Long-Term Survival and Local Relapse Following Surgery Without Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Upper Rectal Cancer: An International Multi-Institutional Study

The survival outcome differs between left-sided colon cancer and middle/low rectal cancer after colorectal hepatic metastasectomy

BACKGROUND

The clinical outcomes between left-sided colon cancer and middle/low rectal cancer seem to be different. This study aimed to examine the effect of primary tumor location regarding the left-sided colon and middle/low rectum on the overall survival (OS) of patients who underwent colorectal hepatic metastasectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colorectal hepatic metastasectomy were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to the primary tumor location (left-sided colon and middle/low rectum). Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test, and continuous variables were analyzed using the Student t test. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The prognostic factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 365 patients were enrolled. Patients with left-sided colon cancer had significantly better OS than those with middle/low rectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.725; P = .018), with median OS estimates of 48 and 38 months, respectively. In the subgroup analysis of RAS mutations, patients with left-sided colon cancer had significantly prolonged OS compared with those with middle/low rectum cancer (HR, 0.608; P = .034), with median OS estimates of 49 and 26 months, respectively. This observation was limited to patients with RAS mutations.

CONCLUSION

According to our findings, patients with middle/low rectal cancer had poorer survival outcome and should not be categorized together with patients with left-sided colon cancer in terms of OS after colorectal hepatic metastasectomy.

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.

Post-diagnosis adiposity and colorectal cancer prognosis: A Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis

The adiposity influence on colorectal cancer prognosis remains poorly characterised. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on post-diagnosis adiposity measures (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight) or their changes and colorectal cancer outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched through 28 February 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when at least three studies had sufficient information. The quality of evidence was interpreted and graded by the Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel. We reviewed 124 observational studies (85 publications). Meta-analyses were possible for BMI and all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer-specific mortality, and cancer recurrence/disease-free survival. Non-linear meta-analysis indicated a reverse J-shaped association between BMI and colorectal cancer outcomes (nadir at BMI 28 kg/m2). The highest risk, relative to the nadir, was observed at both ends of the BMI distribution (18 and 38 kg/m2), namely 60% and 23% higher risk for all-cause mortality; 95% and 26% for colorectal cancer-specific mortality; and 37% and 24% for cancer recurrence/disease-free survival, respectively. The higher risk with low BMI was attenuated in secondary analyses of RCTs (compared to cohort studies), among studies with longer follow-up, and in women suggesting potential methodological limitations and/or altered physiological state. Descriptively synthesised studies on other adiposity-outcome associations of interest were limited in number and methodological quality. All the associations were graded as limited (likelihood of causality: no conclusion) due to potential methodological limitations (reverse causation, confounding, selection bias). Additional well-designed observational studies and interventional trials are needed to provide further clarification.

Comparative analysis of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and upfront surgery in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer: oncological benefits, surgical outcomes, and cost implications

The value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is not absolutely clear for upper-half (> 7-15 cm) rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of radical surgery with preoperative CRT vs. upfront surgery (US) in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled retrospectively (280 treated with CRT and 529 treated with US). Through 1:1 propensity score matching, the CRT (172 patients) and US (172 patients) groups were compared for short-term postoperative results and long-term oncological and functional outcomes. In the entire cohort, patients in the CRT group had a younger age, lower distance from the anal verge (DAV), and higher rates of cT4 stage, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, CEA elevation, and CA-199 elevation than those in the US group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the CRT group than in the US group (76% vs. 84%, p = 0.022), while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (85% and 88%, p = 0.084). The distant metastasis rate was higher in the CRT group than in the US group (12.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.028), though the local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% and 1.3%, p = 1.000). After performing PSM, the 5-year OS (86% vs. 88% p = 0.312), the 5-year DFS (79% vs. 80%, p = 0.435), the local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and the distant metastasis rate (11.0% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.593) were comparable between the two groups. Notable pathological downstaging was observed in the CRT group, with a pathological complete response (PCR) rate of 14.5%. In addition, patients in the CRT group had a lower proportion of pT3 (61.6% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001), pN + (pN1, 15.1% vs. 30.2%, pN2, 9.3% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), stage III (24.4% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001), perineural invasion (19.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.014), and lymphovascular invasion (9.3% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001) than those in the US group. Postoperative complications and long-term functional results were similar, yet there was a trend toward a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (5 (2.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%), p = 0.061) and higher rates of robotic surgery (11.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), open surgery (7.0% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), diverting stoma (47.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001), and surgery costs (1473.6 ± 106.5 vs. 1140.3 ± 54.3$, p = 0.006) in the CRT group. In addition, EMVI (OR = 2.516, p = 0.001) was the only independent risk factor associated with poor response to CRT, and in subgroup analysis of EMVI + , CRT group patients presented a lower 5-year DFS (72.9% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.025) compared to US group patients. CRT prior to surgery has no additional oncological benefits over US in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer. In contrast, CRT is associated with increased rates of conversion to laparotomy, stoma creation and higher surgery costs. Surgeons tend to favor robotic surgery in the treatment of complex cases such as radiated upper-half rectal cancers. Notably, EMVI + patients with upper-half rectal cancer should be encouraged to undergo upfront surgery, as preoperative CRT may not provide benefits and may lead to delayed treatment effects.

