Early and late morbidity of local excision after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) and selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy is currently considered the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Despite this, the concept of organ preservation is gradually challenging this approach. The management of complete clinical remission (cCR) lacks international consensus, leading scholars to develop their own perspectives based on well-designed studies and long-term data from large multicenter cohorts. To ensure appropriate treatment, this review focuses on the choice of neoadjuvant therapy, criteria for defining cCR, and treatment strategies for patients who achieve cCR after neoadjuvant therapy. By providing guidance on the accurate management of LARC patients after cCR, this review aims to prevent over- or under-treatment.

Endoscopic Local Excision (ELE) with Knife-Assisted Resection (KAR) Techniques Followed by Adjuvant Radiotherapy and/or Chemotherapy for Invasive (T1bsm2,3/T2) Early Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort

Background: Resected rectal polyps with deep invasion into the submucosa (pT1b-sm2,3) or the muscle layer (pT2) are currently confronted with surgery due to non-curative resection. Aims: We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and locoregional control of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy (CT) following endoscopic KAR (knife-assisted resection) in patients with invasive early rectal cancers who are unwilling or unsuitable for additional surgical resection. Methods: Fifty-one patients with early rectal cancers, pT1b or pT2, underwent post-resection adjuvant RT and/or CT in 15 centers worldwide. "En bloc" macroscopic resection, R0 resection, recurrence rate, and adverse events following resection and adjuvant therapy were recorded in a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Results: Diagnostic staging (38/51, 75%) was the main reason for ELE. Macroscopic "en bloc" resection was demonstrated in 50/51 (98%), with an average follow-up of 20.6 months. Endoscopic recurrence occurred in 7/51 (13.7%) of patients, with mean time for diagnosis of recurrence at 8.9 months. Adjuvant therapy consisted of RT in 49.0% (25/51), CT in 11.8% (6/51), and combined CRT in 39.2% (20/51) of the cases. Perforation, severe post-procedural bleeding, and incontinence were the most frequent complications. The absence of superficial ulceration was associated with macroscopic complete resection, while the lesions with lower budding stage, clear lateral margins, lesion size < 40 mm, and needle-type knife used were associated with less endoscopic recurrencies. Conclusions: Our data investigated adjuvant RT and/or CT after endoscopic KAR of infiltrative rectal cancers (pT1bsm2,3-pT2) as being safe and effective for locoregional control and providing a non-surgical treatment option for patients with a non-curative resection.

The Frequency of Urination Dysfunction in Patients Operated on for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

The frequency of long-term urination dysfunction after surgery for rectal cancer remains unclear, yet it is essential to establish this to improve treatment strategies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort studies were included with patients having undergone sphincter-preserving total (TME) or partial mesorectal excision (PME) for the treatment of primary rectal cancer in this review. The outcome was urination dysfunction reported at least three months postoperatively, both overall urination dysfunction and subdivided into specific symptoms. The online databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched, bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and results were synthesized using one-group frequency meta-analyses. A total of 55 studies with 15,072 adults were included. The median follow-up was 29 months (range 3-180). The pooled overall urination dysfunction was 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12%-30%) 3-11 months postoperatively and 25% (95% CI 19%-32%) ≥12 months postoperatively. Retention and incontinence were common 3-11 months postoperatively, with pooled frequencies of 11% and 14%, respectively. Increased urinary frequency, retention, and incontinence seemed even more common ≥12 months postoperatively, with pooled frequencies of 37%, 20%, and 23%, respectively. In conclusion, one in five patients experienced urination dysfunction more than a year following an operation for rectal cancer.

Nonoperative management and local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer

Locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer represents a significant clinical challenge, and currently, the standard treatment is based on neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by radical surgical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME). In the last 30 years, its management has undergone significant changes due to the improvement of complementary radio- and chemotherapy treatments, the improvement of minimally invasive surgical approaches and the diffusion of organ-sparing approaches, such as nonoperative management, commonly called "watch and wait" (NOM) and local excision (LE), in highly selected patients who achieve a major or complete response to neoadjuvant CRT. This review aimed to critically examine the efficacy and oncological safety of NOM and LE compared to those of standard TME in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant CRT. Both the pros and cons of these approaches were strictly analyzed, providing a comprehensive and critical overview of these novel management strategies for rectal cancer.

Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio- and/or Chemo-therapy (ReSARCh): a prospective, multicenter, observational study

BACKGROUND

Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer; however, their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at 3 years.

RESULTS

Of the 178 patients enrolled in 16 centers, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95% CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95% CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95% CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95% CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95% CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.2).

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromising the outcomes.

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.

Long-term efficacy of transanal local excision versus total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the long-term efficacy of transanal local excision (TLE) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

METHOD

The Web of Science, Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for correlational research. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality of cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4.

RESULT

A total of 13 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 cohort studies (CSs), involving 1402 patients, were included in the analysis. Of these, 570 patients (40.66%) underwent TLE, while 832 patients (59.34%) underwent TME. In the meta-analysis of CSs, no significant difference was observed between the TLE group and TME group regarding 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (P > 0.05). However, the TLE group had a higher rates of local recurrence (LR) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95%CI (1.18, 3.14), P = 0.008] and a lower rates of 5-years local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.79, 95%CI (1.04, 7.50), P = 0.04] compared to the TME group. In the meta-analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference observed between the TLE group and TME group in terms of LR, 5-year OS, 5-year DFS, and 5-year disease-specific survival (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

After undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, TLE may provide comparable 5-year OS and DFS to TME for rectal cancer. However, neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may has a higher LR and lower 5-year LRFS compared to neoadjuvant therapy followed by TME, so patients should be carefully selected. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may be a suitable option for patients who prioritize postoperative quality of life. However, the effectiveness of this approach requires further research to draw a definitive conclusion.

Outcomes after the watch-and-wait strategy and local excision treatment for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy and local excision (LE) have been used in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) for rectal cancer, but the comparative outcomes of the two strategies are controversial. We compared the efficacy of the W&W strategy with LE for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Several domestic and foreign databases were searched for the relevant literature on comparative trials of the W&W strategy and LE surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with the following outcomes; differences in local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM/DM+LR), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Nine articles, were analyzed. Overall, 442 patients were included, with 267 and 175 patients in the W&W and LE groups, respectively. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences the between W&W and LE groups with respect to LR, DM/DM+LR, 3-year DFS, 3-year LRFS, and 3-year OS. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022331208).

CONCLUSION

The W&W strategy may be preferred for some rectal cancer patients who select LE and reach cCR or near cCR after nCRT or TNT.

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.

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.