Local excision of T1 and T2 rectal cancer: proceed with caution

Endoscopic and trans-anal local excision vs. radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The management of early-stage rectal cancer in clinical practice is controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare oncological and postoperative outcomes for T1T2N0M0 rectal cancers managed with local excision in comparison to conventional radical resection.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases was performed. Relevant studies were selected using PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes measured were 5-year local recurrence and overall survival. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative complication, 30-day mortality, positive margin and permanent stoma formation.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 27 observational studies contributed 8570 patients for analysis. Radical resection was associated with reduced 5-year local recurrence in comparison to local excision. This was statistically significant in comparison to trans-anal local excision (odds ratio (OR) 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.30) and favourable in comparison to endoscopic techniques (OR 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.23) although this did not reach clinical significance. Positive margin rates were lowest for radical resection. However, 30-day mortality rates, perioperative complications and permanent stoma rates all favoured local excision with no statistically significant difference between endoscopic and trans-anal techniques.

CONCLUSION

Radical resection of early rectal cancer is associated with the lowest 5-year local recurrence rates and the lowest rate of positive margins. However, this must be balanced with its higher 30-day mortality and complication rates as well as the increased risk of permanent stoma. The emerging potential role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to local resection, and the heterogeneity of its use, as an alternative treatment for early rectal cancer further complicates the treatment paradigm and adds to controversy in this field.

Long-term efficacy of transanal local excision versus total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the long-term efficacy of transanal local excision (TLE) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

METHOD

The Web of Science, Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for correlational research. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality of cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4.

RESULT

A total of 13 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 cohort studies (CSs), involving 1402 patients, were included in the analysis. Of these, 570 patients (40.66%) underwent TLE, while 832 patients (59.34%) underwent TME. In the meta-analysis of CSs, no significant difference was observed between the TLE group and TME group regarding 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (P > 0.05). However, the TLE group had a higher rates of local recurrence (LR) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95%CI (1.18, 3.14), P = 0.008] and a lower rates of 5-years local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.79, 95%CI (1.04, 7.50), P = 0.04] compared to the TME group. In the meta-analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference observed between the TLE group and TME group in terms of LR, 5-year OS, 5-year DFS, and 5-year disease-specific survival (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

After undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, TLE may provide comparable 5-year OS and DFS to TME for rectal cancer. However, neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may has a higher LR and lower 5-year LRFS compared to neoadjuvant therapy followed by TME, so patients should be carefully selected. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may be a suitable option for patients who prioritize postoperative quality of life. However, the effectiveness of this approach requires further research to draw a definitive conclusion.

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.

Is local excision an appropriate treatment modality in patients presenting with early-stage (cT1 N0 M0) rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Prior studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of local excision relative to surgical resection in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma have primarily included low rectal cancers treated with abdominoperineal resection as control comparison cohorts. The role of local excision in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma is incompletely defined.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019. Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of local excision instead of low anterior resection. Patients undergoing local excision were propensity score matched for age, sex, demographic characteristics, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity class score, and tumor grade and size to those undergoing low anterior resection. Short-term clinical outcomes and 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts were compared by standard methods.

RESULTS

A total of 5,693 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,973 patients underwent local excision and 3,720 low anterior resection. Age (adjusted odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.37), tumor histology (poorly differentiated histology: adjusted odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86), and size (>4 cm: adjusted odds ratio 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.25) were associated with choice of intervention. On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing LE demonstrated shorter hospital stay (2.4 ±9.8 vs 5.6 ±8.1 days; P < .001) and lower readmission rate (4% vs 7%; P = .002) but higher margin-positive resection rates (8% vs 2%; P < .001). Overall survival profiles for patients undergoing local excision were comparable with those for low anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma, local excision is associated with a higher margin-positive resection rate than low anterior resection but affords accelerated postprocedure recovery and comparable rates of overall survival.

