Analysis of 116 cases of rectal cancer treated by transanal local excision

Clinical stage T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma: Is radical resection associated with improved overall survival in patients with low-risk histology?

BACKGROUND

Prior studies evaluating the efficacy of local excision compared to radical resection in the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma lacked sufficient power to identify differences in outcomes for patients with cT2 disease but low-risk histopathology. We compared the outcomes of local excision and radical resection for low-risk histopathology and high-risk histology of patients with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma to assess their outcomes.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database for patients presenting with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019 and categorized them as low-risk histopathology or high-risk histology. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality. We 1:1 propensity-matched patients who underwent local excision to patients who underwent radical resection and used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare overall survival for matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 4,446 patients selected, we classified 1,206 (27%) as high-risk histology and 3,240 (73%) as low-risk histopathology. Among the patients with high-risk histology, 121 (10%) underwent local excision and 1,085 (90%) underwent radical resection. Among the patients with low-risk histopathology, 340 (10%) underwent local excision and 2,900 (90%) radical resections. Whereas radical resection was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and increased overall survival for patients with high-risk histology, it was not for patients with low-risk histopathology.

CONCLUSION

The overall survival of patients with low-risk histopathology with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo local excision is similar to those of patients with low-risk histopathology who undergo radical resection, suggesting local excision is a reasonable approach for these patients. In contrast, radical resection provides a significant survival advantage for patients with high-risk histology and should remain their treatment of choice.

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.

Complex Procedures in Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Intraperitoneal Entry, Ultra Large Rectal Tumors, High Lesions, and Resection in the Anal Canal

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows the local excision of rectal tumors and achieves lower morbidity and mortality rates than total mesorectal excision. TEM can treat lesions up to 18 to 20 cm from the anal verge, obtaining good oncological results in T1 stage cancers and preserving sphincter function. TEM is technically demanding. Large lesions (>5 cm), those with high risk of perforation into the peritoneal cavity, those in the upper rectum or the rectosigmoid junction, and those in the anal canal are specially challenging. Primary suture after peritoneal perforation during TEM is safe and it does not necessarily require the creation of a protective stoma. We recommend closing the wall defect in all cases to avoid the risk of inadvertent perforation. It is important to identify these complex lesions promptly to transfer them to reference centers. This article summarizes complex procedures in TEM.

Prognostic Factors and Treatment of Recurrence after Local Excision of Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Indications for local excision in patients with rectal cancer remain controversial. We reviewed factors affecting survival rate and treatment effectiveness in cancer recurrence after local excision among patients with rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 831 patients was enrolled. Of these, 391 patients were diagnosed with primary rectal cancer and underwent local excision. A retrospective observational study was performed on patients who underwent full-thickness local excision for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

The median duration of follow-up was 61 months. The overall recurrence rate was 11.5%. The rate of local recurrence was 5.1%. Five-year overall survival rate among recurrent patients was 66.8%; the rate among patients who underwent salvage operation due to recurrence was 84.7%, compared with 44.2% among patients treated with non-operative management (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis of disease-free survival identified distance from the anal verge (p=0.038) and histologic grade (p=0.047) as factors predicting poor prognosis. Multivariate analysis of overall survival showed that age (p<0.001), serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (p=0.001), and histologic grade (p=0.013) also affected poor prognosis. In subgroup analysis of patients with recurrence, 25 patients underwent reoperation, while 20 patients did not. For 5-year overall survival rate, there was a significant difference between 84.7% of the reoperation group and 44.2% of the non-operation group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The risk factors affecting overall survival rate after local excision were age 65 years or older, preoperative CEA level 5 or higher, and high histologic grade. In cases of recurrence after local excision of rectal cancer, salvage operation might improve overall survival.

