Selective approach for upper rectal cancer treatment: total mesorectal excision and preoperative chemoradiation are seldom necessary

Review of definition and treatment of upper rectal cancer

While the treatment of locally advanced lower and middle rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant therapy is now well defined, the treatment of locally advanced upper rectal cancer (LAURC) remains controversial. Although most teams and academic societies recommend upfront surgery (US) with partial mesorectal excision (PME), as this appears to be sufficient for these tumors, the literature remains conflicting regarding the additional use of neoadjuvant therapy and TME. Current recommendations for the treatment of LAURC do not reflect actual clinical practice. Notably, there is a paucity of published data specific to the treatment of LAURC since most of the data are from sub-analyses of different cohorts. Another important point responsible for the inconsistent data situation is the fact that the current definition of upper rectal cancer is based on anatomical criteria that are difficult to reproduce and therefore also differ between international professional societies. The aim of this review is to provide a deeper insight into the issues surrounding the treatment of LAURC based on an analysis of the current literature, including anatomic and embryologic data.

Comparing total mesorectal excision with partial mesorectal excision for proximal rectal cancer: evaluating postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes

The treatment role of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) in proximal rectal cancers (PRC) is still debated. Partial Mesorectal Excision (PME) can reduce morbidity in PRC patients. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes between the two groups. A total of 157 PRC patients were enrolled in this study (114 performed with PME and 43 with TME). The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. The overall postoperative complications rate was higher in TME group (18.4% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.05). The incidence of diverting ileostomy was also significantly higher in TME group (86.0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.001). Overall survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group accordingly were: 94.6%, 89.3%, 81.5% and 93.2%, 87.6%, 78.4% (p = 0.324). Disease-free survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 90.2%, 84.5%, 78.6% and 88.7%, 81.2%, 75.3% (p = 0.297), respectively. Local recurrence rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 2.6%, 6.1%, 8.8% and 4.6%, 9.3%, 11.2% (p = 0.061), respectively. PME is feasible and can be safely performed in PRC patients with favorable oncological outcomes. TME is associated with increasing risk of surgical complications and requires a two-step surgery for stoma takedown.

Pleasurable and problematic receptive anal intercourse and diseases of the colon, rectum and anus

The ability to experience pleasurable sexual activity is important for human health. Receptive anal intercourse (RAI) is a common, though frequently stigmatized, pleasurable sexual activity. Little is known about how diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus and their treatments affect RAI. Engaging in RAI with gastrointestinal disease can be difficult due to the unpredictability of symptoms and treatment-related toxic effects. Patients might experience sphincter hypertonicity, gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety, altered pelvic blood flow from structural disorders, decreased sensation from cancer-directed therapies or body image issues from stoma creation. These can result in problematic RAI - encompassing anodyspareunia (painful RAI), arousal dysfunction, orgasm dysfunction and decreased sexual desire. Therapeutic strategies for problematic RAI in patients living with gastrointestinal diseases and/or treatment-related dysfunction include pelvic floor muscle strengthening and stretching, psychological interventions, and restorative devices. Providing health-care professionals with a framework to discuss pleasurable RAI and diagnose problematic RAI can help improve patient outcomes. Normalizing RAI, affirming pleasure from RAI and acknowledging that the gastrointestinal system is involved in sexual pleasure, sexual function and sexual health will help transform the scientific paradigm of sexual health to one that is more just and equitable.

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) practice for rectal cancer only relies on small retrospective studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the oncological and functional outcomes of TSME practice.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was drawn to include all the studies that compared partial versus total mesorectal excision (PME vs TME) practised for rectal adenocarcinoma up to 16 cm from the anal verge. A systematic literature search was conducted on EMBASE-Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Reports were screened for the study's outcomes: oncological radicality, postoperative anastomotic leak risk and functional outcomes. Included studies were appraised for risk-of-bias and meta-analysed. Evidence was rated with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included, consisting of 12325 patients (PME n = 4460, 36.2%; TME n = 7865, 63.8%). PME was performed for tumours higher than 10 cm from the anal verge in 54.5% of patients. There was no difference between PME and TME in circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 1.31, 95%CI 0.43-3.95, p = 0.64; I2 = 38%), and local recurrence risk (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.52-2.10, p = 0.90; I2 = 40%). The postoperative leak risk (OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.27-0.67, p < 0.001; I2 = 60%) and the major low anterior resection syndrome risk (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.28-0.40, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were lower after PME surgery. No difference was found in urinary incontinence (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.13-3.67, p = 0.66) and urinary retention after early catheter removal (OR 2.00, 95%CI 0.24-16.51, p = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this meta-analysis shows that TSME for rectal cancer has good oncological results and leads to the best-fitted functional results possible for the patient's condition.