Current Surgical Methods in Local Rectal Excision

Background

The treatment of rectal cancer has evolved with the advancement of surgical techniques. Less invasive approaches are becoming more accepted as the primary treatment method.

Summary

Such methods as transanal excision, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, and transanal minimally invasive surgery can reduce morbidity and mortality rates. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for these procedures, and proper diagnostics are necessary to establish indications. Compared to total mesorectal excision, transanal excision techniques have been shown to have fewer complications and comorbidities while still being able to remove cancerous tissue entirely. Transanal excision is the simplest method, where the operator removes visible rectal lesions. The basic principle of transanal endoscopic microsurgery is to dilate the rectum mechanically and by air insufflation and then use special surgical instruments to remove suspicious lesions under the vision of a telescope. Transanal minimally invasive surgery combines transanal endoscopic microsurgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery, making the hard-to-reach proximal rectum accessible to classic laparoscopic instruments.

Key Message

Local excision techniques, when used as a monotherapy for treating patients with rectal cancer, have established themselves as a curative and less radical treatment for strictly selected patients with early rectal carcinoma, leading to improved quality of life. When combined with other modalities such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total neoadjuvant therapy, and immunotherapy, transanal surgery can be offered to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer as part of the organ preservation strategy. This review will discuss the patient selection and technical aspects of transanal surgery, showcasing its current role in treating rectal carcinoma.

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

OBJECTIVE

Compare oncological long-term and short-term outcomes between patients with distal cT2NO rectal cancer treated with chemoradio-therapy and local excision (CRT + LE) and patients treated with total mesorectal excision (TME).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Previous studies showed that CRT + LE is equivalent to TME in local tumor control and survival for T2N0 rectal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients with cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT + LE in the ACOSOG Z6041 trial were compared to a cohort of 79 patients with pT2N0 tumors treated with upfront TME in the Dutch TME trial. Survival, short-term outcomes, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three patients (4%) in the CRT + LE group required abdominoperineal resection, compared with 31 (40%) in the TME group. Forty TME patients (51%) required a permanent stoma. CRT-related toxicity occurred in 43% of the CRT + LE patients; however, TME patients had a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation (1 vs 9%; P = 0 .03). Five-year disease-free survival {88.2% [confidence interval (CI), 77.7%-93.9%] vs 88.3% [CI, 78.7%-93.7%]; P = 0.88} and overall survival [90.3% (CI, 80.8%-95.3%) vs 88.4% (CI, 78.9%-93.8%); P = 0 .82] were similar in the 2 groups. Compared to baseline, overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in the TME group. In both groups, patients with sphincter preservation had worse HRQOL scores 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: In patients who underwent CRT + LE, oncological outcomes were similar to those of patients who underwent TME, with fewer complications requiring reoperation but significant CRT toxicity. Although overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in TME patients, when considering anorectal function, results were worse in both groups.

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 resection versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal surgical approach for early-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. Radical resection is considered to be the gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. More and more studies show that local resection can replace traditional radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer. This research aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision and radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer and report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.

RESULTS

Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. 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 = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision After Transanal Local Excision of Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the quality of completion resections and the impact on oncological safety remain unanswered.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize and analyze the outcomes associated with completion surgery and undertake a comparative analysis with primary rectal resections.

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included PubMed, Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting any outcome of completion surgery after transanal local excision of an early rectal cancer were selected. Case reports, studies of benign lesions, and studies using flexible endoscopic techniques were not included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was completion total mesorectal excision after transanal local excision of early rectal cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures included histopathological and long-term oncological outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision. Secondary outcome measures included short-term perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 646 patients met the eligibility criteria, and 8 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients undergoing completion surgery have longer operative times (standardized mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0002) and higher intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.01-0.5; p = 0.04) compared with primary resections, but perioperative morbidity is comparable (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62; p = 0.08). Completion surgery is associated with higher rates of incomplete mesorectal specimens (risk ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.41-6.62; p = 0.005) and lower lymph node yields (standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.06; p = 0.01). Comparative analysis on long-term outcomes is limited, but no evidence of inferior recurrence or survival rates is found.