Is radiotherapy necessary for upper rectal cancer underwent curative resection? A retrospective study of 363 patients

BACKGROUND

To investigate the impact of radiotherapy (RT) on recurrence and survival in patients with locally advanced upper rectal cancer underwent curative resection.

METHODS

363 locally advanced upper rectal cancer cases were identified from the database of our hospital from 2010 to 2018. All patients underwent curative resection and had the lower margin of the tumor located 10-15 cm from the anal verge, among them, 69 patients received pre- or post-operative radiotherapy and 294 patients without. Local control and survivals were compared, and stratification grouping based on European Society for Medical Oncology risk factors were further compared. 1:2 propensity score matching analysis was used to reduce the impact of confounding factors.

RESULTS

There were 207 patients after 1:2 matching (RT group:non-RT group = 69:138). The 5-year overall survival (OS) of the RT group and non-RT group after matching was 84.1% and 80.9%, respectively(P = 0.440); the 5-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was 96.5% and 94.7%, respectively(P = 0.364); the 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 76.8% and 76.9%, respectively(P = 0.531). Subgroup analysis showed that radiotherapy could not significantly improve the overall survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis with or without poor prognostic features. In the high-risk subgroup, the 5-year OS was 76.9% and 79.6% for patients treated with radiotherapy and without (P = 0.798), LRFS was 94.8% and 94.2%, respectively (P = 0.605), DMFS 68.7% and 74.7%, respectively (P = 0.233).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that radiotherapy could not improve local control and survival for locally advanced upper rectal cancer patients underwent curative resection, even in the cases with poor prognostic features.

Efficacy of air leak test in detection of anastomotic leaks after rectal excision: a retrospective case-controlled study

Purpose

Although its efficacy is uncertain, an intraoperative air leak test (ALT) is commonly used to detect mechanical defects following bowel anastomosis. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ALT to detect anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal excision.

Methods

We reviewed our database for patients with rectal cancers who had undergone curative surgery between January 2012 and January 2018. Patients were grouped according to whether or not an ALT was performed. Propensity score analyses were performed to compare outcomes for groups in a 1:1 case-matched cohort.

Results

In total, 1,191 patients underwent rectal excision; 438 (219 in each group) formed the case-matched cohort for analysis. The protective stoma rate was 16.0% and 14.6% in the ALT and the no-ALT groups, respectively (P = 0.791). In the ALT group, 2 patients (0.9%) showed a positive result and were treated with rectal tube drainage, resulting in no leakage. There was no significant difference in postoperative AL rate between the groups (ALT group: 4.6% vs. no-ALT group: 4.1%, P > 0.999).

Conclusion

ALT played a minimal role in detecting AL following rectal excision. Further studies are warranted to validate our results and clarify whether AL can be prevented with ALT or alternative methods.

MRI-Based Radiomics of Rectal Cancer: Assessment of the Local Recurrence at the Site of Anastomosis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

To investigate the significance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics model in differentiating local recurrence of rectal cancer from nonrecurrence lesions at the site of anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients with clinically suspected lesions of anastomosis underwent 3.0T pelvic MRI consisting of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted volume interpolated body examination (VIBE) imaging. Radiomics features were extracted from volumes of interest (VOIs), delineated manually on multiple MRI sequences. Subsequently, principal component analysis reduced the dimensionality of features for T2WI, DWI, VIBE, and combined multisequences, respectively. On this basis, the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) classifier was trained to build Model_T2WI, Model_DWI, Model_VIBE, and Model_combination. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to determine the diagnostic performance of various models.

RESULTS

Principal component analysis selected eight, four, seven, and six principal components to construct the radiomics model for T2WI, DWI, VIBE, and combined multisequences, respectively. Model_combination had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.864, with sensitivity and specificity of 81.82% and 75.86% in the validation set, demonstrating a more optimal performance compared to other models (p< 0.05). The decision curve analysis confirmed the clinical usefulness of the model.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that MRI-based radiomics is a sophisticated and noninvasive tool for accurately distinguishing LR from nonrecurrence lesions at the site of anastomosis. Combining multiple sequences significantly improves its performance.

The efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy in treating metastatic colorectal cancer differs between the middle/low rectum and the left-sided colon

BACKGROUND

Clinically, metastatic rectal cancer has been considered a subset of left-sided colon cancer. However, heterogeneity has been proposed to exist between high and middle/low rectal cancers. We aimed to examine the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment for middle/low rectal and left-sided colon cancers.

METHODS

This study enrolled 609 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated with anti-EGFR therapy. They were divided into groups based on primary tumour locations: the right-sided colon, the left-sided colon or the middle/low rectum. The efficacy of first-line and non-first-line anti-EGFR treatment was analysed. Genomic differences in colorectal cancer data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were investigated and visualised with OncoPrint and a clustered heatmap.

