Outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision are not compromised by prior transanal minimally invasive surgery

Current treatment of pT1 rectal cancers in Denmark: A retrospective national cohort study

AIM

Organ preservation strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly common. In appropriately selected patients, local excision (LE) of pT1 cancers can reduce morbidity without compromising cancer-related outcomes. However, determining the need for completion surgery after LE can be challenging, and it is unknown if prior LE compromises subsequent total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this study is to describe the current management of patients with pT1 rectal cancers.

METHOD

This is a retrospective national cohort study of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database, including patients with newly diagnosed pT1 cancers between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified according to treatment into LE alone, completion TME after LE or upfront TME. The treatment and outcomes of these groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1056 patients were included. Initial LE was performed in 715 patients (67.7%), of whom 194 underwent completion TME (27.1%). The remaining 341 patients underwent upfront TME (32.3%). Patients undergoing LE alone were more likely to be male with low rectal cancers and greater comorbidity. No differences in specimen quality or perioperative outcomes were noted between patients undergoing completion or upfront TME. Eighty-five patients (15.9%) had lymph node metastases (LNM). Pathological risk factors poorly discriminated between patients with and without LNM, with similar rates seen in patients with zero (14.1%), one (12.0%) or two (14.4%) risk factors.

CONCLUSION

LE is a key component of the treatment of pT1 rectal cancer and does not appear to affect the outcomes of completion TME. Patient selection for completion TME remains a major challenge, with current stratification methods appearing to be inadequate.

Completion total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and local excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Local excision (LE) in selected cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in clinically complete or major responders has been recently reported as an alternative to standard radical resection. Completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is generally performed when high-risk pathological features are found in LE surgical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual tumour and lymph node metastases after cTME in patients previously treated by RCT + LE. The secondary aims were to quantify the rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome of this group of patients.

METHODS

All patients treated from 2007 to 2020 by LE for locally advanced rectal cancer with a clinically complete or major response to RCT who had a subsequent cTME for high-risk pathological factors (ypT >1 and/or TRG >2 and/or positive margins) were included in this multicentre retrospective study. Pathological data, postoperative short-term morbidity (classified according to Clavien-Dindo) and mortality and oncological long-term outcome after cTME were recorded in a database. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard for iOS version 1.9.31.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were included in the study. The rate of R0 resection was 95.7%, and a sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 37 patients (78.7%), with a protective stoma rate of 78.4%. In 28 cases (59.6%), it was possible to perform a minimally invasive approach. A residual tumour (pT and/or pN) on cTME specimens was found in 21 cases (44.7%). The rate of lymph node metastases was 12.8%. The overall short-term (within 30 days) postoperative morbidity was 34%, but grade >2 postoperative complications occurred in only nine patients (19.1%), with a reoperation rate of 6.4%. No short-term postoperative deaths occurred. At a median follow-up of 57 months (range: 21-174), the long-term stoma-free rate was 70.2%, and the actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local control (LC) were 86.7%, 88.9% and 95.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When patients exhibit high-risk pathological factors after RCT + LE, cTME should be suggested due to the high risk of residual tumour or lymph node involvement (44.7%). The results after cTME in terms of the rate of R0 resection, sphincter-saving procedure, postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term oncological outcome seem to be acceptable and do not represent a contraindication to use LE as a first-step treatment in patients with major or complete clinical response after RCT.

Optimisation of Organ Preservation treatment strategies in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy: Additional contact X-ray brachytherapy versus eXtending the observation period and local excision (OPAXX) - protocol for two multicentre, parallel, single-arm, phase II studies

INTRODUCTION

Standard treatment for patients with intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer is (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. In recent years, organ preservation aiming at improving quality of life has been explored. Patients with a complete clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy can be managed safely with a watch-and-wait approach. However, the optimal organ-preserving treatment strategy for patients with a good, but not complete clinical response remains unclear. The aim of the OPAXX study is to determine the rate of organ preservation that can be achieved in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy by additional local treatment options.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The OPAXX study is a Dutch multicentre study that investigates the efficacy of two additional local treatments aiming at organ preservation in patients with a good, but not complete response to neoadjuvant treatment (ie near-complete response or a small residual tumour mass <3 cm). The sample size will be 168 patients in total. Patients will be randomised (1:1) between two parallel single-arm phase II studies: study arm 1 involves additional contact X-ray brachytherapy (an intraluminal radiation boost), while in study arm 2 the observation period is extended followed by a second response evaluation and optional transanal local excision. The primary endpoint of the study is the rate of successful organ preservation at 1 year following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include toxicity, morbidity, oncological and functional outcomes at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Finally, an observational cohort study for patients who are not eligible for randomisation is conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol has been approved by the medical ethics committee of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (METC20.1276/M20PAX). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The trial results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05772923.

