The 5-year survival rates in the RT and surveillance only groups were OS 78.6%, DFS 85.7% and OS 71.5%, DFS 71% respectively. TME assessment in the surgical group revealed Grade 3 quality in seven of the 16 available reports.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the strategy of adjuvant CRDT as first line treatment for patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer with poor prognostic factors on initial histological assessment.

A multi-centre analysis of adjuvant contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) in rectal cancer patients treated with local excision - Preliminary results of the CONTEM1 study

INTRODUCTION

Early rectal cancers are increasingly diagnosed through screening programmes and are often treated using local excision (LE). In the case of adverse pathological features completion total mesorectal excision surgery (TME) is the standard recommendation. The morbidity and mortality risks of TME have stimulated the use of adjunctive treatments following LE to achieve organ preservation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients treated with adjuvant CXB following local excision between 2004 and 2017 in three centres were identified (Clatterbridge, Hull, Nice). All patients had adverse pathological features including: lymphovacular invasion, Sm2-3 Kikuchi level, tumour budding, pT2, positive resection margins (R1). CXB was performed with the Papillon50 ^tm machine to a dose of 40-60 Gy in 2 or 3 fractions over 2-4 weeks preceding/following external beam chemo/radiotherapy. Kaplan Meier survival estimates were used for outcomes measures.

RESULTS

194 patients were identified. Median age was 70 years. pT staging was: pT1:143, pT2:45, pT3:6. CXB alone was given in 24 pts and combined with EBRT in 170. Median follow-up time was 77 months (range 7-122 months). Local relapse rate was 8% and distant metastases 9%. Organ preservation was achieved in 95%. 6 year local recurrence free and overall survival was 91% and 81% respectively. Cancer specific survival was 97%. No treatment related mortality was seen.

CONCLUSION

This large multi-centre cohort study using adjuvant CXB following local excision suggests excellent oncological outcomes for these patients without completion TME. This treatment approach can be considered as an alternative for selective patients compliant with long term follow up.

What Should We Recommend for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Adults Aged 75 and Older?

The current recommendation to stop colorectal cancer screening for older adults is based on a lack of evidence due to systematic exclusion of this population from trials. Older adults are a heterogenous population with many available strategies for patient-centered assessment and decision-making. Evolutions in management strategies for colorectal cancer have made safe and effective options available to older adults, and the rationale to screen for treatable disease more reasonably, especially given the aging Canadian population. In this commentary, we review the current screening guidelines and the evidence upon which they were built, the unique considerations for screening older adults, new treatment options, the risks and benefits of increased screening and potential considerations for the new guidelines.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

New treatment strategies for non-metastatic rectal cancer

The most widely practiced (standard) treatment of non-metastatic rectal cancer is based on proctectomy with mesorectal excision (partial or total according to the location of the tumor and commonly called TME). Surgery is preceded by CAP50-type chemoradiotherapy (capecitabineand 50 Grays radiation) and performed 6-8 weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy. The development of new endoscopic, surgical, radiation-based and chemotherapeutic modalities leads surgeons to envisage customized treatment to find the best compromise between functional and oncologic results according to the locoregional extension of the tumor. Superficial lesions are amenable to transanal excision. T2-3 tumors<4cm are amenable to rectal preservation when neoadjuvant treatment obtains a complete response, allowing local excision or close surveillance. Intensification endocavitary radiotherapy and induction and consolidation chemotherapy regimens to avoid recourse to salvage abdomino-perineal resection (APR) are under investigation. For locally advanced rectal cancers (T3-4 and all N+ irrespective of T), the following scenarios can be envisaged: for initially resectable tumors (T3N0, T1-T3N+, circumferential resection margin>2mm), neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone aims to minimize the risk of local recurrence while avoiding the sequelae of radiotherapy. In case of initially non-resectable tumors (T4, circumferential resection margin<1mm), induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy after short course radiotherapy provide better results than standard treatment in terms of complete response and recurrence-free survival, and should be routinely proposed in this indication.