Investigating anorectal function using postoperative MRI-based fibrosis score in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a two-center study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a postoperative MRI-based fibrosis scoring system and to assess its correlation with anorectal function in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) cases administered neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

Pathologically confirmed LARC cases administered nCRT and radical resection were assessed retrospectively. Based on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, anastomotic fibrosis score (AFS) and perirectal fibrosis score (PFS) were determined to evaluate the extent of fibrosis. The Wexner continence score for anorectal function was obtained 2 years postoperatively and assessed for correlation with MRI fibrosis scores. The cases were divided into 2 groups by the median Wexner score. Univariable and multivariable analyses were adopted for building a nomogram model, whose diagnostic performance was estimated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and decision curve analyses (DCA).

RESULTS

Finally, 144 patients with LARC were included in cohort 1 (training set). 52 patients were enrolled in cohort 2 (external validation set). Spearman correlation analysis indicated that AFS and PFS were positively correlated with the Wexner score. Univariable and multivariable analyses revealed age, tumor height, AFS, and PFS were independent predictors of anorectal function. The nomogram model achieved a good diagnostic performance, with AUCs of 0.800 and 0.827 in the training and validation sets, respectively; its predicting value was also confirmed by DCA.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed AFS and PFS derived from postoperative MRI are positively correlated with Wexner score. In addition, the new scoring system was effective in predicting anorectal function in LARC cases administered nCRT.

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy in determining rectal tumor proximity to the peritoneal reflection

PURPOSE

Treatment of invasive rectal adenocarcinoma is stratified into upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, in part, based on tumor distance from the anal verge (AV). This study examines the correlation between tumor distance measurements (endoscopic and MRI) and relationship to the anterior peritoneal reflection (aPR) on MRI.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was performed at a tertiary center accredited by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC). 162 patients with invasive rectal cancer were seen between October of 2018 and April of 2022. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for MRI and endoscopic measurements in their ability to predict tumor location relative to the aPR.

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen patients had tumors endoscopically and radiographically measured from the AV. Pelvic MRI characterized tumors as above (intraperitoneal) or at/straddles/below the aPR (extraperitoneal). True positives were defined as extraperitoneal tumors [Formula: see text] 10 cm. True negatives were defined as intraperitoneal tumors > 10 cm. Endoscopy was 81.9% sensitive and 64.3% specific in predicting tumor location with respect to the aPR. MRI was 86.7% sensitive and 92.9% specific. Utilizing a 12 cm cutoff, sensitivity of both modalities increased (94.3%, 91.4%) but specificity decreased (50%, 64.3%).

CONCLUSION

For locally invasive rectal cancers, tumor position relative to the aPR is an important factor in determining the role of neoadjuvant therapy. These results suggest endoscopic tumor measurements do not accurately predict tumor location relative to the aPR, and may lead to incorrect treatment stratification recommendation. When the aPR is not identified, MRI-reported tumor distance may be a better predictor of this relationship.

The percentage of mesorectal infiltration as a prognostic factor after curative surgery for pT3 rectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of a novel variable - the percentage of mesorectal infiltration (PMI) - in pT3 rectal cancer.

METHOD

A cohort of 241 patients with pT3 rectal adenocarcinoma, operated on between February 2002 and May 2019, was selected for the analysis. Data concerning patient, treatment and tumour characteristics were collected. The depth of mesorectal infiltration (DMI) and the distance between the deepest invasion and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) were measured. The PMI was calculated using a formula combining these parameters.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 33.2% of cases. A complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 74% of patients. The CRM was affected in 24 patients (9.9%). The 5-year actuarial local recurrence (LR), overall recurrence (OR) and overall survival (OS) rates were 7.5%, 22.9% and 72.4%, respectively. The PMI was significantly associated with worse oncological outcomes regarding LR (p = 0.009), OR (p = 0.001) and OS (p = 0.016) rates. A cut-off value of PMI >60% had the highest specificity (80%) for LR (p = 0.026), OR (p = 0.04) and OS (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The PMI has an adverse prognostic impact on the oncological results following surgery for pT3 rectal cancer. It allows prediction of the risk of both LR and distant recurrence with higher accuracy than the DMI or the distance to the CRM. A PMI >60% may be used as a cut off value while subclassifying pT3 rectal tumours. It may influence decision-making while establishing adjuvant treatment and the follow-up schedule.

Dentate line invasion as a predictive factor of poor distant relapse-free survival in locally advanced lower rectal cancer with anal sphincter involvement

Background

While an important surgical landmark of the dentate line has been established for locally advanced lower rectal cancer (LALRC), the prognostic significance of dentate line invasion (DLI) has not been well defined. This study aimed to explore the impact of DLI on prognosis in LALRC patients with anal sphincter involvement after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.

