Locally Excised T1 Rectal Cancers: Need for Specialized Surveillance Protocols

Risk Factors for Rectal Cancer Recurrence after Local Excision of T1 Lesions from a Decade-Long Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background: Local surgical excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinoma is a well-established approach. Yet, there are still open questions regarding the recurrence rates and its risk factors. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study including all patients who underwent local excision of early rectal cancer with an open or MIS approach and had a T1 lesion from 2010 to 2020 in six academic centers. Data included demographics, preoperative studies, surgical findings, postoperative outcomes, and local and systemic recurrence. A univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for recurrence. Results: Overall, 274 patients underwent local excision of rectal lesions. Of them, 97 (35.4%) patients with a T1 lesion were included in the cohort. The mean age was 69 ± 10.5 years, and 42 (43.3%) were female. The mean distance of the lesions from the anal verge was 7.8 ± 3.2 cm, and the average tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.6 cm. Eighty-two patients (85%) had a full-thickness resection. Eight patients (8%) had postoperative complications. Kikuchi classification of submucosal (SM) involvement was reported in 29 (30%) patients. Twelve patients had SM1, two SM2, and fifteen SM3. Following pathology, 24 patients (24.7%) returned for additional surgery or treatment. The overall recurrence rate was 14.4% (14 patients), with 11 patients having a local recurrence and 6 having a systemic metastatic recurrence, 3 of which had both. The mean time for recurrence was 2.78 ± 2.8 years and the overall mortality rate was 11%. On univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of recurrence vs. non-recurrence groups, the strongest and most significant association and possible risk factors for recurrence were larger lesions (4.3 vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.001) with an OR of 6.67 (CI-1.82-24.36), especially for tumors larger than 3.5 cm, mucinous histology (14.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.004, OR of 14.02, CI-1.13-173.85), and involved margins (41.7% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.003, OR of 9.59, CI-2.14-43.07). The open transanal excision (TAE) approach was also identified as a possible significant risk factor in univariant analysis, while SM3 level penetration showed only a trend. Conclusion: Surgical local excision of T1 rectal malignancy is a safe and viable option. Still, one in four patients received additional treatment. There is an almost 15% chance for recurrence, especially in large tumors, mucinous histology, or involved margin cases. These high-risk patients might warrant additional intervention and stricter surveillance protocols.

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.

Risk of recurrence after local resection of T1 rectal cancer: a meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.

RESULTS

In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.

Local full-thickness excision for sessile adenoma and cT1-2 rectal cancer: long-term oncological outcome

PURPOSE

We analyzed all patients who underwent local transanal surgery at our institution to determine oncological outcomes and perioperative risk.

METHODS

In 1997, we developed a prospective protocol for rectal tumors: transanal local full-thickness excision was considered curative in patients with benign adenoma and early cancers. In this analysis, 404 patients were included. To analyze survival, only those patients exposed to the risk of dying for at least 5 years were considered for the study.

RESULTS

The final pathological analysis revealed that 262 (64.8%) patients had benign lesions, whereas 142 had malignant lesions. Postoperative complications were recorded in 12.6%. At the median time of 21 months, 14% of the adenomas and 12% of cancers had recurred, half of which were surgically resected. The overall 5-year survival rate was 94%.

CONCLUSION

With similar outcomes and significantly lower morbidity, we found local surgery to be an adequate alternative to radical surgery in selected cases of early rectal cancer.

Rectal cancer: Maximizing local control and minimizing toxicity

Adoption of multimodality treatment approach for rectal cancer has resulted in significant improvements in oncologic outcomes. The roles of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery in rectal cancer treatment are continuously evolving with the goal of achieving the best possible oncologic and functional outcome while minimizing treatment toxicity. The aim of this review is to summarize the most recent trials focusing on organ-sparing treatment strategies and the optimal selection of patients for neoadjuvant radiation therapy.

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.

Caring for Patients with Rectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The extraordinary spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has dramatically and rapidly changed the way in which we provide medical care for patients with all diagnoses. Conservation of resources, social distancing, and the risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19-positive cancer patients have forced practitioners and surgeons to completely rethink routine care. The treatment of patients with rectal cancer requires both a multidisciplinary approach and a significant amount of resources. It is therefore imperative to rethink how rectal cancer treatment can be aligned with the current COVID-19 pandemic paradigms. In this review, we discuss evidence-based recommendations to optimize oncological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.