RESULTS

On first-line anti-EGFR treatment, patients with middle/low rectal tumours had significantly lower progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rates (6.8 months, 27.8 months and 43%, respectively) than those with left-sided colon cancer (10.1 months, 38.3 months and 66%, respectively). Similar outcomes were also identified on non-first-line anti-EGFR treatment. In TCGA analysis, rectal tumours displayed genetic heterogeneity and shared features with both left- and right-sided colon cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-EGFR treatment has lower efficacy in metastatic middle/low rectal cancer than in left-sided colon cancer.

Colorectal Cancers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-Demographic Pattern and Clinical Profile of 970 Patients Treated at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in India

PURPOSE

Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third in terms of incidence and second in terms of mortality. A relatively low burden of CRC has been reported from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and there is a paucity of publications related to CRC from LMIC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A computerized comprehensive structured CRC clinical database was developed. All the patients with histopathologically proven CRC undergoing either curative and palliative multimodality management or surgical interventions between 2000 and 2019 were included in the study. A descriptive analysis of the demographic profile and clinical spectrum was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 970 patients of CRC were treated between 2000 and 2019. Of these, 401 patients (41.3%) had colon cancer and 569 (58.7%) had rectal cancer. The male-to-female ratio was 1.79:1. The mean age at presentation was 47.7 years. A total of 337 (34.7%) patients qualified as young CRC (≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis). The commonest symptom among patients with colon cancer was abdominal pain; 55.6% of patients had a right-sided primary tumor as compared with 42.2% with left-sided tumors. The commonest symptom among patients with rectal cancer was bleeding per rectum. The predominant location of the tumor was in the lower rectum (58%). Majority of patients with CRC presented with locally advanced stage II and III disease. The most common histologic subtype encountered for both colon and rectal cancers was adenocarcinoma (84.8% and 81.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study has revealed certain important findings related to CRC in LMIC including a higher burden of young colorectal cancer, a relatively higher proportion of rectal cancers in comparison with colon cancer, a high percentage of patients with low-rectal cancer, and advanced stage at presentation.

MRI-based nomogram analysis: recognition of anterior peritoneal reflection and its relationship to rectal cancers

Background

This study is aimed to explore the factors influencing the visualization of the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) and evaluated the feasibility of measuring the distance from the anal verge to APR (AV-APR), the tumor height on MRI and the accuracy of determining the tumor location with regard to APR.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 110 patients with rectal cancer. A univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the independent factors (age, sex, T stage, the degree of bladder filling, pelvic effusion, intraoperative tumor location, BMI, uterine orientation, the distance from seminal vesicle/uterus to rectum) associated with the visualization of the APR on MRI. The nomogram diagram and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) were established. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the consistency of the distance of AV-APR. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to characterize the agreement between measurements of the tumor height by colonoscopy and MRI. The Kappa statistics was used to evaluate the value of MRI in the diagnosis of the tumor location with regard to the APR.

Results

Multivariate logistic regression showed that BMI (P = 0.031, odds ratio, OR = 1.197), pelvic effusion (P = 0.020, OR = 7.107) and the distance from seminal vesicle/uterus to the rectum (P = 0.001, OR = 3.622) were correlated with the visualization of APR. The cut-off point of BMI and the distance from seminal vesicle/uterus to the rectum is 25.845 kg/m² and 1.15 cm. The area under curve (AUC) (95% Confidence Interval, 95% CI) of the combined model is 0.840 (0.750–0.930). The favorable calibration of the nomogram showed a non-significant Hosmer–Lemeshow test statistic (P = 0.195). The ICC value (95% CI) of the distance of AV-APR measured by two radiologists was 0.981 (0.969–0.989). The height measured by MRI and colonoscopy were correlated with each other (r = 0.699, P < 0.001). The Kappa value was 0.854.

Conclusions

BMI, pelvic effusion, and the distance from seminal vesicle/uterus to rectum could affect the visualization of APR on MRI. Also, it’s feasible to measure the distance of AV-APR, the tumor height, and to evaluate the tumor location with regard to APR using MRI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-021-00583-7.

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.

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.

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.

Surgical treatment following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a major public health problem worldwide, and locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is known for its poor prognosis. A multimodal treatment approach is the only method to achieve satisfactory local recurrence and survival rates in LARC. Determining which therapeutic modality for LARC has the most satisfactory influence on quality of life and disease outcome is still controversial. LARC treatment is subject to continuous advancement due to the development of new and better diagnostic tools, radiotherapy techniques, and chemotherapeutic agents. Herein, we review various therapeutic modalities for LARC from several aspects. In addition to radiotherapy techniques such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), we discuss the progress of chemotherapy, appropriate time interval between NCRT and surgery, relationship between tumor location and NCRT efficacy/safety, wait-and-watch policy, and predictors of treatment response following NCRT. Because of the controversies and unanswered questions regarding NCRT treatments for LARC, additional investigations are required to determine which therapeutic approach is the most feasible for LARC patients.

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.

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.