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.

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is a reliable method in the selection of rectal neoplasms for local excision

PURPOSE

Adequate staging of early rectal neoplasms is essential for organ-preserving treatments, but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) frequently overestimates the stage of those lesions. We aimed to compare the ability of magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI to select patients with early rectal neoplasms for local excision.

METHODS

This retrospective study in a tertiary Western cancer center included consecutive patients evaluated by magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI who underwent en bloc resection of nonpedunculated sessile polyps larger than 20 mm, laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) [Formula: see text] 20 mm, or depressed-type lesions of any size (Paris 0-IIc). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of magnifying chromoendoscopy and MRI to determine which lesions were amenable to local excision (i.e., [Formula: see text] T1sm1) were calculated.

RESULTS

Specificity of magnifying chromoendoscopy was 97.3% (95% CI 92.2-99.4), and accuracy was 92.7% (95% CI 86.7-96.6) for predicting invasion deeper than T1sm1 (not amenable to local excision). MRI had lower specificity (60.5%, 95% CI 43.4-76.0) and lower accuracy (58.3%, 95% CI 43.2-72.4). Magnifying chromoendoscopy incorrectly predicted invasion depth in 10.7% of the cases in which the MRI was correct, while magnifying chromoendoscopy provided a correct diagnosis in 90% of the cases in which the MRI was incorrect (p = 0.001). Overstaging occurred in 33.3% of the cases in which magnifying chromoendoscopy was incorrect and 75% of the cases in which MRI was incorrect.

CONCLUSION

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is reliable for predicting invasion depth in early rectal neoplasms and selecting patients for local excision.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).

Background

Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.

Results

In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.

Conclusions

cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Rectal Sparing Approaches after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Local Excision and Watch and Wait

Local Excision (LE) or Watch and Wait (WW) for patients with complete clinical response or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) were proposed to avoid morbidity and impairment of quality of life after rectal resection. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature, and to compare rectal-sparing approaches, in terms of rectum-preservation rate, local control, and distant recurrences. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of studies published until July 2022 (PROSPERO, registration CRD42022341480), and the quality of evidence was assessed using a GRADE approach. Seven retrospective studies and one prospective trial were included. In six studies, patients were treated with standard long-course nCRT, and in two with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT). Overall, there were 213 and 188 patients in WW and LE group, respectively, and no difference was found between WW and LE when considering rectum-preservation rate (OR 0.80 95%CI 0.31-2.01, p = 0.63), local disease (OR 1.60 95%CI 0.75-3.42, p = 0.22), locoregional failure (OR 0.85 95%CI 0.20-3.66, p = 0.83) and distant recurrence (OR 0.76 95%CI 0.37-1.55, p = 0.45). Studies directly comparing WW and LE are still lacking, even though no differences between WW and LE in terms of rectum-preservation, local control, and distant recurrences have been found.

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.

Implementation of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for rectal neoplasms: results from a single centre

Background

Local excisions are important in a tailored approach to treatment of rectal neoplasms. In cases of low risk T1 local excision facilitates rectal-preserving treatment. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is the most recent alternative developed for local excision. In this study we evaluate the results after implementing TAMIS as the routine procedure for local excision of rectal neoplasms.

Methods

All patients who underwent TAMIS from January 2016 to January 2020 at St. Olav’s University Hospital were included, and clinical, pathological and oncological data were prospectively registered. The primary endpoint was local recurrence, and the secondary endpoint was complications.