LIMITATIONS

Only small retrospective cohort and case-control studies are published on this topic, with considerable heterogeneity limiting the effectiveness of meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides the strongest evidence to date that completion surgery is associated with an inferior histopathological grade of the mesorectum and finds insufficient long-term results to satisfy concerns regarding oncological safety. International collaborative research is required to demonstrate noninferiority.

REGISTRATION NO

CRD42021245101.

Total Mesorectal Excision vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Followed by Radiotherapy for T2N0M0 Distal Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an organ-preserving treatment alternative for patients with early rectal cancer. However, TEM alone is associated with greater risk of local recurrence and inferior survival in comparison with total meso-rectal excision (TME). As an important adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy can effectively reduce the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether TEM followed by radiotherapy can be a valid alternative to TME in T2N0M0 distal rectal cancer treatment.

Methods

We plan to recruit 168 participants meeting established inclusion criteria. Following informed consent, participants will randomly receive treatment protocols of TEM followed by radiotherapy (a total dose of 45–50.4 Gy given in 25–28 factions) or TME. Depending on post-operative pathology, the participants will receive either long-term follow-up or further treatment. The primary endpoint of this trial is 3-year local recurrence rate. The secondary end points include 3-year disease-free survival rate, 3-year overall survival rate, 3-year mortality rate, post-operative quality of life, post-operative safety index, intraoperative evaluation index and post-operative short-term evaluation index.

Discussion

This trial is the first prospective randomized trial to investigate the rectum preserving treatment by using transanal local excision followed by radiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098471 on September 20, 2019.

Long-term outcomes of patients with poor prognostic factors following transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer

AIM

Management of early rectal cancer following transanal microscopic anal surgery poses a management dilemma when the histopathology reveals poor prognostic features, due to high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of such patients who undergo surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME), receive adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy (CRDT/RT) or receive close surveillance only (no further treatment).

METHODS

We identified patients with poor prognostic factors-pT2 adenocarcinoma, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion (Kikuchi SM3), lymphovascular invasion, tumour budding or R1 resection margin-between 1 September 2012 and 31 January 2020 and report their oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients, 18 had TME, 14 had CRDT and 14 had RT; seven patients did not have any further treatment. The median follow-up was 48 months, 12 developed recurrence and six died. Overall, 5-year survival (OS) was 88.9% and disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.2%. Compared to the surgical group, in which there were eight recurrences and two deaths, there were zero recurrences or deaths in the CRDT group, log-rank test P = 0.206 for OS and P = 0.005 for DFS. The 5-year survival rates in the RT and surveillance only groups were OS 78.6%, DFS 85.7% and OS 71.5%, DFS 71% respectively. TME assessment in the surgical group revealed Grade 3 quality in seven of the 16 available reports.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the strategy of adjuvant CRDT as first line treatment for patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer with poor prognostic factors on initial histological assessment.

Can transanal endoscopic microsurgery effectively treat T1 or T2 rectal cancer?A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

We aimed to compare the safety and oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and radical surgery (RS) for patients with T1 or T2 rectal cancer.

METHOD

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies comparing TEM with RS in rectal cancer published until April 2020. We focused on safety and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 3526 patients from 12 studies. Compared with RS, TEM had a shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -110.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 143.98, -76.06), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD -493.63, 95% CI: 772.66, -214.59), lower perioperative morality (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.99), and fewer postoperative surgical complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11,0.45). TEM was associated with more patients with a positive margin or a doubtfully complete margin than RS (RR 7.36, 95% CI: 3.66, 14.78). TEM was associated with higher local recurrence (RR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.60, 4.31) and overall recurrence (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.36). TEM had a negative effect on 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.96), especially in the T2 without neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) subgroup (HR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.32, 3.09), but in the subgroups of T1 or T2 with NAT before TEM, TEM did not yield a significantly lower overall survival than RS.

