Chemoradiation and Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies

Comparative analysis of organ preservation attempt and radical surgery in clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Debate persists regarding the feasibility of adopting an organ-preserving strategy as the treatment modality for clinical T2N0 rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of attempting organ-preserving strategies versus radical surgery in patients with clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with clinical T2N0 rectal cancer, with lesions located within 8 cm from the anal verge as determined by pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging between January 2010 and December 2020 were included.

RESULTS

Of 119 patients, 91 and 28 were categorized into the organ-preserving attempt group and the radical surgery group, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 48.8 months (range, 0-134 months). The organ-preserving attempt group exhibited a reduced incidence of stoma formation (44.0% vs. 75.0%; p = 0.004) and a lower occurrence of grade 3 or higher surgical complications (5.8% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.025). Univariate analyses revealed no significant association between treatment strategy and 3-year local recurrence-free survival (organ-preserving attempt 87.9% vs. radical surgery 96.2%; p = 0.129), or 3-year disease-free survival (79.6% vs. 84.9%; p = 0.429). Multivariate analysis did not identify any independent prognostic factors associated with oncologic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared with radical surgery, attempted organ preservation resulted in lower incidences of stoma formation and severe surgical complications, whereas oncological outcomes were comparable. Attempting organ preservation may be a safe alternative to radical surgery for clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer.

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.

Rectal Cancer and Radiation in Colitis

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. When IBD patients develop a rectal cancer, this should be treated with the same oncological principles and guidelines as the general population. Rectal cancer treatment includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (RT). Many IBD patients will require a total proctocolectomy with an ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and others, restoration of intestinal continuity may not be feasible or advisable. The literature is scarce regarding outcomes of IPAA after RT. In the present review, we will summarize the evidence regarding RT toxicity in IBD patients and review surgical strategies and outcomes of IPAA after RT.

The consequences of laparoscopic fascial space priority approach to lateral lymph node dissection on urinary and sexual functionality

Introduction

In this prospective observational study, we aimed to evaluate the consequences of laparoscopic fascia space priority lymph node dissection on urination and sexual function.

Aim

To assess the consequences of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) using the fascial space priority approach on urinary and sexual function in patients with advanced middle and low rectal cancer.

Material and methods

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic LLND using the fascial space priority approach from December 2020 to November 2022 were identified from Tianjin Union Medical Center. Clinical data including patient characteristics, surgical details, and pathology were analysed. The urinary function was assessed by international prostate symptom score (IPSS) questionnaire and residual urine volume. The sexual function was investigated using the international index of erectile function (IIEF) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 51 patients, mean age 60.5 ±10.9 years, were identified. The lymph nodes were positive in 70.6% (36/51) of the patients. There was no significant difference between the preoperative IPSS score and that at 6 months (5.2 ±2.1 vs. 5.6 ±1.5; p = 0.16). And there was no significant difference between the residual urine volume and that at 6 months (9.5 ±10.6 vs. 8.6 ±6.3; p = 0.61). The IIEF score before the surgery showed no significant difference from that at 6 months after the surgery (21.1 ±2.2 vs. 20.6 ±2.3; p = 0.26).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic LLND using a fascial space priority approach can effectively protect the autonomic nerves. The procedure reduces short-term urination and sexual function, but it has little effect on long-term function.

Comparing neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision to total mesorectal excision in the treatment of early stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard-of-care in early, clinical stage (cT2-3 N0 M0) rectal cancer. Local excision (LE) may be an alternative after adequate response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), with either long-course chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT), as a means of preserving the rectum and potentially obviating the morbidity of TME.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines for studies that randomly assigned patients with cT2-3 N0 M0 rectal cancer to either NAT + LE or TME that reported radiologic, oncologic, surgical, and morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs comprise 462 patients (232 patients receiving NAT + LE; nCRT n = 205; SCRT n = 27) and 230 undergoing TME, respectively. NAT compliance was 98.86%. The rate of early completion TME in the NAT + LE group was 22.3%, while the proportion of patients achieving durable organ preservation was 75.4% at mean follow-up of 5.6 years. There was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) (HR [hazard ratio] 1.19; 95% CI 0.95, 1.49; p = 0.13) or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.72, 1.23; p = 0.63]) according to the assigned treatment arm. The local recurrence rate (LRR) (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.5-3.02; p = 0.66) and distant metastases (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.45, 1.90; p = 0.82) were also comparable between the groups. There was a significant reduction in major (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21, 0.95; p = 0.04) and minor morbidity (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24, 0.85; p = 0.01) for patients undergoing NAT + LE. Overall stoma formation was decreased in the NAT + LE group (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.0, 0.23; p ≤ 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

NAT + LE reduces adverse effects of TME, without any compromise in oncological outcomes, and the potential for an organ preserving strategy should be discussed with patients with T2-3N0 rectal cancers prior to treatment.

Surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection is typically the standard treatment for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer as local resection may result in a high rate of recurrence and risk of distant metastasis. A growing number of studies have shown that local excision after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy can significantly reduce recurrence rates and is a feasible strategy to preserve the rectum as an alternative to conventional radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with radical surgery for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

Clinical trials comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with early- to mid-stage rectal cancer were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, and Cochrane databases, and a total of 5 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study trials were included.