Results

There were 76 patients (42 men, mean age was 69 years [range 26–88 years]), The mean tumour level was 82 mm (range 20–140 mm) from the anal verge measured on rigid proctoscopy, and mean tumour size was 32 mm (range 8–73 mm). Three patients experienced complications needing intervention (Clavien–Dindo > 3A). Seventeen patients had rectal adenocarcinoma, 9 of whom underwent R0 completion total mesorectal excision (cTME). Fifty-five patients had an adenoma, 3 of whom developed recurrence (5.4%) within 12 months. All recurrences were treated successfully with a new TAMIS procedure. In addition, TAMIS was used in treatment of 2 patients with a neuroendocrine tumour, 1 patient with a haemangioma and 1 patient with a solitary rectal ulcer.

Conclusions

TAMIS surgery is associated with a low risk of complications and a low recurrence rate in rectal neoplasms. In cases of adenocarcinoma, R0 cTME surgery is feasible in the sub-group with high risk T1 and T2 tumours.

Early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after organ preservation failure in rectal cancer does not worsen postoperative outcomes compared to primary TME: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

While oncological outcomes of early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after local excision (LE) have been well studied, the impact of LE before TME on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to compare early sTME with a primary TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with the random-effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

We retrieved eleven relevant articles including 1728 patients (350 patients in the sTME group and 1438 patients in the TME group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (OR = 0.90, 95%CI [0.21 to 3.77], p = 0.88), morbidity (OR = 1.19, 95%CI [0.59 to 2.38], p = 0.63), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.34, 95%CI [0.61 to 2.94], p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (OR = 1.38, 95%CI [0.50 to 3.83], p = 0.53), hospital stay (MD = 0.23 day, 95%CI [- 1.63 to 2.10], p < 0.81), diverting stoma rate (OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.44 to 1.09], p = 0.11), abdominoperineal resection rate (OR = 1.47, 95%CI [0.91 to 2.37], p = 0.11), local recurrence (OR = 0.94, 95%CI [0.44 to 2.04], p = 0.88), and distant recurrence (OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.52 to 1.48], p = 0.62). sTME was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD = 25.62 min, 95%CI[11.92 to 39.32], p < 0.001) lower number of harvested lymph nodes (MD =  - 2.25 lymph node, 95%CI [- 3.86 to - 0.65], p = 0.006), and higher proportion of incomplete TME (OR = 0.25, 95%CI [0.11 to 0.61], p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

sTME is not associated with increased postoperative morbidity, mortality, or local recurrence. However, the operative times are longer and yield a poor specimen quality.

The impact of transanal local excision of early rectal cancer on completion rectal resection without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The impact of transanal local excision (TAE) of early rectal cancer (ERC) on subsequent completion rectal resection (CRR) for unfavorable histology or margin involvement is unclear. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of TAE on CRR in patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature up to March 2020. Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting outcomes of CRR after TAE for ERC. We excluded patients who had neoadjuvant CRT and endoscopic local excision. Surgical, functional, pathological and oncological outcomes were assessed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 353 patients were included. Pathology following TAE was as follows T0 = 2 (0.5%); T1 = 154 (44.7%); T2 = 142 (41.2%); T3 = 43 (12.5%); Tx = 3 (0.8%); T not reported = 9. Fifty-three percent were > T1. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 80 (23.2%) patients. Postoperative major morbidity and mortality occurred in 22 (11.4%) and 3 (1.1%), patients, respectively. An incomplete mesorectal fascia resulting in defects of the mesorectum was reported in 30 (24.6%) cases. Thirteen (12%) patients developed recurrence: 8 (3.1%) local, 19 (7.3%) distant, 4 (1.5%) local and distant. The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 92%. Only 1 study assessed anal function reporting no continence disorders in 11 patients. In the meta-analysis, CRR after TAE showed an increased APR rate (OR 5.25; 95% CI 1.27-21.8; p 0.020) and incomplete mesorectum rate (OR 3.48; 95% CI 1.32-9.19; p 0.010) compared to primary total mesorectal excision (TME). Two case matched studies reported no difference in recurrence rate and disease free survival respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data are incomplete and of low quality. There was a tendency towards an increased risk of APR and poor specimen quality. It is necessary to improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of malignant rectal tumors in patients scheduled for TAE.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEMS) for Rectal Cancer: Patient Decision-making, Postoperative Experience and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND/AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) is a form of minimally invasive surgery for selected rectal cancers. The aim of this study was to explore the factors affecting patients' decision-making concerning the choice of surgical treatment as well as to measure the Quality of Life (QoL) post-TEMS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients with rectal cancer stage T1/T2-N0-M0 that underwent TEMS were studied. The questionnaires used included the Short Form SF12v2, Wexner Score (CCF-FIS) and the Sexual Function Questionnaire (SFQ). The patients' views on experience and treatment decision were obtained with a custom-designed questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed at a mean of 6.9 years following treatment.