Local Excision ± Chemoradiotherapy vs. Total Mesorectal Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: Case-Matched Analysis of Long-Term Results

Background: Our aim was to compare the bowel function and oncologic outcomes following these two treatment modalities. Materials and methods: This was a single-center study with 67 patients included between 2009 and 2018. A total of 32 patients underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) group and 35 transanal local excisions (LE) ± chemoradiation. We performed a case-matched analysis: we matched the patients by age, cancer stage, and comorbidities. Duration of operation, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and long-term functional and oncological outcomes were compared. We calculated oncological outcomes using Kaplan-Meier Cox diagrams. In addition, we used a low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score for the bowel function assessment. Results: Mean operation time in the LE group was 58.8 ± 45 min compared with the TME group that was 121.1 ± 42 min (p = 0.032). Complications were seen in 5.7% in LE group and 15.62% in TME group (p = 0.043). ~85.2% of the patients had no LARS in LE group compared with 54.5% in TME group (p = 0.018). Minor LARS was 7.4% in LE group compared with 31.8% in TME group (p = 0.018); major LARS was 7.4 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.474). Hospital stay was 2.77 days in LE group compared with 9.21 days in TME group (p = 0.036). The overall survival was 68.78 months in LE group compared with 74.81 months in TME group (p = 0.964). Conclusion: Our results of a small sample size showed that local excision ± chemoradiation is a rather safe method for early rectal cancer compared with gold standard treatment. In addition, better bowel function is preserved with less postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays.

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.

Radiation therapy for rectal cancer

Radiotherapy (RT) has remained an important pillar in the multi-modality management of rectal cancer. Adjuvant RT with concurrent chemotherapy (chemo-RT) was once the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer, but with time, that has now changed and neoadjuvant chemo-RT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery is the new standard. Alternatively, neoadjuvant RT alone remains an option and clinicians are tasked to choose between the two. In an era of personalised oncological management, it is unsurprising that the treatment for rectal cancer is following suit and upcoming trials are studying ways to improve outcomes and minimise toxicity for patients while tailoring treatments specific to each patient's tumour. We review the evolution of the role of RT in rectal cancer and look forward to what the future holds.

Is Local Resection of Anal Canal Tumors Feasible with Transanal Endoscopic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

An important drawback of local surgery for lesions in the anal canal is the difficulty of achieving en bloc full-thickness resections. The aim of this study is to evaluate TEM/TEO in lesions of this type from the point of view of morbidity, mortality and the quality of the pathology specimen.

METHODS

This is an observational study with prospective data collection from June 2004 to July 2018. Two groups are defined: group A (rectal tumors with proximal margin between 0 and ≤4 cm from anal verge) and group B (distal margin > 4 cm from anal verge). A technical description is provided; resections and postoperative complications in both groups are compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 757 patients underwent TEM/TEO. Finally, 692 patients were included, 192 patients in group A and 500 patients in group B. An en bloc surgical specimen was obtained in 176/192 patients (91.7%), although the defect was completely sutured in 132 (68.8%). In the comparative analysis, group A did not present significantly greater fragmentation of the resected piece [16/192 (8.3%) vs. 36/500 (7.2%), p = 0.630], although group A was associated with greater involvement of the surgical margin [28/192 (14.6%), 32/500 (6.4%), p = 0.001] and clinically relevant morbidity [16/192 (8.3%), 20/500 (4%), p = 0.034]. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TEM/TEO to remove lesions originating in the anal canal is feasible. But we have to take into account that there is an increase in complications, technical difficulties and affected margins resection.

Is Previous Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Early Rectal Cancer a Risk Factor of Worse Outcome following Salvage Surgery A Case-Matched Analysis

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a minimally invasive procedure which allows local excision of early-stage rectal cancer and can be used as an alternative treatment to radical surgery. Patients can undergo salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) following TEM after finding of unfavourable histological features. This study aimed to compare results and possible complications of sTME following TEM and primary TME (pTME) procedures.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2017, early sTME was performed in 9 patients at the National Cancer Institute in Vilnius, Lithuania. These patients were compared with 18 patients who underwent pTME, matched according to gender, age, cancer stage, and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed prospectively. We recorded the demographics, tumour specifications, treatment, operation time, postoperative results complications, and oncological outcome. Fisher's exact test and student's T test was used to compare both groups.