CONCLUSION

TEM seems appropriate for T1 rectal cancer with favourable histopathology. For patients with T2 rectal cancer, NAT before TEM may contribute to achieving oncological outcomes equivalent to that achieved with RS.

Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes. This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the "PICO" process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery. The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%-91.7% and 80%-94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%-94.3% and 94.4%-97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09-1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01-1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50-4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15-0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present. In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process.

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.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer

A proportion of patients with rectal cancer who undergo neoadjuvant treatment end up with a complete pathological response. Because these patients have excellent oncological outcomes, many have questioned if surgical treatment in this population constitutes overtreatment. There is growing interest in watch and wait with selective organ preservation for rectal cancer patients. We review the fundamentals and key considerations of this approach including patient selection, available treatment regimens, assessment of response, long-term monitoring of response, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Primary local excision of stage 1 rectal cancer is not associated with worse oncological outcomes when compared with major resection

PURPOSE

Primary local excision (PLE) for early rectal cancers is associated with decreased surgical morbidity and mortality compared with major resection (MR). However, it is thought to be associated with poorer oncological outcomes. There is a paucity of data regarding PLE within the Australasian population. We present comparative post-operative and survival outcomes for stage 1 rectal cancers treated with PLE or MR from three Western Australian hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing PLE or MR for stage 1 rectal cancers between February 1996 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 533 patients, 81 underwent PLE. Median post-operative admission was shorter for those undergoing PLE, with no significant difference in post-operative complication rate. Five-year overall survival was greater following MR (89.6% CI 86.1-92.3) compared with PLE (84.6% CI 73.8-91.2; p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in 5-year cancer-specific survival (MR, 94.4% CI 91.5-96.3; PLE, 95.3% CI 86.0-98.5; p = 0.98) or 5-year disease-free survival (MR, 92.3% CI 89.1-94.7; PLE, 89.1% CI 78.5-94.7; p = 0.36). Local excision provided poorer local tumour control with an inferior 5-year local recurrence rate (MR, 2.16% CI 1.08-4.28; PLE, 10.9% CI 5.30-21.6; p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounders, PLE was significantly associated with worse local recurrence but did not significantly impact overall survival, cancer-specific survival, overall recurrence, or metastatic recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Local excision of early rectal cancer remains a viable alternative, in those unwilling or unable to undergo MR. Patients should be informed that while PLE is associated with poorer local pelvic control, this does not translate to worse survival.

Local excision followed by early radical surgery in rectal cancer: long-term outcome

Background

In rectal cancers, radical surgery should follow local excisions, in cases of unexpected, unfavorable tumor characteristics. The oncological results of this completion surgery are inconsistent.

This retrospective cohort study assessed the clinical and long-term oncological outcomes of patients that underwent completion surgery to clarify whether a local excision compromised the results of radical surgery.

Methods

Forty-six patients were included, and the reasons for completion surgery, intraoperative complications, residual tumors, local recurrences (LRs), distant metastases, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed. The results were compared to 583 patients that underwent primary surgery without adjuvant therapy, treated with a curative intention during the same time period.

Results

The median follow-up was 14.6 years. The reasons for undergoing completion surgery were positive resection margins (24%), high-risk cancer (30%), or both (46%). Intraoperative perforations occurred in 10/46 (22%) cases. Residual tumor in the rectal wall or lymph node involvement occurred in 12/46 (26%) cases. The risk of intraoperative perforation and residual tumor increased with the pT category. Intraoperative perforations did not increase postoperative complications, but they increased the risk of LRs in cases of intramural residual tumors (p = 0.003). LRs occurred in 2.6% of pT1/2 and 29% of pT3 tumors. Both the 5- and 10-year CSS rates were 88.8% (95% CI 80.0–98.6). Moreover, the LRs of patients with pT1/2 cancers were lower in patients with completion surgery than in patients with primary surgery.