Oncologic Nomogram for Stage I Rectal Cancer to Assist Patient Selection for Adjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy Following Local Excision

Background: Because of the low rate of lymph node metastasis in stage I rectal cancer (RC), local resection (LR) can achieve high survival benefits and quality of life. However, the indications for postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT) remain controversial. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 6,486 patients with RC (pT1/T2) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were initially diagnosed from 2004 to 2016; following LR, 967 received AT and 5,519 did not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the confounding factors of the two groups; the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to screen independent prognostic factors and build a nomogram on this basis. X-tile software was used to divide the patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups based on the nomogram risk score. Results: Multivariate analysis found that age, sex, race, marital status, tumor size, T stage, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the non-AT group were independent prognostic factors for stage I RC and were included in the nomogram prediction model. The C-index of the model was 0.726 (95% CI, 0.689-0.763). We divided the patients into three risk groups according to the nomogram prediction score and found that patients with low and moderate risks did not show an improved prognosis after AT. However, high-risk patients did benefit from AT. Conclusion: The nomogram of this study can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with stage I RC undergoing LR. Our results indicate that high-risk patients should receive AT after LR; AT is not recommended for low-risk patients.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Plus Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk T1 and T2 Rectal Cancer

Background: Radical surgery is recommended for high-risk pathological stage T1 (pT1) or pT2 rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). However, in clinical practice, many patients may unfit or decline radical surgery. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after TEM was considered as an alternative to radical surgery for these patients. This study aimed to assess oncological outcomes of adjuvant CRT after TEM for high-risk early rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: We collected retrospectively data of 97 patients who underwent TEM with pT1 and pT2 between January 2008 and December 2018. Of these, 35 patients were excluded. Of the remaining 62 patients, 42 were managed by TEM alone and 20 by TEM plus adjuvant CRT. Demographics, recurrence, and survival were analyzed between the two groups. Results: At a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival and disease-free survival (DFS) in TEM alone group were significantly lower than those in TEM+CRT group (66.6% versus 93.3%, P = .035; 63.7% versus 93.3%, P = .022). Although the 3-year overall survival in TEM+CRT group was higher than TEM alone group (100% versus 83.3%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .13). The local recurrence rate in TEM alone was 31%, compared with 5% in TEM+CRT group (P = .025). Multivariate analysis showed that adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio: 0.094; 95% confidence interval: 0.001-0.764; P = .027). Conclusions: Our study suggests that adjuvant CRT after TEM may be an alternative for pT1 high-risk and T2 rectal cancer who are not suitable or unwilling to undergo salvage radical surgery.

Local recurrence after local excision of early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of completion TME, adjuvant (chemo)radiation, or no additional treatment

BACKGROUND

The risks of local recurrence and treatment-related morbidity need to be balanced after local excision of early rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer followed by no additional treatment (NAT), completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (aCRT).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was local recurrence. Statistical analysis included calculation of the weighted average of proportions.

RESULTS

Some 73 studies comprising 4674 patients were included in the analysis. Sixty-two evaluated NAT, 13 cTME and 28 aCRT. The local recurrence rate for NAT among low-risk pT1 tumours was 6·7 (95 per cent c.i. 4·8 to 9·3) per cent. There were no local recurrences of low-risk pT1 tumours after cTME or aCRT. The local recurrence rate for high-risk pT1 tumours was 13·6 (8·0 to 22·0) per cent for local excision only, 4·1 (1·7 to 9·4) per cent for cTME and 3·9 (2·0 to 7·5) per cent for aCRT. Local recurrence rates for pT2 tumours were 28·9 (22·3 to 36·4) per cent with NAT, 4 (1 to 13) per cent after cTME and 14·7 (11·2 to 19·0) per cent after aCRT.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial risk of local recurrence in patients who receive no additional treatment after local excision, especially those with high-risk pT1 and pT2 rectal cancer. The lowest recurrence risk is provided by cTME; aCRT has outcomes comparable to those of cTME for high-risk pT1 tumours, but shows a higher risk for pT2 tumours.