Methods

We analyzed 210 LALRC patients and classified them into DLI group (n = 45) or non-DLI group (n = 165). The exact role of DLI in survival and failure patterns was assessed before and after propensity-score matching(PSM). Finally, 50 patients were matched.

Results

Before matching, patients in the DLI group had poorer 5-year distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (P < 0.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (P < 0.001), and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.022) than those in the non-DLI group, with the exception of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (P = 0.114). After PSM, the 5-year DRFS, DFS, OS, and LRFS were 51.7% vs. 79.8%(P = 0.026), 51.7% vs. 79.8%(P = 0.029), 71.6% vs. 85.4%(P = 0.126), and 85.7% vs. 92.0%(P = 0.253), respectively, between the two groups. DLI was also an independent prognostic factor for poor DRFS with (Hazard ratio [HR] 3.843, P = 0.020) or without matching (HR 2.567, P = 0.001). The DLI group exhibited a higher rate of distant metastasis before (44.4% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.001) and after matching (48.0% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.037) and similar rates of locoregional recurrence before (13.3% vs.7.9%, P = 0.729) and after matching (16.0% vs.12.0%, P = 1.000).

Conclusions

DLI may portend worse DRFS and distant metastasis in LALRC patients with anal sphincter involvement, and this may be an important variable to guide clinicians.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10299-8.

Rectal cancer at the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative MRI accuracy and histophatologic correlation. Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accuracy for determining the location of rectal tumors with respect to the peritoneal reflection (PR) and its potential involvement.

METHODS

Prospective study of 161 patients ongoing surgery for rectal cancer. A double-ink method has been aplied to examine surgical specimen, orange ink for the serosal surface and indian ink for the mesorrectal margin, and assess preoperative MRI accuracy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two tumors were located above, 65 at and 74 below PR. MRI accuracy was 90.6% for determining tumor's location with respect to the PR and 80.5% for defining peritoneal involvement. For classifying tumors according to their intra or extraperitoneal location an accuracy of 92.5% was set for MRI. Histophatologic peritoneal involvement was found in 28.7% of tumors located above or at the PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging accurately predicts the location of rectal tumors with respect to the PR and its potential involvement. The double-ink method is useful to assess serosal involvement (pT4a) and to distinguish mesorrectal fascia from the peritonealized surface.

Oncological outcome of wide anatomic resection with partial mesorectal excision in patients with upper and middle rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to investigate the influence of distal resection margin and extent of mesorectal excision on long-term oncological outcomes.

METHOD

Consecutive patients with upper and middle third rectal cancer from June 2006 to February 2016 were reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups depending on the distal margin considered as a surrogate marker of the extension of mesorectal excision (Q1 ≤10 mm, Q2 11-20 mm, Q3 21-30 mm, Q4 ≥31 mm). Local-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. Cox regression models were used to investigate the influence of surgical and clinicopathological variables on prognosis by adjusting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eleven patients with mid (125) and upper (86) rectal cancer underwent wide mesorectal excision. The median follow-up was 48.64 months (interquartile range 28-63). 17.5% patients developed recurrence. The 5-year LRFS, DFS and OS for all patients were 93.20%, 83.89% and 80.1%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between groups (LRFS, P = 0.601; DFS, P = 0.487; OS, P = 0.468). In the multivariable analysis the recurrences and survival were associated with the quality of the mesorectum (LRFS, hazard ratio 10.629, 95% CI 2.324-48.610, P = 0.002; DFS, hazard ratio 2.789, 95% CI 1.314-5.922, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

A wide anatomical resection with partial mesorectal excision and shorter distal resection margin does not jeopardize the oncological outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing surgical and oncological outcomes of upper rectal, rectosigmoid and sigmoid tumours

AIM

Management paradigms for tumours from the sigmoid colon to the lower rectum vary significantly. The upper rectum (UR) represents the transition point both anatomically and in treatment protocols. Above the UR is clearly defined and managed as colon cancer and below is managed as rectal cancer. This study compares outcomes between sigmoid, rectosigmoid and UR tumours to establish if differences exist in operative and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for published studies with comparative data on peri-operative and oncological outcome for upper rectal and sigmoid/rectosigmoid (SRS) tumours treated without neoadjuvant radiation. The search adhered to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Data was combined using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven comparative series examined outcomes in 4355 patients. There was no difference in ASA grade (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.99-1.67; P = 0.06), T3/T4 tumours (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95-1.63; P = 0.12), or lymph node positivity (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.70-1.36; P = 0.87). UR cancers had higher rates of operative morbidity (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = 0.01) and anastomotic leak (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.71; P = 0.0004). There was no difference in local recurrence (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37-1.08; P = 0.10). SRS tumours had lower rates of distant recurrence (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.0; P = 0.05). Rectosigmoid operative and cancer outcomes were closer to UR than sigmoid.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on existing data, UR and rectosigmoid tumours have higher morbidity, leak rates and distant recurrence than more proximal tumours.