Conclusions

Rectal wall perforations at the local excision site and residual cancer were the main risks for poor oncological outcomes associated with completion surgery. Local excisions followed by early radical surgery did not appear to compromise outcomes compared to patients with primary surgery for pT1/2 rectal cancer. Improvements in clinical staging should allow more appropriate selection of patients that are eligible for a local excision of rectal cancer.

Locally Excised T1 Rectal Cancers: Need for Specialized Surveillance Protocols

BACKGROUND

Local excision of T1 rectal cancers helps avoid major surgery, but the frequency and pattern of recurrence may be different than for patients treated with total mesorectal excision.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate pattern, frequency, and means of detection of recurrence in a closely followed cohort of patients with locally excised T1 rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review.

SETTINGS

Patients treated by University of Minnesota-affiliated physicians, 1994 to 2014, were selected.

PATIENTS

Patients had pathologically confirmed T1 rectal cancer treated with local excision and had at least 3 months of follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent local excision of T1 rectal cancer, followed by multimodality follow-up with physical examination, CEA, CT, endorectal ultrasound, and proctoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the presence of local recurrence and the means of detection of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients met the inclusion criteria. The local recurrence rate was 11.4%, and the rate of distant metastasis was 2.6%. Local recurrences occurred up to 7 years after local excision. Of the 14 patients with recurrence, 10 of the recurrences were found by ultrasound and/or proctoscopy rather than by traditional methods of surveillance such as CEA or imaging. Of these 10 patients, 4 had an apparent scar on proctoscopy, and ultrasound alone revealed findings concerning for recurrent malignancy. One had recurrent malignancy demonstrated on ultrasound, but no concurrent proctoscopy was performed.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective review, and the study was conducted at an institution where endorectal ultrasound is readily available.

CONCLUSIONS

Locally excised T1 rectal cancers should have specific surveillance guidelines distinct from stage I cancers treated with total mesorectal excision. These guidelines should incorporate a method of local surveillance that should be extended beyond the traditional 5-year interval of surveillance. An ultrasound or MRI in addition to or instead of flexible sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy should also be strongly considered. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979. CÁNCERES RECTALES T1 EXTIRPADOS LOCALMENTE: NECESIDAD DE PROTOCOLOS DE VIGILANCIA ESPECIALIZADOS: La escisión local de los cánceres de recto T1 ayuda a evitar una cirugía mayor, pero la frecuencia y el patrón de recurrencia pueden ser diferentes a los de los pacientes tratados con escisión mesorectal total.

OBJETIVO

Evaluar el patrón, la frecuencia y los medios de detección de recidiva en una cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 extirpado localmente bajo un régimen de seguimiento especifico. DISEÑO:: Revisión retrospectiva.

AJUSTES

Pacientes tratados por hospitales afiliados a la Universidad de Minnesota, 1994-2014 PACIENTES:: Pacientes con cáncer de recto T1 confirmado patológicamente, tratados con escisión local y con al menos 3 meses de seguimiento.

INTERVENCIONES

Extirpación local del cáncer de recto T1, con un seguimiento multimodal incluyendo examen físico, antígeno carcinoembrionario (CEA), TC, ecografía endorrectal y proctoscopia.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

Presencia de recurrencia local y medios de detección de recurrencia.

RESULTADOS

Un total de 114 pacientes cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. La tasa de recurrencia local fue del 11,4% y la tasa de metástasis a distancia fue del 2,6%. Las recurrencias locales se presentaron hasta 7 años después de la escisión local. De los 14 pacientes con recurrencia, 10 de las recurrencias se detectaron por ultrasonido y / o proctoscopia en lugar de los métodos tradicionales de vigilancia, como CEA o imágenes. De estos diez pacientes, cuatro tenían una cicatriz aparente en la proctoscopia y el ultrasonido solo reveló hallazgos relacionados con tumores malignos recurrentes. En una ecografía se demostró malignidad recurrente, pero no se realizó proctoscopia concurrente.