Changes in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over the past 100 years: A review

Advances in surgical and adjuvant therapies have resulted in a dramatic improvement in outcomes of rectal cancer in terms of both oncology and functional preservation. Surgery plays a central role in therapy as it is the only means of achieving a complete cure. These surgical advancements result from extensive pioneering research in the fields of anatomy and physiology. Much history lies behind the recent surgical breakthroughs of total mesorectal excision (TME) and intersphincteric resection (ISR). This article outlines the changes that have taken place in surgical therapies for rectal cancer over more than a century based on clinical trials performed to provide scientific evidence for these therapies.

MRI cT1-2 rectal cancer staging accuracy: a population-based study

Background

Adequate MRI‐based staging of early rectal cancers is essential for decision‐making in an era of organ‐conserving treatment approaches. The aim of this population‐based study was to determine the accuracy of routine daily MRI staging of early rectal cancer, whether or not combined with endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS).

Methods

Patients with cT1–2 rectal cancer who underwent local excision or total mesorectal excision (TME) without downsizing (chemo)radiotherapy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018 were selected from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. The accuracy of imaging was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value.

Results

Of 7382 registered patients with cT1–2 rectal cancer, 5539 were included (5288 MRI alone, 251 MRI and ERUS; 1059 cT1 and 4480 cT2). Among patients with pT1 tumours, 54·7 per cent (792 of 1448) were overstaged by MRI alone, and 31·0 per cent (36 of 116) by MRI and ERUS. Understaging of pT2 disease occurred in 8·2 per cent (197 of 2388) and 27·9 per cent (31 of 111) respectively. MRI alone overstaged pN0 in 17·3 per cent (570 of 3303) and the PPV for assignment of cN0 category was 76·3 per cent (2733 of 3583). Of 834 patients with pT1 N0 disease, potentially suitable for local excision, tumours in 253 patients (30·3 per cent) were staged correctly as cT1 N0, whereas 484 (58·0 per cent) and 97 (11·6 per cent) were overstaged as cT2 N0 and cT1–2 N1 respectively.

Conclusion

This Dutch population‐based analysis of patients who underwent local excision or TME surgery for cT1–2 rectal cancer based on preoperative MRI staging revealed substantial overstaging, indicating the weaknesses of MRI and missed opportunities for organ preservation strategies.

Primary local excision of stage 1 rectal cancer is not associated with worse oncological outcomes when compared with major resection

PURPOSE

Primary local excision (PLE) for early rectal cancers is associated with decreased surgical morbidity and mortality compared with major resection (MR). However, it is thought to be associated with poorer oncological outcomes. There is a paucity of data regarding PLE within the Australasian population. We present comparative post-operative and survival outcomes for stage 1 rectal cancers treated with PLE or MR from three Western Australian hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing PLE or MR for stage 1 rectal cancers between February 1996 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 533 patients, 81 underwent PLE. Median post-operative admission was shorter for those undergoing PLE, with no significant difference in post-operative complication rate. Five-year overall survival was greater following MR (89.6% CI 86.1-92.3) compared with PLE (84.6% CI 73.8-91.2; p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in 5-year cancer-specific survival (MR, 94.4% CI 91.5-96.3; PLE, 95.3% CI 86.0-98.5; p = 0.98) or 5-year disease-free survival (MR, 92.3% CI 89.1-94.7; PLE, 89.1% CI 78.5-94.7; p = 0.36). Local excision provided poorer local tumour control with an inferior 5-year local recurrence rate (MR, 2.16% CI 1.08-4.28; PLE, 10.9% CI 5.30-21.6; p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounders, PLE was significantly associated with worse local recurrence but did not significantly impact overall survival, cancer-specific survival, overall recurrence, or metastatic recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Local excision of early rectal cancer remains a viable alternative, in those unwilling or unable to undergo MR. Patients should be informed that while PLE is associated with poorer local pelvic control, this does not translate to worse survival.