Rectal cancer at the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative MRI accuracy and histophatologic correlation. Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accuracy for determining the location of rectal tumors with respect to the peritoneal reflection (PR) and its potential involvement.

METHODS

Prospective study of 161 patients ongoing surgery for rectal cancer. A double-ink method has been aplied to examine surgical specimen, orange ink for the serosal surface and indian ink for the mesorrectal margin, and assess preoperative MRI accuracy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two tumors were located above, 65 at and 74 below PR. MRI accuracy was 90.6% for determining tumor's location with respect to the PR and 80.5% for defining peritoneal involvement. For classifying tumors according to their intra or extraperitoneal location an accuracy of 92.5% was set for MRI. Histophatologic peritoneal involvement was found in 28.7% of tumors located above or at the PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging accurately predicts the location of rectal tumors with respect to the PR and its potential involvement. The double-ink method is useful to assess serosal involvement (pT4a) and to distinguish mesorrectal fascia from the peritonealized surface.

Which Definition of Upper Rectal Cancer Is Optimal in Selecting Stage II or III Rectal Cancer Patients to Avoid Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation?

BACKGROUND

In most guidelines, upper rectal cancers (URC) are not recommended to take neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation. However, the definitions of URC vary greatly. Five definitions had been commonly used to define URC: 1) >10 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 2) >12 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 3) >10 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 4) >12 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 5) above the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR). We hypothesized that the fifth definition is optimal to identify patients with rectal cancer to avoid adjuvant radiation.

METHODS

The data of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The height of the APR was measured, and compared with the tumor height measured by digital rectal examination (DRE), MRI and colonoscopy. The five definitions were compared in terms of prediction of local recurrence, survival, and percentages of patients requiring radiation.

RESULTS

A total of 576 patients were included, with the intraoperative location of 222 and 354 tumors being above and straddle/below the APR, respectively. The median distance of the APR from anal verge (height of APR) as measured by MRI was 8.7 (range: 4.5-14.3) cm. The height of APR positively correlated with body height (r=0.862, P<0.001). The accuracy of the MRI in determining the tumor location with respect to the APR was 92.1%. Rectal cancer above the APR had a significantly lower incidence of local recurrence than those straddle/below the APR (P=0.042). For those above the APR, there was no significant difference in local recurrence between the radiation and no-radiation group. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor location regarding APR was an independent risk factor for LRFS. Tumor height as measured by DRE, MRI and colonoscopy were not related with survival outcomes. Fewer rectal cancer patients required adjuvant radiation using the definition by the APR, compared with other four definitions based on a numerical tumor height measured by MRI and colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of URC as rectal tumor above the APR, might be the optimal definition to select patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to avoid postoperative adjuvant radiation.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Recent Advances and Ongoing Challenges

Locally advanced rectal cancer has a rising global incidence. Over the last 4 decades, advances first in surgery and later in radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy have improved outcomes, particularly with regard to local recurrence. Unfortunately, distant metastases remain a significant problem. In clinical trials of patients with stage II and III disease, distant relapse occurs in 25% to 30% of patients regardless of the treatment approach. Recent phase 3 trials have therefore focused on intensification of systemic therapy for localized disease, with an aim of reducing the distant relapse rate. Early results of trials of total neoadjuvant therapy with combination systemic therapy provided in the neoadjuvant setting are promising; for the first time, a significant improvement in the rate of distant relapse has been noted. Longer-term follow-up is eagerly awaited. On the other hand, trimodal therapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery is toxic. Several trials are currently assessing the feasibility of a watch-and-wait approach, omitting surgery in those with complete response to neoadjuvant treatment, in an attempt to reduce the burden of treatment on patients. The future for rectal cancer patients is likely to be highly personalized, with more intense approaches for high-risk patients and omission of unnecessary therapy for those whose disease responds well to initial treatment. Biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA will help to more accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Improvements in survival and quality of life are expected as the results of ongoing research become available throughout the next decade.

