Completion total mesorectal excision following transanal endoscopic microsurgery does not compromise outcomes in patients with rectal cancer

Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.

Current treatment of pT1 rectal cancers in Denmark: A retrospective national cohort study

AIM

Organ preservation strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly common. In appropriately selected patients, local excision (LE) of pT1 cancers can reduce morbidity without compromising cancer-related outcomes. However, determining the need for completion surgery after LE can be challenging, and it is unknown if prior LE compromises subsequent total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this study is to describe the current management of patients with pT1 rectal cancers.

METHOD

This is a retrospective national cohort study of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database, including patients with newly diagnosed pT1 cancers between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified according to treatment into LE alone, completion TME after LE or upfront TME. The treatment and outcomes of these groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1056 patients were included. Initial LE was performed in 715 patients (67.7%), of whom 194 underwent completion TME (27.1%). The remaining 341 patients underwent upfront TME (32.3%). Patients undergoing LE alone were more likely to be male with low rectal cancers and greater comorbidity. No differences in specimen quality or perioperative outcomes were noted between patients undergoing completion or upfront TME. Eighty-five patients (15.9%) had lymph node metastases (LNM). Pathological risk factors poorly discriminated between patients with and without LNM, with similar rates seen in patients with zero (14.1%), one (12.0%) or two (14.4%) risk factors.

CONCLUSION

LE is a key component of the treatment of pT1 rectal cancer and does not appear to affect the outcomes of completion TME. Patient selection for completion TME remains a major challenge, with current stratification methods appearing to be inadequate.

Survival prognostic in different age groups of patients undergoing local versus radical excision for rectal cancer: a study based on the SEER database

Age significantly affects the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after radical excision (RE), and local excision (LE) is an alternative surgical procedure to RE. To compare the survival prognosis in different age groups of LE versus RE for rectal cancer. Patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma treated by LE or RE from 2010 to 2017 were obtained from the SEER database. The primary outcomes are 5-year OS and CSS. A total of 11,170 patients were eventually included, and there were 490 patients in LE and RE groups, respectively, after 1:1 propensity score matching. The 5-year OS and CSS after LE were significantly better in < 50 years and 50-66 years groups than in > 66 years group (5-year OS: 95.70% vs 88.40% vs 67.00%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS: 95.70% vs 96.30% vs 82.60%, P < 0.001). No statistical significance was found for the differences in 5-year OS and CSS between LE and RE in < 50, 50-66, and > 66 years group (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed age > 66 years, poorly differentiated or undifferentiated (Grade III/IV), and tumor size 3 to 5 cm was independent risk factors for 5-year OS after LE; age > 66 years, perineural invasion, and tumor size 3 to 5 cm were the 5-year CSS independent risk factors for after LE. We found that the survival prognosis of younger rectal cancer patients treated with LE was significantly better than older (> 66 years) patients, and the survival prognosis of rectal cancer patients in the three age groups was similar between LE and RE.

Management after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer

Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is a reliable method in the selection of rectal neoplasms for local excision

PURPOSE

Adequate staging of early rectal neoplasms is essential for organ-preserving treatments, but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) frequently overestimates the stage of those lesions. We aimed to compare the ability of magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI to select patients with early rectal neoplasms for local excision.

METHODS

This retrospective study in a tertiary Western cancer center included consecutive patients evaluated by magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI who underwent en bloc resection of nonpedunculated sessile polyps larger than 20 mm, laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) [Formula: see text] 20 mm, or depressed-type lesions of any size (Paris 0-IIc). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI to determine which lesions were amenable to local excision (i.e., [Formula: see text] T1sm1) were calculated.

RESULTS

Specificity of magnifying chromoendoscopy was 97.3% (95% CI 92.2-99.4), and accuracy was 92.7% (95% CI 86.7-96.6) for predicting invasion deeper than T1sm1 (not amenable to local excision). MRI had lower specificity (60.5%, 95% CI 43.4-76.0) and lower accuracy (58.3%, 95% CI 43.2-72.4). Magnifying chromoendoscopy incorrectly predicted invasion depth in 10.7% of the cases in which the MRI was correct, while magnifying chromoendoscopy provided a correct diagnosis in 90% of the cases in which the MRI was incorrect (p = 0.001). Overstaging occurred in 33.3% of the cases in which magnifying chromoendoscopy was incorrect and 75% of the cases in which MRI was incorrect.

CONCLUSION

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is reliable for predicting invasion depth in early rectal neoplasms and selecting patients for local excision.

Outcome of Completion Surgery after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer Patients

T1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently, the influence of ESD on surgical morbidity and mortality is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day morbidity and mortality of completion surgery after ESD to primary surgery. The completion surgery group consisted of suspected T1CRC patients from a multicenter prospective ESD database (2014-2020). The primary surgery group consisted of pT1CRC patients from a nationwide surgical registry (2017-2019). Patients with rectal or sigmoidal cancers were selected. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Propensity score adjustment was used to correct for confounders. In total, 411 patients were included: 54 in the completion surgery group (39 pT1, 15 pT2) and 357 in the primary surgery group with pT1CRC. Adverse event rate was 24.1% after completion surgery and 21.3% after primary surgery. After completion surgery 90-day mortality did not occur, though one patient died in the primary surgery group. After propensity score adjustment, lymph node yield did not differ significantly between the groups. Among other morbidity-related outcomes, stoma rate (OR 1.298 95%-CI 0.587-2.872, p = 0.519) and adverse event rate (OR 1.162; 95%-CI 0.570-2.370, p = 0.679) also did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing rectal surgery. In this subgroup (37 completion and 136 primary surgery), these morbidity outcomes also did not differ significantly. In conclusion, this study suggests that ESD does not compromise morbidity or 90-day mortality of completion surgery.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).

