Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy instead of revision radical resection after local excision for high-risk early rectal cancer

Early Rectal Cancer and Local Excision: A Narrative Review

A rise in the incidence of early rectal cancer consequent to bowel-screening programs around the world and an increase in the incidence in young adults has led to a growing interest in organ-sparing treatment options. The rectum, being the most distal portion of the large intestine, is a fertile ground for local excision techniques performed with endoscopic or surgical techniques. Moreover, the advancement in endoscopic optical evaluation and the better definition of imaging techniques allow for a more precise local staging of early rectal cancer. Although the local treatment of early rectal cancer seems promising, in clinical practice, a significant number of patients who could benefit from local excision techniques undergo total mesorectal excision (TME) as the first approach. All relevant prospective clinical trials were identified through a computer-assisted search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline databases until January 2024. This review is dedicated to endoscopic and surgical local excision in the treatment of early rectal cancer and highlights its possible role in current and future clinical practice, taking into account surgical completion techniques and chemoradiotherapy.

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Clinical outcome of local treatment and radical resection for pT1 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is mainly cured by radical resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or adjuvant chemotherapy. Pathological T1 lesions can be managed by local treatment and radiotherapy thereafter. Lower morbidity is the key benefit of these local treatments. Since nodal metastasis is important for staging, radical resection (RR) is suggested. Rectal cancer has higher surgical morbidity than colon cancer; local treatment has been the preferred choice by patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled data of 244 patients with pT1 rectal adenocarcinoma. A total of 202 patients (82.8%) underwent RR, including low anterior resection (LAR) and abdomino-perineal resection (APR), and 42 patients (17.2%) underwent LT, including transanal excision and colonoscopic polypectomy.

RESULTS

In our study, seven patients (16.7%) had loco-regional recurrence and distant metastasis from the LT group while eight patients (4.0%) had distant metastasis without loco-regional recurrence from the RR group. The lymph node metastasis rate in RR group was 8.4%. Forty-seven patients (24.2%) underwent LAR with temporary stoma, and its reversal rate was 100%. In the RR group, postoperative complication rate was 10.4% with a mortality rate of 0.5%. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 95.7% for RR and 80.2% for LT (P = 0.001), and overall survival (OS) was 93.7% for RR and 70.0% for LT (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study found that RFS and OS in patients of pT1 rectal adenocarcinoma that had received RR were better than receiving LT. Further adjuvant chemotherapy was possible for some RR patients. A higher recurrence rate after LT must be balanced against the morbidity and mortality associated with RR.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Can CCRT/RT Achieve Favorable Oncologic Outcome in Rectal Cancer Patients With High Risk Feature After Local Excision?

Purpose

The oncologic outcome of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) after local excision in patients with high-risk early rectal cancer as compared with radical operation has not been reported. The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcome between radical operation and adjuvant CCRT after local excision for high-risk early rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

From January 2005 to December 2015, 266 patients diagnosed with early rectal cancer and treated with local excision who showed high-risk characteristics were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was applied in a ratio of 1:4, comparing the CCRT/radiotherapy (RT) (n = 34) and radical operation (n = 91) groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival.

Results

The median follow-up period was 112 months. The 5-year disease-free survival rate and the 5-year overall survival of the radical operation group were significantly higher than those of the CCRT/RT group after propensity score matching (96.7% vs. 70.6%, p <0.001; 100% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariate analysis, salvage therapy type and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were prognostic factors for 5-year disease-free survival (p <0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively). The type of salvage therapy, the preoperative CEA, and the pT were prognostic factors for 5-year overall survival (p = 0.009, p = 0.024, and p = 0.046, respectively).

Conclusions

Patients who undergo radical operations after local excision with a high-risk early rectal cancer had better survival than those treated with adjuvant CCRT/RT. Therefore, radical surgery may be recommended to high-risk early rectal cancer patients who have undergone local excision for more favorable oncologic outcomes.

Multidisciplinary management of early rectal cancer - The role of surgical local excision in current and future clinical practice

The implementation of bowel cancer screening programs has led to a rise in the incidence of early rectal cancer. The combination of increased incidence and the growing interest in organ-sparing treatment options has led to an amplified importance of local excision techniques in treatment strategies for early rectal cancer. In addition, developments in new technologies of single-port surgery have popularized surgical techniques. Although local treatment of early rectal cancer seems promising, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary and awareness of the oncological robustness is warranted to enable shared decision-making. This review illustrates the position of surgical local excision in the treatment of early rectal cancer and reflects on its role in current and future clinical practice.

Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS): safety and feasibility for the resection of benign and malignant lesions of the rectum

Objectives

Radical surgery for rectal tumours has high morbidity. Local excision of such tumours can be achieved without compromising oncologic safety. However tumours that are not accessible to local excision can be approached using Transanal Minimal Invasive Surgery (TAMIS). The aim of our study was to assess feasibility of TAMIS procedure in terms of complications, operating time, resection margin positivity, hospital stay and local recurrence rate.

Material and Methods

Forty eight patients with benign adenomas or early stage adenocarcinoma, within 4 to 12 cm from anal verge who were subjected to TAMIS over a period of 3 years were included in the study. Short and long term outcomes were assessed.

Results

TAMIS was performed for 36 benign adenomas and 12 adenocarcinomas, which were located at an average distance of 6.2 cm from anal verge. The mean operating time was 72 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications.1 (2.08%) patient suffered post operative bleeding, which was managed conservatively. 2 (4.16%) patients developed acute urinary retention who required indwelling catheterisation. Resection margin was positive in 3 (6.25%) benign cases. Average hospital stay was 2.7 days. Local recurrence occurred in 2 (4.16%) villous adenoma patients (after 11 and 13 months), whereas in malignant patients there was no recurrence at a follow up period ranging between 12 to 36 months.

Conclusion

TAMIS is a safe and feasible procedure for benign tumours and early rectal cancers, located in low and middle rectum.

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.

Recurrence Outcomes Less Favorable in T1 Rectal Cancer than in T1 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

With the implementation of screening programs worldwide, diagnosis of early-stage colorectal cancer steadily increased, including T1 cancer. Current T1 cancer treatment does not differ according to anatomic location. We therefore compared the disease-free survival of T1 cancer arising from the rectum versus the colon.

METHODS

The hospital-based study included subjects with T1 cancer at National Taiwan University Hospital from 2005 to 2014. Clinical, colonoscopy, and histopathology were reviewed for patients with a mean follow-up time of 7.1 (0.7-12.9) years. We conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the risk of recurrence by cancer location and Cox regression analysis to identify risk factors for T1 cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

The final cohort included a total of 343 subjects with T1 cancer (mean age, 64.9 ± 11.7 years; 56.1% male), of whom 25 underwent endoscopic resection alone. Of the subjects who underwent surgery, 50 had lymph node metastasis and 268 did not. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the risk of recurrence was higher in T1 rectal cancer than T1 colon cancer (p = .022). Rectal location and larger neoplasm size were independent risk factors for recurrence, with hazard ratios of 4.84 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-19.92), and 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.65), respectively. The occurrence of advanced histology did not differ between T1 rectal and colon cancers (p = .58).

CONCLUSION

T1 cancers arising from the rectum had less favorable recurrence outcomes than those arising from the colon. Further studies are needed to examine whether adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in T1 rectal cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Current T1 colorectal cancer treatment and surveillance do not differ according to anatomic location. Clinical, colonoscopy, and histopathology were reviewed for 343 patients with T1 cancer with a mean follow-up time of 7.1 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the risk of recurrence was higher in T1 rectal cancer than T1 colon cancer. Moreover, the rectal location was an independent risk factor for recurrence. T1 cancers from the rectum had less favorable recurrence outcomes than those arising from the colon. It is critical to clarify whether adjuvant therapy or more close surveillance can reduce recurrence risk in T1 rectal cancer.

