Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin After Curative Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Tumor regression and safe distance of distal margin after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer

Neoadjuvant therapy has been widely employed in the treatment of rectal cancer, demonstrating its utility in reducing tumor volume, downstaging tumors, and improving patient prognosis. It has become the standard preoperative treatment modality for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy varies significantly among patients, with notable differences in tumor regression outcomes. In some cases, patients exhibit substantial tumor regression, even achieving pathological complete response. The assessment of tumor regression outcomes holds crucial significance for determining surgical approaches and establishing safe margins. Nonetheless, current research on tumor regression patterns remains limited, and there is considerable controversy surrounding the determination of a safe margin after neoadjuvant therapy. In light of these factors, this study aims to summarize the primary patterns of tumor regression observed following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, categorizing them into three types: tumor shrinkage, tumor fragmentation, and mucinous lake formation. Furthermore, a comparison will be made between gross and microscopic tumor regression, highlighting the asynchronous nature of regression in the two contexts. Additionally, this study will analyze the safety of non-surgical treatment in patients who achieve complete clinical response, elucidating the necessity of surgical intervention. Lastly, the study will investigate the optimal range for safe surgical resection margins and explore the concept of a safe margin distance post-neoadjuvant therapy.

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.

METHODS

All 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012-2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

The CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Pathologic Implications of Radial Resection Margin and Perineural Invasion to Adjuvant Chemotherapy after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional and Case-Matched Control Study

We assessed the exact role of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery in rectal cancer patients with positive surgical margin or perineural invasion (PNI). This multi-institutional study included 1799 patients with rectal cancer at cT3-4N0-2M0 stages. Patients were divided into two groups. The high-risk group had a positive margin and/or perineural invasion. The low-risk group showed no positive margin or PNI. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed, and a total of 928 patients, with 464 in each arm, were evaluated. The high-risk group showed significant differences in overall survival (OS, 73.4% vs. 53.9%, p < 0.01) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, 52.7% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.01) at five years between the adjuvant chemotherapy arm and observation arm. The low-risk group showed no significant differences in 5-year OS (p = 0.61) and RFS (p = 0.75) between the two arms. Multivariate analyses showed that age, pathologic N stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly correlated with OS and RFS in the high-risk group (all p < 0.05). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS and RFS more significantly in rectal cancer patients with positive surgical margin or PNI than in those with negative surgical margin and PNI.