Management of the adenocarcinoma of the upper rectum: a reappraisal

The present review attempts to assess whether upper rectal cancer (URC) should be treated either as colon cancer or as rectal one, namely to be managed with upfront surgery without neo-adjuvant treatment and partial mesorectal excision (PME), or with neo-adjuvant short course radiotherapy (SCRT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as indicated, followed by surgery with total mesorectal excision. Reports from current evidence including studies, reviews and various guidelines are conflicting. Main reasons for inability to reach safe conclusions are (i) the various anatomical definitions of the rectum and its upper part, (ii) the inadequate preoperative local staging,(iii) the heterogeneity of selection criteria for the neo-adjuvant treatment,(iv) the different neo-adjuvant treatment regimens, and(v) the variety in the extent of surgical resection, among the studies. Although not adequately supported, locally advanced URC can be treated with neo-adjuvant CRT provided the lesion is within the radiation field of safety, and a PME if the lower border of the tumour is located above the anterior peritoneal reflection. There is evidence that adjuvant chemotherapy is of benefit in high-risk stage II and stage III lesions.

Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons.

METHOD

This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006-2009; II)2010-2013; III)2014-2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II.

RESULTS

Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59-0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers.

CONCLUSION

There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most.

Analysis of Molecular Pretreated Tumor Profiles as Predictive Biomarkers of Therapeutic Response and Survival Outcomes after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer in Moroccan Population

Pathologic features depending on tumor response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy are important to determine the outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. Evaluating the potential predictive roles of biomarker expression and their prognostic impact is a promising challenge. We reported here the immunohistochemical staining of a panel marker of mismatch repair protein (MMR), Ki67, HER-2, and p53. Additionally, identification of somatic mutations of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF genes were performed by direct sequencing and pyrosequencing in pretreated biopsy tissues from 57 patients diagnosed for rectal cancer. Clinical features and pathological criteria for postneoadjuvant treatment surgical resection specimen's data were collected. Immunohistochemical expression and mutational status were correlated with therapeutic response, overall survival, and disease progression. The mean age of patients was 56 years. Seven (12.3%) out of 57 patients had a complete therapeutic response. Our analysis showed that when using complete therapeutic response (Dworak 4) and incomplete therapeutic response (Dworak 3, 2, and 1) as grouping factor, high p53 expression at the pretreatment biopsy was significantly associated to an incomplete response (p = 0.002). For 20 and 2 out of 57, KRAS and NRAS mutations were detected, respectively. The majority of these mutations affected codon 12. KRAS mutations detected at codon 146 (A146T, A146V) was associated with the appearance of recurrence and distant metastasis (p = 0.019). A high expression of HER-2 corresponding to score 3+ was observed in 3 pretreatment biopsy specimens. This class was significantly associated with a short relapse-free survival (p = 0.002). Furthermore, the high expression of Ki67 was moderately correlated with an older age (p = 0.016, r = 0.319). In addition, this shows that high p53 expression in the pretreatment biopsy was associated with an incomplete response in surgical resection specimens after neoadjuvant treatment, and a HER-2 score 3+ can be a predictive factor of distant metastasis and local recurrence. Larger, prospective, and more studies are needed.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation improves oncologic outcomes in low and mid clinical T3N0 rectal cancers

BACKGROUND

Controversial data exists in the current literature in regard to the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) in patients with clinical T3N0 (cT3N0) rectal cancers, specifically based on location and relation to peritoneal reflection. We aimed to analyze the impact of nCRT on oncologic outcomes among cT3N0 rectal cancers, depending on the tumor height from anal verge (AV).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cT3N0 rectal cancers was included from a query of a prospectively maintained rectal cancer database from 1980 to 2016. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the tumor height: low (1-5 cm from AV), mid (6-10 cm from AV), and upper (11-15 cm from AV). Patients were stratified by use of nCRT.

MAIN OUTCOMES

5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local recurrence (LR) using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included. Overall, 364 (61.4%) patients received nCRT and 228 (38.6%) patients did not. There were 251 (43%) patients with low, 302 (51%) with mid, and 39 (7%) with upper rectal cancer. Patients with low and mid rectal cancers received nCRT more frequently than those with upper rectal cancers (68.5% and 61.2% vs 43.6%, p = 0.007). The 5-year OS was 78% and 63%, DFS-88% and 73%, LR-1% and 8% in nCRT followed by resection vs. surgery alone (p < 0.001). In regard to cancer location after nCRT compared with surgery alone, low and mid cancers had better OS, DFS, and CSS, compared with upper ones.

CONCLUSION

nCRT prolongs survival among patients with rectal cancer below 10 cm from AV; however, it has no effect on 5-year oncologic survival of patients with upper rectal cancer located below peritoneal reflection.