Results

A total of 130 patients underwent TEM at our institution during the study period, of which 9 (6.92%) had to undergo sTME. The average age of the patients was 62.7 ± 7.07 years; 44.4% of the patients were male and 55.6% female. The average tumour size in the sTME group was 2.8 ± 1.05 cm (range 1.5-5) and 2.61 ± 1.36 cm (range 1-5) in the pTME group (p = 0.696). When comparing postoperative complications, statistically significant results were not found in either of the groups (p = 0.55). Operation time of pTME was significantly shorter on average, i.e. 43 min, compared to sTME (p < 0.0267). The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 12.44 ± 7.126 in the sTME and 12.5 ± 8.06 in the pTME group (p = 0.986). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) was negative in 92.6% (25/27) of specimens, while the CRM was positive in 2 cases (7.4%), both of which were from the sTME group. The average follow-up time was 22.8 months (8-80 months) for patients undergoing sTME and 19.33 months (2-88 months) for patients after pTME (p = 0.71).

Conclusions

TEM is a relatively safe method for treating patients with early rectal cancer without high-risk features. It can be used in exceptional cases with high-risk features when the patient is not fit for radical surgery.

A systematic review of local excision followed by adjuvant therapy in early rectal cancer: are pT1 tumours the limit?

AIM

Total mesorectal excision remains the cornerstone of treatment for rectal cancer. Significant morbidity means local excision may be more appropriate in selected patients. Adjuvant therapy reduces local recurrence and improves survival; however, there is a paucity of data on its impact following local excision, which this systematic review aims to address.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases using validated terms for rectal cancer, adjuvant therapy and local excision was performed. Included studies focused on local excision with adjuvant therapy for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Primary outcome measures were local recurrence, survival and morbidity. Studies providing neoadjuvant therapy or local excision alone were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies described 804 patients. Indications for local excision included favourable histology, patient choice and comorbidities. T1, T2 and T3 tumours accounted for 35.1%, 58.0% and 6.9% of cases, respectively. The most frequent local excision technique was transanal excision (77.7%). Adjuvant therapy included long-course chemoradiation or radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 51 months (range 1-165). The pooled local recurrence was 5.8% (95% CI 3.0-9.5) for pT1, 13.8% (95% CI 10.1-17.9) for pT2 and 33.7% (95% CI 19.2-50.1) for pT3 tumours. The overall median disease-free survival was 88% (range 50%-100%) with a pooled overall morbidity of 15.1% (95% CI 11.0-18.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This area remains highly relevant to modern clinical practice. The data suggest that local excision followed by adjuvant therapy can achieve acceptable long-term outcomes in high-risk pT1 tumours, but not in T2 tumours and above in whom radical surgery should be offered.

Survival outcome of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision for T2 early rectal cancer: An analysis based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result registry database

BACKGROUND

Major resection (MR) is recommended for cases with T2 finding after local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer, but the revision procedure is accompanied with high morbidity. We evaluated the oncological safety of LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as a rectum-preserving alternative to MR for T2 early rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 3786 patients with T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2013 were included from the SEER database. Survival rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method with a log-rank test, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional regression models.

RESULTS

Of these patients included, 429 (11.3%) treated with LE alone (LE group), 3067 (81.0%) treated with MR (MR group), and 290 (7.7%) treated with LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (LE + adjuvant RT group). The 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) rate and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate were significantly lower in LE patients group than those in MR patients group (70.5% vs. 81.8%, P < 0.001; 57.3% vs. 72.3%, P < 0.001). The 5-year CSS rate and 5-year OS rate were similar between LE + adjuvant RT and MR groups (78.4% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.975, and 70.7% vs. 72.3%, P = 0.311, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that treatment strategies, age and CEA status were independently associated with CSS and OS. After age adjustment, LE was associated with reduced CSS (using MR as a reference, HR, 1.784; P < 0.001) and reduced OS (HR, 1.739; P < 0.001). However, CSS and OS related to LE + adjuvant RT of T2 rectal cancer group weren't be affected (HR, 0.994; P = 0.962 and HR, 0.904; P = 0.302, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When MR is inappropriate for T2 early rectal cancer patients because of patients refusal or co-morbidities, LE + adjuvant RT can provide acceptable levels of long-term survival.

Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: From top to bottom

The gold standard for curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer involves radical resection with a total mesorectal excision (TME). TME is the most effective treatment strategy to reduce local recurrence and improve survival outcomes regardless of the surgical platform used. However, there are associated morbidities, functional consequences, and quality of life (QoL) issues associated with TME; these risks must be considered during the modern-day multidisciplinary treatment for rectal cancer. This has led to the development of new surgical techniques to improve patient, oncologic, and QoL outcomes. In this work, we review the evolution of TME to the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) through more traditional minimally invasive platforms. The review the development, safety and feasibility, proposed benefits and risks of the procedure, implementation and education models, and future direction for research and implementation of the TaTME in colorectal surgery. While satisfactory short-term results have been reported, the procedure is in its infancy, and long term outcomes and definitive results from controlled trials are pending. As evidence for safety and feasibility accumulates, structured training programs to standardize teaching, training, and safe expansion will aid the safe spread of the TaTME.

Non-inferiority multicenter prospective randomized controlled study of rectal cancer T2-T3s (superficial) N0, M0 undergoing neoadjuvant treatment and local excision (TEM) vs total mesorectal excision (TME)

PURPOSE

The standard treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma is total mesorectal excision (TME), in many cases requires a temporary or permanent stoma. TME is associated with high morbidity and genitourinary alterations. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows access to tumors up to 20 cm from the anal verge, achieves minimal postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, and does not require an ostomy. The treatment of T2, N0, and M0 cancers remains controversial. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in association with TEM reduces local recurrence and increases survival. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the oncological outcomes and the improvement in morbidity and quality of life achieved with TEM compared with TME.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial includes patients with rectal adenocarcinoma less than 10 cm from the anal verge and up to 4 cm in size, staged as T2 or T3-superficial N0-M0. Patients will be randomized to two areas: CRT plus TEM or radical surgery (TME). Postoperative morbidity and mortality will be recorded and patients will complete the quality of life questionnaires before the start of treatment, after CRT in the CRT/TEM arm, and 6 months after surgery in both arms. The estimated sample size for the study is 173 patients. Patients will attend follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This study aims to demonstrate the preservation of the rectum after preoperative CRT and TEM in rectal cancer stages T2-3s, N0, M0 and to determine the ability of this strategy to avoid the need for radical surgery (TME).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308190. Número de registro del Comité de Etica e Investigación Clínica (CEIC) del Hospital universitario Parc Taulí: TAU-TEM-2009-01.

Neoadjuvant therapy and transanal endoscopic surgery in T2-T3 superficial, N0, M0 rectal tumors. Local recurrence, complete clinical and pathological response

INTRODUCTION

The association of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and transanal endoscopic surgery in T2 and superficial T3 rectal cancers presents promising results in selected patients. The main objective is to evaluate the long-term loco-regional and systemic recurrence and, as secondary objectives, to provide results of postoperative morbidity and the correlation between complete clinical and pathological response.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study including a consecutive series of patients with T2-T3 superficial rectal cancer, N0, M0 who refused radical surgery (2008-2016). The treatment consisted of preoperative chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) combined with radiotherapy (50, 4Gy) and transanal endoscopic surgery after 8weeks. Preoperative, surgical, pathological and long-term oncologic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included in the study. Two of them required rescue radical surgery for unfavorable pathological results. A local recurrence (4.5%) was observed and 2patients presented systemic recurrence (9%), with a median follow-up of 45 months. A complete clinical tumor response was achieved in 12 patients (50%), and complete pathological tumor response in 9 patients (37.5%). Postoperative complications were observed in 5 patients (20.8%), and they were mild except one. There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this stage of rectal cancer, our results seem to support this strategy, mainly when a complete pathological response is achieved. The complete clinical tumor response does not coincide with the pathological tumor response. Randomized prospective studies should be performed to standardize this treatment.

Comparison of trans-anal endoscopic operation and trans-anal excision of rectal tumors

Background

Trans-anal endoscopic operation (TEO) has developed to facilitate proper tumor location and ensure excision safely.

Methods

We reviewed 92 patients enrolled in our database between 2006 and 2014 who were diagnosed with early rectal tumors and who underwent conventional trans-anal excision (TAE) or TEO. Clinical data were collected prospectively to compare safety and feasibility between two techniques.