LIMITACIONES

Revisión retrospectiva; estudio realizado en una institución donde se dispone fácilmente de ultrasonido endorrectal CONCLUSIONES:: Los cánceres de recto T1 extirpados localmente deben tener una vigilancia específica distinta de los cánceres en etapa I tratados con TME. El régimen de seguimiento deberá de extender más allá del intervalo tradicional de 5 años de vigilancia. También se debe considerar la posibilidad de realizar una ecografía o una resonancia magnética (IRM) además de la sigmoidoscopía flexible o la proctoscopía. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A979.

For Patients with Early Rectal Cancer, Does Local Excision Have an Impact on Recurrence, Survival, and Quality of Life Relative to Radical Resection?

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate treatment for early-stage rectal cancers is controversial. The advantages of local excision regarding morbidity and function must be weighed against poorer oncologic efficacy. This study aimed to clarify further the role for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data addressing five key questions about outcomes of local versus radical resection of rectal cancer were analyzed.

RESULTS

The 16 studies identified by this study were mostly retrospective, and none were randomized. Local excision was associated with fewer complications and better functional outcome than radical resection. Of 12 studies evaluating local recurrence, 6 showed a higher local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision. Two additional studies showed no increase in local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision of T1 lesions but a significantly higher local recurrence rate among those who underwent local excision of T2 lesions. High histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and depth within submucosa were features associated with a higher risk of local recurrence. In 7 of 15 studies, long-term survival was reduced compared with that of patients who underwent radical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although local excision for early-stage rectal cancer is associated with increased local recurrence and decreased overall survival compared with radical resection, local excision may be appropriate for select individuals who have T1 tumors with no adverse pathologic features.

Short course radiation therapy for rectal cancer in the elderly: can radical surgery be avoided?

Rectal cancer in elderly patients can be difficult to manage. Short course radiation therapy (SCRT) has shown to be effective when given immediately prior to surgery. Here we report outcomes of elderly patients who underwent SCRT either alone or prior to resection. Between 2010 and 2015, elderly patients with rectal cancer and no distant metastatic disease were identified. Symptoms at diagnosis, therapies, toxicities, and pathologic and clinical response were recorded from patient charts. The SCRT prescription dose was 5 Gy ×5 to the rectal tumor and 4 Gy ×5 to the mesorectum, omitting the iliac nodes. Twenty patients were identified with median age of 85 years (range, 71-93 years). No patient received systemic therapy. Sixty percent of patients were cT3 at diagnosis. Half underwent resection post SCRT and half received SCRT as definitive therapy. The 1- and 2-year overall survival was 75% and 54%. Overall survival did not differ between patients treated with SCRT and surgery compared to SCRT alone (P=0.8). Of the 10 surgical patients, 3 had a complete pathologic response at time of resection and 3 patients died within 2 weeks due to perioperative complications. Of patients treated with SCRT alone, 8 were symptomatic at presentation and 5 had a clinician defined symptomatic response. No patient treated with SCRT monotherapy required additional palliative measures for outflow obstruction, but 2 progressed locally and died. SCRT is well tolerated, results in pathologic complete responses in a small percentage of patients, and achieves 63% symptom improvement rate as monotherapy. A high peri-operative complication rate was observed in this small series. In elderly patients, SCRT as initial treatment with a watch and wait approach for surgery is feasible and should be evaluated prospectively.

Outcomes following completion and salvage surgery for early rectal cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To establish outcomes after completion and salvage surgery following local excision in literature published since 2005, to inform decision-making when offering local excision.