Comparative Oncologic Outcomes of Upper Third Rectal Cancers: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative radiation combined with mesorectal excision has reduced local recurrence rates in rectal cancer. The role for neoadjuvant therapy in upper third rectal cancer remains unclear. The current study aimed to use meta-analytical techniques to compare outcomes of upper third rectal tumors relative to those of the middle and lower rectum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes between patients with upper third and more distal rectal cancer undergoing primary resection. Patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 174 citations were reviewed; 5 studies comprising 3381 patients were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the rate of T3/4 tumors (OR, 1.303; 95% CI, 0.920-1.847; P = .137), lymph node positivity (OR, 1.004; 95% CI, 0.865-1.165; P = .961), and circumferential resection margin positivity (OR, 0.898; 95% CI, 0.556-1.450; P = .660) between upper third and more distal rectal cancers. However local recurrence (OR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.302-0.811; P = .005) and distant recurrence (OR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.511-0.734; P < .001) were reduced in patients with upper third rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that upper third rectal cancer has reduced local and distant recurrence rates despite similarity in disease stage and margin positivity. Further studies examining effects of neoadjuvant radiation in rectal cancer should consider upper rectal tumors as a distinct entity to middle and lower rectal tumors.

Distinct Prognosis of High Versus Mid/Low Rectal Cancer: a Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancers have long been treated as a single-entity disease; however, whether the prognosis of high rectal cancer (inferior margin located 10.1 to 15.0 cm from the anal verge) differs from that of mid/low rectal cancer (0 to 10.0 cm) remains disputed.

METHODS

Patients with stages I-III rectal adenocarcinomas undergoing curative-intent surgery were enrolled between 2007 and 2013 in this retrospective analysis. Exclusion criteria were neoadjuvant therapy or concurrent cancers. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to compare a 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival between patients with high and mid/low rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Of 613 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 199 (32.5%) and 414 (67.5%) had high and mid/low rectal cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching (187 cases for each group), the high group showed a better overall survival (70.9 vs. 56.9%, p = 0.042) and cancer-specific survival (77.4 vs. 60.3%, p = 0.028) at 5 years compared with the mid/low group with stage III disease. However, high rectal cancer did not demonstrate prognostic superiority in stages I-II disease. Multivariate analysis identified high tumor location as an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival (hazards ratio = 0.422, 95% confidence interval 0.226-0.786, p = 0.007) and overall survival (hazards ratio = 0.613, 95% confidence interval 0.379-0.991, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with stage III high rectal adenocarcinoma demonstrated better overall and cancer-specific survival than those with mid/low type, and tumor location was an independent prognostic factor for patients with rectal carcinomas.

Oncologic Outcomes of Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Stage II and III Upper Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess oncological outcomes of postoperative radiotherapy plus chemotherapy (CRT) versus chemotherapy alone (CTx) in stage II or III upper rectal cancer patients who underwent curative surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 263 consecutive patients with pathologic stage II or III upper rectal cancer who underwent primary curative resection with postoperative CRT or CTx from January 2008 to December 2014 at Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were used to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 48.1 months for the entire cohort and 53.5 months for the matched cohort. In subgroup analysis of the propensity score matched cohort, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.8%-100%) in the CRT group and 90.1% (95% CI, 82.8%-97.9%) in the CTx group (P = 0.370). No significant difference in disease-free survival was observed according to treatment type. On multivariate analysis, circumferential resection margin involvement (hazard ratio [HR], 2.386; 95% CI, 1.190-7.599; P = 0.032), N stage (HR, 6.262; 95% CI, 1.843-21.278, P = 0.003), and T stage (HR, 5.896, 95% CI, 1.298-6.780, P = 0.021) were identified as independent risk factors for local recurrence of tumors of the upper rectum.

CONCLUSION

Omission of radiotherapy in an adjuvant treatment setting may not jeopardize oncologic outcomes in stages II and III upper rectal cancer.

Facility Variation in Local Staging of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and its Contribution to Underutilization of Neoadjuvant Therapy

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for clinical stage II-III (locally advanced) rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. The causes of NT omission remain poorly understood.