RESULTS

In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS [HR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.85, 1.15), p = 0.858], DFS [HR = 1.01, 95%CI (0.64, 1.58), p = 0.967], distant metastasis rate [RR = 0.76, 95%CI (0.36,1.59), p = 0.464], and local recurrence rate [RR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.69, 2.47), p = 0.420]. However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications [RR = 0.49, 95% CI (0.33, 0.72), p < 0.001], length of hospital stays [WMD =  - 5.13, 95%CI (- 6.22, - 4.05), p < 0.001], enterostomy [RR = 0.13, 95%CI (0.05, 0.37), p < 0.001], operative time [- 94.31, 95%CI (- 117.26, - 71.35), p < 0.001], and emotional functioning score [WMD = 2.34, 95% CI (0.94, 3.74), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy may be an effective alternative to radical surgery in patients with early and middle rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on the Functional Outcome of Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

The impact of neoadjuvant therapy on the functional outcome of patients with resectable rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to explore the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on anorectal function (ARF), urinary function and sexual function in relevant patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically. All English-language studies, published from January 2000 to July 2021, that explored the (postoperative) effects of neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery on ARF, urinary function and sexual function of patients were included (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021281617).

RESULTS

The data in this study were derived from 37 articles based on 33 studies; in total, 17 917 patients were enrolled. The meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of anorectal dysfunction in the neoadjuvant therapy group was significantly higher than that in the group of upfront surgery, which was manifested by a higher incidence of major low anterior resection syndrome (odds ratio = 3.09, 95% confidence interval = 2.48, 3.84; P < 0.001), reduction of mean squeeze pressure and mean resting pressure, and other manifestations, including clustering of stools, incontinence, urgency and use of pads. With the extension of follow-up time, the adverse effects of neoadjuvant therapy on major low anterior resection syndrome existed. Compared with patients undergoing upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy increased the risk of urinary incontinence (odds ratio = 1.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.00, 1.72; P = 0.05) and erectile dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = 1.27, 2.45; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy is not only associated with impairment of ARF, but also with increased incidence of urinary incontinence and male erectile dysfunction. However, the influence of confounding factors (e.g. surgical method, tumour stage) needs to be considered.

Impact of adequate lymph nodes dissection on survival in patients with stage I rectal cancer

Background and Aims

The NCCN guidelines recommended an assessment of ≥ 12 lymph nodes (LN) as an adequate LN dissection (LND) for rectal cancer (RC). However, the impact of adequate LND on survival in stage I RC patients remained unclear. Thus, we aimed to compare the survival between stage I RC patients with adequate and inadequate LND.

Methods

A total of 1,778 stage I RC patients in the SEER database from 2010 to 2017 treated with radical proctectomy were identified. The association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was examined using the multivariate Cox regression and the multivariate competing risk model referenced to &lt; 12 LND.

Results

Stage I RC patients with ≥ 12 LND experienced a significantly lower hazard of cancer-specific death compared with those with &lt; 12 LND in both multivariate Cox regression model (adjusted HR [hazard ratio], 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P &lt; 0.001) and the multivariate competing risk model (adjusted subdistribution HR [SHR], 0.45, 95% CI, 0.30-0.69; P &lt; 0.001). Further, subgroup analyses performed by pT stage. No positive association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was found in pT1N0 RC patients (adjusted HR: 0.62, 95%CI, 0.32-1.19; P = 0.149; adjusted SHR: 0.63, 95%CI, 0.33-1.20; P = 0.158), whereas a positive association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was found in pT2N0 RC patients (adjusted HR: 0.35, 95%CI, 0.21-0.58; P &lt; 0.001; adjusted SHR: 0.36, 95%CI, 0.21-0.62; P &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions

The long-term survival benefit of adequate LND was not found in pT1N0 but in pT2N0 RC patients, which suggested that pT2N0 RC patients should be treated with adequate LND and those with inadequate LND might need additional therapy.

Towards personalized treatment of T2N0 rectal cancer: A systematic review of long-term oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the treatment of choice in T2N0 tumors. However, evidence suggest that one-size-fits-all approach is not always beneficial for this group of patients. The aim of this study is to synthesize data on long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by local excision (LE) in T2N0 rectal cancer patients in the perspective of a rectal-preserving strategy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases was conducted until October 2021 to identify studies comparing LE after NAT and TME or reporting oncologic outcomes after conservative approach. A pooled analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model in the case of non-significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1), and a random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) when significant heterogeneity was present (P < 0.1) CRD42022300344.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. Three of them were comparative studies. The pooled 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year OS, 5-year OS, local and distant recurrence rates were 92.8% (95% CI 81.6-99.5%), 91.3% (95% CI 88.3-94.3%), 96.1% (95% CI 90.5-100%), 72.6% (95% CI 57.5-87.7%), 4% (95% CI 18-63%), and 4.9% (95% CI 2-7.8%), respectively, in subjects treated with NAT followed by LE. No heterogeneity was found for all these analyses, except for the 5-year OS sub-analysis (I² 95.5%, P < 0.001). Complete pathological response (ypT0) rate after NAT and LE ranges from 26.7% to 59%.

CONCLUSION

LE following neoadjuvant CRT may provide comparable survival benefit to radical surgery for patients with clinical stage T2N0 in selected patients although the evidence is still limited to provide solid recommendations. A personalized therapeutic approach taking into account tumor and patient-related factors should be considered.