Evaluation of risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T2 lower rectal cancer to perform chemoradiotherapy after local resection

The oncological outcome of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after local excision (LE) for T2 lower rectal cancer has demonstrated a high local recurrence (LR) rate. The aim of the present study was to determine the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in order to reduce LR in T2 lower rectal cancer after LE and CRT. Specimens were collected from 95 consecutive patients with T2 lower rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent R0 resection by total mesenteric excision or tumor-specific mesenteric excision between January 2008 and December 2018 at Osaka International Cancer Institute. All specimens were checked and evaluated to determine the risk factors for LNM. LNM was observed in 26 patients (27%), including 2 patients (2%) with lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis. Univariate analysis indicated lymphovascular invasion (LVI; P=0.008), tumor budding (P=0.012) and histology other than well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (P=0.08) were associated with LNM; multivariate analysis revealed that LVI (P=0.03) was the only independent risk factor for LNM. LNM was confirmed in 0% (0/8) of patients without LVI, tumor budding and histological type. LVI, tumor budding and histological type can be risk factors for LNM in lower rectal cancer. The present study may be helpful to select patients for performing LE and CRT with good oncological outcome.

How can we utilize local excision to help, not harm, geriatric patients with rectal cancer?

A majority of the morbidity and mortality burden of rectal cancer is distributed within the geriatric age group. Current surgical and medical treatment modalities pose significant challenges in treating complications specifically in the already pre-disposed senior population with baseline dysfunction. This chapter reviews the work-up, management, current data and oncologic outcomes of treating rectal cancer in the senior adult.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

Can less be more? Organ preservation strategies in the management of rectal cancer

Background

Total mesorectal excision (tme) is the current standard of care for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, that surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and patients are seeking alternatives to radical resection. Currently, prevalent organ-sparing strategies under investigation include local excision and nonoperative management (nom).

Methods

We reviewed the current evidence in the literature to create an overview of the use of transanal endoscopic surgery and watch-and-wait strategies in the modern management of rectal cancer.

Results

Compared with radical resection, transanal endoscopic surgery in patients with early rectal cancer (cT1) having favourable histopathologic features is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, but no difference in 5-year survival. In patients with T2 or early T3 cancer, strategies that use neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as adjuncts to local excision are under evaluation. Nonoperative management is a new option for patients who experience a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ncrt). The selection criteria that will appropriately identify patients for whom nom will succeed are not established.

Conclusions

Local excision is appropriate for early rectal cancer with favourable histopathologic features. Although organ-preserving strategies are promising, the quality of the evidence to date is insufficient to replace the current standard care in most patients. Patients should be offered nom in the safe setting of a clinical trial or registry. Rigorous follow-up, including endoscopy and imaging at frequent intervals is recommended when radical resection is forgone.

Oncological and Survival Outcomes in Watch and Wait Patients With a Clinical Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological and survival outcomes of a Watch and Wait policy in rectal cancer after a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND

The detection of a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment may facilitate a nonoperative approach in selected patients. However, the long-term safety of this strategy remains to be validated.

METHOD

This is a systematic review of the literature to determine the oncological outcomes in Watch and Wait patients. The primary outcome was the cumulative rate of local regrowth, success of salvage surgery, and incidence of metastases. We also evaluated survival outcomes. A pooled analysis of manually extracted summary statistics from individual studies was carried out using inverse variance weighting.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies comprising 692 patients were identified; incidence of cCR was 22.4% [95% confidence interval (CI),14.3-31.8]. There were 153 (22.1%) local regrowths, of which 96% (n = 147/153) manifested in the first 3 years of surveillance. The 3-year cumulative risk of local regrowth was 21.6% (95% CI, 16.0-27.8). Salvage surgery was performed in 88% of patients, of which 121 (93%) had a complete (R0) resection. Fifty-seven metastases (8.2%) were detected, and 35 (60%) were isolated without evidence of synchronous regrowths; 3-year incidence was 6.8% (95% CI, 4.1-10.2). The 3-year overall survival was 93.5% (95% CI, 90.2-96.2).

CONCLUSION

In rectal cancer patients with a cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a Watch and Wait policy appears feasible and safe. Robust surveillance with early detection of regrowths allows a high rate of successful salvage surgery, without an increase in the risk of systemic disease, or adverse survival outcomes.