METHODS

The main outcomes in this study of patients with resected clinically non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma in the 2010-2015 National Cancer Database were local staging utilization in patients with non-metastatic tumors (i.e., undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage I-III) and NT utilization for locally advanced tumors. Multivariable regression was used to examine predictors of these outcomes. Facility-specific risk- and reliability-adjusted local staging and NT rates were calculated. Positive margins and overall survival (OS) were examined as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Local staging was omitted in 7737/43,819 (17.7%) patients with clinically non-metastatic tumors and NT was omitted in 5199/31,632 (16.4%) patients with locally advanced tumors. NT was utilized in 24,826 (91.1%) locally advanced patients who had local staging vs. 1607 (36.6%) patients who did not; 2785 (53.6%) locally advanced patients with NT omitted also had local staging omitted. Treatment at facilities with lowest quintile local staging rates was associated with NT omission (relative risk 2.41, 95% confidence interval 2.11, 2.75). Adjusted facility local staging rates varied sixfold (16.1-98.0%), facility NT rates varied twofold (43.9-95.9%), and they were correlated (r = 0.58; P < 0.001). Local staging omission and NT omission were independently associated with positive margins and decreased OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Local staging omission is a common care process in over half of cases of omitted NT. These data emphasize the need for quality improvement efforts directed at providing facilities feedback about their local staging rates.

Surgeon-Level Variation in Utilization of Local Staging and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Stage II-III Rectal Adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is the standard of care for clinical stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. We aimed to determine the underlying reasons for omission of local staging and NT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with clinical stage II-III or undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated in 2010-2016 in one of nine Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. The outcomes of omission of local staging and NT were examined with multivariable models. Risk- and reliability-adjusted rates of local staging and NT were calculated for surgeons who treated ≥ 3 patients. Pathologic and long-term outcomes were examined after excluding patients who were not resected or who underwent local excision (N = 11).

RESULTS

Local staging was omitted in 43/240 (17.9%) patients and NT was omitted in 41/240 (17.1%). The strongest risk factors for local staging and NT omission were upper rectal tumors and surgeons who treated ≤ 3 cases/year. Thirty-six of 41 (87.8%) cases of omitted NT had local staging omitted. Adjusted surgeon-specific local staging rates varied 1.6-fold (56.3-92.4%) and NT rates varied 2.8-fold (34.1-97.1%). Surgeon local staging and NT rates were strongly correlated (r = 0.92). NT was associated with lower rates of positive circumferential radial margins (7.9 vs. 20.0%; P = 0.02), node positivity (33.3 vs. 55.0%; P = 0.01), and local recurrences (7.6 vs. 14.9% at 5 years; P = 0.0176).

CONCLUSIONS

NT omission should be understood as a consequence of surgeon failure to perform local staging in most cases. Quality improvement efforts should focus on improving utilization of local staging.

Variation in the Height of Rectal Cancers According to the Diagnostic Modalities

Purpose

Although the height of a rectal tumor above the anal verge (tumor height) partly determines the treatment strategy, no practical standard exists for reporting this. We aimed to demonstrate the differences in tumor height according to the diagnostic modality used for its measurement.

Methods

We identified 100 patients with rectal cancers located within 15 cm of the anal verge who had recorded tumor heights measured by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Tumor height measured by using MRI was compared with those measured by using DRE and colonoscopy to assess reporting inconsistencies. Factors associated with differences in tumor height among the modalities were also evaluated.

Results

The mean tumor heights were 77.8 ± 3.3, 52.9 ± 2.3, and 68.9 ± 3.1 mm when measured by using MRI, DRE, and colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.001). Agreement among the 3 modalities in terms of tumor sublocation within the rectum was found in only 39% of the patients. In the univariate and the multivariate analyses, clinical stage showed a possible association with concordance among modalities, but age, sex, and luminal location of the tumor were not associated with differences among modalities.

Conclusion

The heights of rectal cancer differed according to the diagnostic modality. Tumor height has implications for rectal cancer’s surgical planning and for interpreting comparative studies. Hence, a consensus is needed for measuring and reporting tumor height.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced upper and middle/lower rectal cancer

Background

We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety profile of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) in upper rectum versus middle/lower rectum.

Methods

The study included 173 patients with stage II or III (T2-4b, N0-2b) LARC who underwent NACRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) between January 2011 and October 2016. Cox regression, log-rank test, and Kaplan–Meier curves were calculated.

Results

Among the 173 patients, 58 had lesions in the upper rectum and 115 patients had lesions in middle/lower rectum. In a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 6–73 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 84% and 88% for the patients with upper rectal cancer and 77% and 68% for those with middle/lower rectal cancer (P = 0.251 and P = 0.058, respectively). The 5-year DFS (P = 0.012) and OS (P = 0.003) were better in the NACRT responders [tumor regression grade (TRG) 0 or 1] compared with nonresponders (TRG 2 or 3). The independent prognostic factor of favorable response to NACRT was the FOLFOX regimen (P = 0.004).

Conclusions

Patients with LARC in the upper rectum who underwent NACRT followed by TME had similar DFS and a trend toward longer OS, compared with those who had middle/lower rectal lesions. Furthermore, FOLFOX may yield superior results than fluoropyrimidine based regimen during NACRT. NACRT might be an alternative option for patients with LARC in the upper rectum as it has a favorable pathological complete response rate and comparable clinical outcomes when compared with patients with LARC in middle/lower rectum.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: Long-term outcomes of a propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer has short-term benefits when compared to open resection. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT).