Background

Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.

Results

In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.

Conclusions

cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Rectal Sparing Approaches after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Local Excision and Watch and Wait

Local Excision (LE) or Watch and Wait (WW) for patients with complete clinical response or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) were proposed to avoid morbidity and impairment of quality of life after rectal resection. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature, and to compare rectal-sparing approaches, in terms of rectum-preservation rate, local control, and distant recurrences. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of studies published until July 2022 (PROSPERO, registration CRD42022341480), and the quality of evidence was assessed using a GRADE approach. Seven retrospective studies and one prospective trial were included. In six studies, patients were treated with standard long-course nCRT, and in two with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT). Overall, there were 213 and 188 patients in WW and LE group, respectively, and no difference was found between WW and LE when considering rectum-preservation rate (OR 0.80 95%CI 0.31-2.01, p = 0.63), local disease (OR 1.60 95%CI 0.75-3.42, p = 0.22), locoregional failure (OR 0.85 95%CI 0.20-3.66, p = 0.83) and distant recurrence (OR 0.76 95%CI 0.37-1.55, p = 0.45). Studies directly comparing WW and LE are still lacking, even though no differences between WW and LE in terms of rectum-preservation, local control, and distant recurrences have been found.

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.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision After Transanal Local Excision of Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the quality of completion resections and the impact on oncological safety remain unanswered.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize and analyze the outcomes associated with completion surgery and undertake a comparative analysis with primary rectal resections.

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included PubMed, Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting any outcome of completion surgery after transanal local excision of an early rectal cancer were selected. Case reports, studies of benign lesions, and studies using flexible endoscopic techniques were not included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was completion total mesorectal excision after transanal local excision of early rectal cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures included histopathological and long-term oncological outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision. Secondary outcome measures included short-term perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 646 patients met the eligibility criteria, and 8 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients undergoing completion surgery have longer operative times (standardized mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0002) and higher intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.01-0.5; p = 0.04) compared with primary resections, but perioperative morbidity is comparable (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62; p = 0.08). Completion surgery is associated with higher rates of incomplete mesorectal specimens (risk ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.41-6.62; p = 0.005) and lower lymph node yields (standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.06; p = 0.01). Comparative analysis on long-term outcomes is limited, but no evidence of inferior recurrence or survival rates is found.

LIMITATIONS

Only small retrospective cohort and case-control studies are published on this topic, with considerable heterogeneity limiting the effectiveness of meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides the strongest evidence to date that completion surgery is associated with an inferior histopathological grade of the mesorectum and finds insufficient long-term results to satisfy concerns regarding oncological safety. International collaborative research is required to demonstrate noninferiority.

REGISTRATION NO

CRD42021245101.

Multidisciplinary management of early rectal cancer - The role of surgical local excision in current and future clinical practice

The implementation of bowel cancer screening programs has led to a rise in the incidence of early rectal cancer. The combination of increased incidence and the growing interest in organ-sparing treatment options has led to an amplified importance of local excision techniques in treatment strategies for early rectal cancer. In addition, developments in new technologies of single-port surgery have popularized surgical techniques. Although local treatment of early rectal cancer seems promising, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary and awareness of the oncological robustness is warranted to enable shared decision-making. This review illustrates the position of surgical local excision in the treatment of early rectal cancer and reflects on its role in current and future clinical practice.

Preoperative Diagnostic Uncertainty in T2-T3 Rectal Adenomas and T1-T2 Adenocarcinomas and a Therapeutic Dilemma: Transanal Endoscopic Surgery, or Total Mesorectal Excision?

BACKGROUND

Endorectal ultrasound and rectal magnetic resonance are sometimes unable to differentiate between stages T2 and T3 in rectal adenomas that are possible adenocarcinomas, or between stages T1 and T2 in rectal adenocarcinomas. These cases of diagnostic uncertainty raise a therapeutic dilemma: transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) or total mesorectal excision (TME)?

METHODS

An observational study of a cohort of 803 patients who underwent TES from 2004 to 2021. Patients operated on for adenoma (group I) and low-grade T1 adenocarcinoma (group II) were included. The variables related to uncertain diagnosis, and to the definitive pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma stage higher than T1, were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 638 patients were included. Group I comprised 529 patients, 113 (21.4%) with uncertain diagnosis. Seventeen (15%) eventually had a pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma higher than T1. However, the variable diagnostic uncertainty was a risk factor for adenocarcinoma above T1 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7). Group II included 109 patients, eight with uncertain diagnosis (7.3%). Two patients presented a definitive pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma above T1.

CONCLUSIONS

On the strength of these data, we recommend TES as the initial indication in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Multicenter studies with larger samples for both groups should now be performed to further assess this strategy of initiating treatment with TES.