A cohort study of local excision followed by adjuvant therapy incorporating a contact X-ray brachytherapy boost instead of radical resection in 180 patients with rectal cancer

AIM

Recent data have suggested near-equivalent oncological results when treating early rectal cancer by local excision followed by radio- ± chemotherapy rather than salvage radical surgery. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the use of contact X-ray brachytherapy within this paradigm.

METHOD

All patients had undergone local excision and were referred to our radiotherapy centre for treatment with contact X-ray brachytherapy. Postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was also given in their local hospital in most cases. Variables assessed were local excision method, postoperative therapy received, follow-up duration, disease-free survival, salvage surgery and stoma-free survival.

RESULTS

In total, 180 patients with a median age of 70 (range 36-99) years were assessed. Following local excision, pT stages were pT1 = 131 (72%), pT2 = 44 (26%), pT3 = 5 (2%). All patients received contact X-ray brachytherapy boosting at our centre and, in addition, 110 received chemoradiotherapy and 60 received radiotherapy alone. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-48), 169 patients (94%) remained free of local recurrence. Of the 11 patients with local recurrence (three isolated nodal), five underwent salvage abdominoperineal excision. Eight patients developed distant disease, of whom five underwent metastasis surgery. At last included follow-up 173 (96%) patients were free of all disease and 170 (94%) were stoma free.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact therapy can be offered in addition to external beam radio (±chemo) therapy instead of radical surgery as follow-on treatment after local excision of early rectal cancer. This combination can provide equivalent outcomes to radical surgery. The added value of contact therapy should be formally assessed in a clinical trial.

Radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer may offer reduced local recurrence rates

AIM

Early rectal cancer can be managed effectively with local excision, which is now the standard of care for many T1 lesions. However, the presence of unexpected adverse histopathological factors may indicate an increased risk of local recurrence, prompting consideration of completion radical surgery. Many patients are unfit or prefer to avoid radical surgery, relying instead on surveillance and early detection of recurrent disease. Recently, radiotherapy has shown promise as an adjuvant therapy in this group. This study assesses local recurrence rates after local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy at a single centre.

METHOD

This was a retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in a single institution. Data covering a 10-year period were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 197 patients undergoing TEM for rectal cancer, 33 (17%) had adjuvant radiotherapy because of adverse histopathological features. At 3.2 years' median follow-up, there were three instances of local recurrence (9.1%). Estimated local recurrence at 1 and 3 years was 0% and 6.9%, compared to 16.8% and 21.2% in a propensity-score-matched group who were followed by surveillance alone. Local recurrence was diagnosed at a median of 23 months post-TEM in the radiotherapy group, compared to 8 months in the matched group.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy after TEM is associated with a trend towards a reduced rate of local recurrence, even for high-risk disease. Radiotherapy would appear to offer a viable alternative to radical completion surgery in the presence of unforeseen adverse histopathological features, as long as a meticulous surveillance programme is in place.

Is Previous Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Early Rectal Cancer a Risk Factor of Worse Outcome following Salvage Surgery A Case-Matched Analysis

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a minimally invasive procedure which allows local excision of early-stage rectal cancer and can be used as an alternative treatment to radical surgery. Patients can undergo salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) following TEM after finding of unfavourable histological features. This study aimed to compare results and possible complications of sTME following TEM and primary TME (pTME) procedures.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2017, early sTME was performed in 9 patients at the National Cancer Institute in Vilnius, Lithuania. These patients were compared with 18 patients who underwent pTME, matched according to gender, age, cancer stage, and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed prospectively. We recorded the demographics, tumour specifications, treatment, operation time, postoperative results complications, and oncological outcome. Fisher's exact test and student's T test was used to compare both groups.