Results

Ninety-two patients underwent trans-anal local excision for lower rectal tumors. TEO and TAE were performed in 48 and 44 patients, respectively. Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar. There was no significant difference in tumor diameter (1.6 ± 1.68 cm vs. 1.17 ± 1.17, respectively). Tumor height, however, was higher in the TEO (7.46 ± 3 cm) than the TAE group (3.84 ± 1.88 cm, p < 0.001). Four complications, perianal abscess, and two perforations, occurred in the TEO group, whereas no major complications occurred in the TAE. Seven patients (14.6%) underwent TEO underwent a salvage operation compared to only a single patient in TAE group (2.3%, p = 0.039). Eight patients (17.4%) diagnosed with adenocarcinoma developed recurrence, four in each group. Disease-free survival was similar between groups (TEO – 41.8 months, 95% RI 39.4–44.1; TAE 79.7 months, 95% RI 72.2–87.3). However, more TAE patients (n = 7, 15.9%) than TEO patients (n = 2, 4.2%) underwent chemotherapy.

Conclusions

TEO treatment of local rectal tumors is safe and feasible and can achieve an adequate resection margin. Local recurrence was similar in both groups. However, the numbers of salvage operations and minor complications were higher in the TEO group.

•

TEO is treatment modality of choice in addressing lower rectal lesions.

•

Evolving of TEO technique facilitate higher standard of academic teaching.

•

TEO has few drawbacks; first, long term learning curve; second, technique is demanding (through single port + narrow space).

•

TEO has promising results in the field of surgical oncology with equivalent results to conventional surgery.

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer

Background

Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5–20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients.

Methods/Study design

In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients.

Discussion

The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery.

Trial registration

NCT02371304, registration date: February 2015

Meta-analysis of oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer requiring adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy or completion surgery

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision (TME) is advised for high-risk early (pT1/pT2) rectal cancer following transanal removal. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes of adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy as a rectum-preserving alternative to completion TME.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed in February 2015. Studies had to include at least ten patients with pT1/pT2 adenocarcinomas that were removed transanally and followed by either adjuvant chemoradiotherapy or completion surgery. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined for the pooled analyses of subgroups according to treatment modality and pT category.

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies comprising 405 patients treated with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy and seven studies comprising 130 patients treated with completion TME were included. Owing to heterogeneity it was not possible to compare the two strategies directly. However, the weighted average local recurrence rate for locally excised pT1/pT2 rectal cancer treated with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was 14 (95 per cent c.i. 11 to 18) per cent, and 7 (4 to 14) per cent following completion TME. The weighted averages for distance recurrence were 9 (6 to 14) and 9 (5 to 16) per cent respectively. Weighted averages for local recurrence rate after adjuvant chemo(radiotherapy) and completion TME for pT1 were 10 (4 to 21) and 6 (3 to 15) per cent respectively. Corresponding averages for pT2 were 15 (11 to 21) and 10 (4 to 22) per cent respectively.

CONCLUSION

A higher recurrence rate after transanal excision and adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy must be balanced against the morbidity and mortality associated with mesorectal excision. A reasonable approach is close follow-up and salvage mesorectal surgery as needed.

Features of Late Recurrence Following Transanal Local Excision for Early Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal local excision has recently received attention as an alternative to radical surgery for early rectal cancer. Recurrence usually occurs within 5 years after surgery, but recurrences later than this have also been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of recurrence in patients who have early rectal cancer 10 years after transanal local excision.

DESIGN

Patients with early rectal cancer who underwent transanal local excision from October 1994 to December 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. We reviewed the demographics and clinicopathologic features of primary lesions and analyzed the incidence and risk factors of recurrence.

SETTINGS

This investigation was conducted at a tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 295 patients who underwent transanal local excision for pTis (n = 155) or pT1 (n = 140) early rectal cancer were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

Transanal local excision was performed for each patient to excise primary rectal lesions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point of this study was the incidence of recurrence, especially late recurrence. The secondary end point was risk factors for recurrence.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative local recurrence rate was 6.7% in pTis and 18.0% in pT1 patients. The rate of late local recurrence was 2.8% in pTis and 3.7% in pT1 patients. There was no evidence of late systemic recurrence 5 years after transanal local excision. In pT1 patients, a higher risk of recurrence was associated with an invasion depth of sm3, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, and a positive resection margin.

LIMITATION

The main limitation of this study is its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Late recurrence can occur in patients with early rectal cancer who have undergone transanal local excision. Transanal local excision can be performed in selective patients with biologically favorable tumors, and 10-year postoperative surveillance should be considered for these patients.