BACKGROUND

Local excision of early rectal cancer aims to offer cure while maintaining quality of life through organ preservation. However, some patients will require radical surgery, prompted by unexpected poor pathology or local recurrence. Consistent definition and reporting of these scenarios is poor. We propose the term "salvage surgery" for recurrence after local excision and "completion surgery" for poor pathology.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched in February 2016. Studies since 2005 describing outcomes for radical surgery following local excision of rectal cancer were included. Pooled and average values were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies included 262 completion and 165 salvage operations. Most completion operations were done within 4 weeks; local recurrence rate was 5% and overall disease recurrence rate was 14%. The majority of salvage operations for local recurrence were within 15 months of local excision, often following adjuvant treatment. Re-do local excision was used in 15%; APR was the most common radical procedure. Further local recurrence was uncommon (3%) but overall disease recurrence rate was 13%. Estimated 5-year survival was in the order of 50%. Heterogeneity was high among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing local excision must be informed of risks and expected outcomes, but better data on completion and salvage surgery are required to achieve this.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014014758.

Indications and Outcomes From 32 Consecutive Patients for the Treatment of Rectal Lesions by Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, perioperative morbidity, and short-term outcomes of the transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) technique.

METHODS

This is a descriptive review of prospectively collected data from 32 consecutive patients who underwent TAMIS procedures in our colorectal unit over a 40-month period. GelPOINT Path port was used in all cases. Demographic data, indications, tumor characteristics, morbidity, and follow-up data were collected. Primary endpoints included feasibility, safety, perioperative morbidity, and resection quality.

RESULTS

Fifteen adenomas, 12 carcinomas, 1 gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and 1 neuroendocrine tumor were locally excised. Additionally, 3 pelvic abscesses were drained transanally using the TAMIS port. Mean distance from the anal verge was 5.6 ± 1.5 cm. Early postoperative complications occurred in 22%, with only one case of major complication (3.1%) requiring reoperation, and no postoperative mortality. Four carcinomas were understaged (33.3%) and 1 adenoma overstaged (6.7%) preoperatively. Three carcinomas were not suspected preoperatively (25%). Microscopic positive lateral margin was found in one case, and no affected deep margin was found. Fragmentation rate was 6.9%, 2 cases, both lesions over 20 cm². In cases of fit patients with high-risk carcinomas, 2 underwent immediate salvage surgery and another 2 refused and were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. With a median follow-up of 26 months, the overall recurrence rate was 10.3%, 1 adenoma and 2 carcinomas.

CONCLUSION

TAMIS seems to be a safe and reproducible procedure for local excision of well-selected rectal lesions with low morbidity and good functional outcomes.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery: Review of Indications and Outcomes from 75 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an advanced local excision platform that helps overcome technical limitations and morbidity associated with other resection methods. Our goal was to review the indications and outcomes of TAMIS in a large series.

STUDY DESIGN

A review of a prospective database identified patients who underwent TAMIS from 2010 to 2014. Demographic, perioperative, short-term outcomes, and recurrence data were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 75 patients with 76 lesions analyzed. Mean age was 64.0 years (SD 11.6 years) and mean BMI was 27.4 kg/m(2) (SD 4.7 kg/m(2)). Median American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was 2 (range 1 to 4). There were 59 benign (77.3%) and 17 malignant (22.7%) lesions: 6 pT0, 6 pT1, 4 pT2, and 1 pT3. Median lesion distance from the anal verge was 10 cm (range 6 to 16 cm). Mean operative time was 76.0 minutes (SD 36.1 minutes). Three patients had intraperitoneal entry; all were closed transanally, but 2 had temporary diverting ileostomies fashioned to ensure healing. Median length of stay was 1 day (range 0 to 6). One patient had a fragmented lesion (1.3%). Five patients had positive margins: 2 in palliative pT2 resections, and 3 in pT1, pT2, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients. They were managed with radical resection (pT1 and pT2 lesions) and surveillance/medical oncology (GIST). Postoperatively, 3 patients had complications (bleeding, rectal stricture, and recto-vaginal fistula), and all were managed nonoperatively. After median follow-up of 39.5 months (range 10.5 to 65.3 months), 1 pT1 patient with negative margins developed a local recurrence and underwent salvage APR.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal minimally invasive surgery is a viable option for excision of benign or early stage rectal masses, with mid-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of radical resection. Further, TAMIS minimizes the morbidity and can allow more patients to benefit from the minimally invasive approach.