Results

A total of 130 patients underwent TEM at our institution during the study period, of which 9 (6.92%) had to undergo sTME. The average age of the patients was 62.7 ± 7.07 years; 44.4% of the patients were male and 55.6% female. The average tumour size in the sTME group was 2.8 ± 1.05 cm (range 1.5-5) and 2.61 ± 1.36 cm (range 1-5) in the pTME group (p = 0.696). When comparing postoperative complications, statistically significant results were not found in either of the groups (p = 0.55). Operation time of pTME was significantly shorter on average, i.e. 43 min, compared to sTME (p < 0.0267). The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 12.44 ± 7.126 in the sTME and 12.5 ± 8.06 in the pTME group (p = 0.986). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) was negative in 92.6% (25/27) of specimens, while the CRM was positive in 2 cases (7.4%), both of which were from the sTME group. The average follow-up time was 22.8 months (8-80 months) for patients undergoing sTME and 19.33 months (2-88 months) for patients after pTME (p = 0.71).

Conclusions

TEM is a relatively safe method for treating patients with early rectal cancer without high-risk features. It can be used in exceptional cases with high-risk features when the patient is not fit for radical surgery.

A systematic review of local excision followed by adjuvant therapy in early rectal cancer: are pT1 tumours the limit?

AIM

Total mesorectal excision remains the cornerstone of treatment for rectal cancer. Significant morbidity means local excision may be more appropriate in selected patients. Adjuvant therapy reduces local recurrence and improves survival; however, there is a paucity of data on its impact following local excision, which this systematic review aims to address.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases using validated terms for rectal cancer, adjuvant therapy and local excision was performed. Included studies focused on local excision with adjuvant therapy for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Primary outcome measures were local recurrence, survival and morbidity. Studies providing neoadjuvant therapy or local excision alone were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies described 804 patients. Indications for local excision included favourable histology, patient choice and comorbidities. T1, T2 and T3 tumours accounted for 35.1%, 58.0% and 6.9% of cases, respectively. The most frequent local excision technique was transanal excision (77.7%). Adjuvant therapy included long-course chemoradiation or radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 51 months (range 1-165). The pooled local recurrence was 5.8% (95% CI 3.0-9.5) for pT1, 13.8% (95% CI 10.1-17.9) for pT2 and 33.7% (95% CI 19.2-50.1) for pT3 tumours. The overall median disease-free survival was 88% (range 50%-100%) with a pooled overall morbidity of 15.1% (95% CI 11.0-18.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This area remains highly relevant to modern clinical practice. The data suggest that local excision followed by adjuvant therapy can achieve acceptable long-term outcomes in high-risk pT1 tumours, but not in T2 tumours and above in whom radical surgery should be offered.

Survival outcome of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision for T2 early rectal cancer: An analysis based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result registry database

BACKGROUND

Major resection (MR) is recommended for cases with T2 finding after local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer, but the revision procedure is accompanied with high morbidity. We evaluated the oncological safety of LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as a rectum-preserving alternative to MR for T2 early rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 3786 patients with T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2013 were included from the SEER database. Survival rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method with a log-rank test, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional regression models.

RESULTS

Of these patients included, 429 (11.3%) treated with LE alone (LE group), 3067 (81.0%) treated with MR (MR group), and 290 (7.7%) treated with LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (LE + adjuvant RT group). The 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) rate and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate were significantly lower in LE patients group than those in MR patients group (70.5% vs. 81.8%, P < 0.001; 57.3% vs. 72.3%, P < 0.001). The 5-year CSS rate and 5-year OS rate were similar between LE + adjuvant RT and MR groups (78.4% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.975, and 70.7% vs. 72.3%, P = 0.311, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that treatment strategies, age and CEA status were independently associated with CSS and OS. After age adjustment, LE was associated with reduced CSS (using MR as a reference, HR, 1.784; P < 0.001) and reduced OS (HR, 1.739; P < 0.001). However, CSS and OS related to LE + adjuvant RT of T2 rectal cancer group weren't be affected (HR, 0.994; P = 0.962 and HR, 0.904; P = 0.302, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When MR is inappropriate for T2 early rectal cancer patients because of patients refusal or co-morbidities, LE + adjuvant RT can provide acceptable levels of long-term survival.