METHODS

In this propensity matched study, a series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer following NCRT between 2004 and 2010 (Lap group) were matched with 72 patients who underwent open surgery for rectal cancer in the same period (Open group). The survival and recurrence patterns were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 69.5 months (range 1-138 months), local recurrence rate was observed in 4 patients (5.5%) and 7 patients (9.7%) in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.35). The 5- and 10-year disease-free survival in the Lap and Open groups were 61.3% versus 47.9% and 48.8% versus 41%, respectively (P = 0.16). The 5- and 10-year overall survival was 66.9% versus 60.2% and 49% versus 46.2% in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery following NCRT for low and mid third rectal cancers was associated with similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for stage II-III resectable rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Whether preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is better than postoperative CRT in oncologic outcome and toxicity is contentious in prospective randomized clinical trials. We systematically analyze and compare the treatment result, toxicity, and sphincter preservation rate between preoperative CRT and postoperative CRT in stage II–III rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1990 to 2014 for relevant trials. Only phase III randomized studies performing CRT and curative surgery were selected and the data were extracted. Meta-analysis was used to pool oncologic outcome and toxicity data across studies.

Results

Three randomized phase III trials were finally identified. The meta-analysis results showed significantly lower 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in the preoperative-CRT group than in the postoperative-CRT group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–0.84; p = 0.004). The 5-year distant recurrence rate (p = 0.55), relapse-free survival (p = 0.14), and overall survival (p = 0.22) showed no significant difference between two groups. Acute toxicity was significantly lower in the preoperativeCRT group than in the postoperative-CRT group (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between two groups in perioperative and chronic complications (p = 0.53). The sphincter-saving rate was not significantly different between two groups (p = 0.24). The conversion rate from abdominoperineal resection to low anterior resection in low rectal cancer was significantly higher in the preoperative-CRT group than in the postoperative-CRT group (p < 0.001).

conclusions

As compared to postoperative CRT, preoperative CRT improves only locoregional control, not distant control and survival, with similar chronic toxicity and sphincter preservation rate in rectal cancer patients.

Second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference: consensus recommendations on controversial issues in the primary treatment of rectal cancer

Primary treatment of rectal cancer was the focus of the second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference. In the context of the conference, a multidisciplinary international expert panel discussed and voted on controversial issues which could not be easily answered using published evidence. Main topics included optimal pretherapeutic imaging, indication and type of neoadjuvant treatment, and the treatment strategies in advanced tumours. Here we report the key recommendations and summarise the related evidence. The treatment strategy for localised rectal cancer varies from local excision in early tumours to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) in combination with extended surgery in locally advanced disease. Optimal pretherapeutic staging is a key to any treatment decision. The panel recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI + endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as mandatory staging modalities, except for early T1 cancers with an option for local excision, where EUS in addition to MRI was considered to be most important because of its superior near-field resolution. Primary surgery with total mesorectal excision was recommended by most panellists for some early tumours with limited risk of recurrence (i.e. cT1-2 or cT3a N0 with clear mesorectal fascia on MRI and clearly above the levator muscles), whereas all other stages were considered for multimodal treatment. The consensus panel recommended long-course RCT over short-course radiotherapy for most clinical situations where neoadjuvant treatment is indicated, with the exception of T3a/b N0 tumours where short-course radiotherapy or even no neoadjuvant therapy were regarded to be an option. In patients with potentially resectable tumours and synchronous liver metastases, most panel members did not see an indication to start with classical fluoropyrimidine-based RCT but rather favoured preoperative short-course radiotherapy with systemic combination chemotherapy or alternatively a liver-first resection approach in resectable metastases, which both allow optimal systemic therapy for the metastatic disease. In general, proper patient selection and discussion in an experienced multidisciplinary team was considered as crucial component of care.

Transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer: why, how and when

Down-to-up total mesorectal excision (TME) or transanal TME (taTME) has gained worldwide popularity. taTME is one of the most promising innovations of the last years in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. Due to the better view of the dissection planes even in difficult patients (i.e., narrow pelvis or low rectal cancer), taTME seems to achieve both better TME quality reducing the rate of incomplete TME and lower rates of positive circumferential resection margins. taTME has overall morbidity and anastomotic leak rates comparable with the up-to-down TME. Mid-term results of taTME seems to be comparable with those of the up-to-down approach but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn since the short follow-up and small cohort of patients of the present studies.