Local excision by transanal endoscopic surgery

Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) consists of a series of anorectal surgical procedures using different devices that are introduced into the anal canal. TES has been developed significantly since it was first used in the 1980s. The key point for the success of these techniques is how accurately patients are selected. The main indication was the resection of endoscopically unresectable adenomas. In recent years, these techniques have become more widespread which has allowed them to be applied in conservative rectal procedures for both benign diseases and selected cases of rectal cancer. For more advanced rectal cancers it should be considered palliative or, in some controlled trials, experimental. The role of newer endoscopic techniques available has not yet been defined. TES may allow for new strategies in the treatment of rectal pathology, like transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery or total mesorectal excision.

Current status of local treatment for early rectal cancer in Japan: a questionnaire survey by the 81st Congress of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) in 2014

PURPOSE

The aim of this questionnaire survey was to assess the change in treatment modality over time and the current status of clinical outcomes of local treatment in Japanese patients with pathological T1 (pT1) rectal tumors.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was conducted by the 81st Congress of the Japan Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Clinical and pathological outcomes of all eligible patients undergoing local treatment were retrospectively collected from the medical records of each participating hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 1371 pT1 patients from January 2006 to December 2008 (Period A), and 659 patients in 2013 (Period B) were registered. Approximately 70 % of patients underwent radical surgery in both periods. The rate of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery increased from 46.5 % in Period A to 84.7 % in Period B. The indications for local excision were comparable with those for endoscopic intervention in 78 % of institutions. The rate of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) increased from 20.1 % in Period A to 37.9 % in Period B, whereas local excision decreased from 36.9 to 24.1 %. Few patients received adjuvant therapy, and approximately 40 % of patients underwent additional surgery in both periods. Local recurrence was observed in 9.2 % of patients in Period A, with the median follow-up period being 59 months. Eighty-two percent of patients with local recurrence underwent salvage surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Local treatment with various modalities was properly performed for early rectal cancer. The number of less invasive modalities, such as laparoscopic surgery and ESD, increased between study periods.

Low rectal cancer: Sphincter preserving techniques-selection of patients, techniques and outcomes

Low rectal cancer is traditionally treated by abdominoperineal resection. In recent years, several new techniques for the treatment of very low rectal cancer patients aiming to preserve the gastrointestinal continuity and to improve both the oncological as well as the functional outcomes, have been emerged. Literature suggest that when the intersphincteric resection is applied in T1-3 tumors located within 30-35 mm from the anal verge, is technically feasible, safe, with equal oncological outcomes compared to conventional surgery and acceptable quality of life. The Anterior Perineal PlanE for Ultra-low Anterior Resection technique, is not disrupting the sphincters, but carries a high complication rate, while the reports on the oncological and functional outcomes are limited. Transanal Endoscopic MicroSurgery (TEM) and TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) should represent the treatment of choice for T1 rectal tumors, with specific criteria according to the NCCN guidelines and favorable pathologic features. Alternatively to the standard conventional surgery, neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by TEM or TAMIS seems promising for tumors of a local stage T1sm2-3 or T2. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision should be performed only when a board approved protocol is available by colorectal surgeons with extensive experience in minimally invasive and transanal endoscopic surgery.

Local excision for early rectal cancer: transanal endoscopic microsurgery and beyond

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic control while minimizing the long-term impact of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most stage I and II rectal cancers is radical surgery alone, specifically total mesorectal excision (TME). For early rectal cancers, this procedure is usually curative but can have a substantial impact on quality of life, including the possibility of permanent colostomy and the potential for short and long-term bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, alternative approaches to management of early rectal cancer have been explored, including local excision (LE) via transanal excision (TAE) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Compared to the gold standard of radical surgery, local procedures for strictly selected early rectal cancers should lead to identical oncological results and even better outcomes regarding morbidity, mortality, and quality of life.