RESULTS

The factors that influenced the patients' decisions were: experience satisfaction (p=0.003), postoperative bowel function (p<0.001), lower incontinence score (p=0.020) and agreement of TEMS experience with preoperative information (p=0.049). Treatment experience satisfaction was associated with family support (p=0.034) and agreement with preoperative information (p=0.047), better bowel function (p=0.026) and mental QoL (MCS) (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

factors important to patients when reflecting on treatment experience are adequate and reliable information, a good QoL and the presence of family support. Clinicians should incorporate those parameters in their practice when assisting patients in making a surgical treatment choice and provide informed consent on TEMS for rectal cancer.

Completion total mesorectal excision following transanal endoscopic microsurgery does not compromise outcomes in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) represents a choice of treatment in patients with neoplastic lesions in the rectum. When TEM fails, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is often required. However, a concern is whether cTME increases the rate of abdominoperineal resections (APR) and is associated with higher risk of incomplete mesorectal fascia (MRF) resection. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of cTME with primary TME (pTME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a nationwide study on all patients with cTME from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database between 2005 and 2015. Patients with cTME were compared to patients with pTME after propensity score matching (matching ratio 1:2). Matching variables were age, gender, tumor distance from anal verge, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients with cTME were compared with 120 patients with pTME. Patients with cTME experienced more intraoperative complications as compared to pTME patients (18.3% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.021). However, there was no difference in the rate of perforations at or near the tumor/previous TEM site (6.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.224), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.733) or 30-day morbidity (p = 0.86). On multivariate analysis, cTME was not a risk factor for APR (OR 2.49; 95% CI 0.95-6.56; p = 0.064) or incomplete MRF (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.48-3.63; p = 0.596). There was no difference in the rate of local recurrence between cTME and pTME (5.2% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.1), distant metastases (6.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 1), or survival (p = 0.081). The mean follow-up time was 6 years.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the largest so far on the subject, we find no difference in postoperative short- or long-term outcomes between cTME and pTME.

Nomograms and risk score models for predicting survival in rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a common digestive cancer worldwide. As a comprehensive treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), neoadjuvant therapy (NT) has been increasingly used as the standard treatment for clinical stage II/III rectal cancer. However, few patients achieve a complete pathological response, and most patients require surgical resection and adjuvant therapy. Therefore, identifying risk factors and developing accurate models to predict the prognosis of LARC patients are of great clinical significance.

AIM

To establish effective prognostic nomograms and risk score prediction models to predict overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for LARC treated with NT.

METHODS

Nomograms and risk factor score prediction models were based on patients who received NT at the Cancer Hospital from 2015 to 2017. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model were utilized to screen for prognostic risk factors, which were validated by the Cox regression method. Assessment of the performance of the two prediction models was conducted using receiver operating characteristic curves, and that of the two nomograms was conducted by calculating the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves. The results were validated in a cohort of 65 patients from 2015 to 2017.

RESULTS

Seven features were significantly associated with OS and were included in the OS prediction nomogram and prediction model: Vascular_tumors_bolt, cancer nodules, yN, body mass index, matchmouth distance from the edge, nerve aggression and postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen. The nomogram showed good predictive value for OS, with a C-index of 0.91 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.97) and good calibration. In the validation cohort, the C-index was 0.69 (95%CI: 0.53, 0.84). The risk factor prediction model showed good predictive value. The areas under the curve for 3- and 5-year survival were 0.811 and 0.782. The nomogram for predicting DFS included ypTNM and nerve aggression and showed good calibration and a C-index of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.69, 0.85). In the validation cohort, the C-index was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.61, 0.81). The prediction model for DFS also had good predictive value, with an AUC for 3-year survival of 0.784 and an AUC for 5-year survival of 0.754.

CONCLUSION

We established accurate nomograms and prediction models for predicting OS and DFS in patients with LARC after undergoing NT.

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.