Oncologic Nomogram for Stage I Rectal Cancer to Assist Patient Selection for Adjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy Following Local Excision

Background: Because of the low rate of lymph node metastasis in stage I rectal cancer (RC), local resection (LR) can achieve high survival benefits and quality of life. However, the indications for postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT) remain controversial. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 6,486 patients with RC (pT1/T2) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were initially diagnosed from 2004 to 2016; following LR, 967 received AT and 5,519 did not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the confounding factors of the two groups; the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to screen independent prognostic factors and build a nomogram on this basis. X-tile software was used to divide the patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups based on the nomogram risk score. Results: Multivariate analysis found that age, sex, race, marital status, tumor size, T stage, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the non-AT group were independent prognostic factors for stage I RC and were included in the nomogram prediction model. The C-index of the model was 0.726 (95% CI, 0.689-0.763). We divided the patients into three risk groups according to the nomogram prediction score and found that patients with low and moderate risks did not show an improved prognosis after AT. However, high-risk patients did benefit from AT. Conclusion: The nomogram of this study can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with stage I RC undergoing LR. Our results indicate that high-risk patients should receive AT after LR; AT is not recommended for low-risk patients.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Plus Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk T1 and T2 Rectal Cancer

Background: Radical surgery is recommended for high-risk pathological stage T1 (pT1) or pT2 rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). However, in clinical practice, many patients may unfit or decline radical surgery. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after TEM was considered as an alternative to radical surgery for these patients. This study aimed to assess oncological outcomes of adjuvant CRT after TEM for high-risk early rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: We collected retrospectively data of 97 patients who underwent TEM with pT1 and pT2 between January 2008 and December 2018. Of these, 35 patients were excluded. Of the remaining 62 patients, 42 were managed by TEM alone and 20 by TEM plus adjuvant CRT. Demographics, recurrence, and survival were analyzed between the two groups. Results: At a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival and disease-free survival (DFS) in TEM alone group were significantly lower than those in TEM+CRT group (66.6% versus 93.3%, P = .035; 63.7% versus 93.3%, P = .022). Although the 3-year overall survival in TEM+CRT group was higher than TEM alone group (100% versus 83.3%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .13). The local recurrence rate in TEM alone was 31%, compared with 5% in TEM+CRT group (P = .025). Multivariate analysis showed that adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio: 0.094; 95% confidence interval: 0.001-0.764; P = .027). Conclusions: Our study suggests that adjuvant CRT after TEM may be an alternative for pT1 high-risk and T2 rectal cancer who are not suitable or unwilling to undergo salvage radical surgery.

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.

Survival analysis of local excision vs total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer in pT1/pT2 stage and intermediate pathological risk

Background

Local excision (LE) is a feasible treatment approach for rectal cancers in stage pT1 and presents low pathological risk, whereas total mesorectal excision (TME) is a reasonable treatment for more advanced cancers. On the basis of the pathology findings, surgeons may suggest TME for patients receiving LE. This study compared the survival outcomes between LE with/without chemoradiation and TME in mid and low rectal cancer patients in stage pT1/pT2, with highly selective intermediate pathological risk.

Methods

This retrospective study included 134 patients who received TME and 39 patients who underwent LE for the treatment of intermediate risk (pT1 with poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, relatively large tumor, or small-sized pT2 tumor) rectal cancer between 1998 and 2016.

Results

Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cumulative recurrence rate (CRR) were similar between the LE (3-year DFS 92%) and TME (3-year DFS 91%) groups. Following subgrouping into an LE with adjuvant therapy group and a TME without adjuvant therapy group, the compared survival outcomes (OS, DFS, and CRR) were found not to be statistically different. The temporary and permanent ostomy rates were higher in the TME group than in the LE group (p < 0.001). Rates of early and late morbidity following surgery were higher in the TME group (p = 0.005), and LE had similar survival compared with TME.

Conclusion

For patients who had mid and low rectal cancer in stage pT1/pT2 and intermediate pathological risk, LE with chemoradiation presents an alternative treatment option for selected patients.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

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.

Radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer may offer reduced local recurrence rates

AIM

Early rectal cancer can be managed effectively with local excision, which is now the standard of care for many T1 lesions. However, the presence of unexpected adverse histopathological factors may indicate an increased risk of local recurrence, prompting consideration of completion radical surgery. Many patients are unfit or prefer to avoid radical surgery, relying instead on surveillance and early detection of recurrent disease. Recently, radiotherapy has shown promise as an adjuvant therapy in this group. This study assesses local recurrence rates after local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy at a single centre.

METHOD

This was a retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in a single institution. Data covering a 10-year period were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 197 patients undergoing TEM for rectal cancer, 33 (17%) had adjuvant radiotherapy because of adverse histopathological features. At 3.2 years' median follow-up, there were three instances of local recurrence (9.1%). Estimated local recurrence at 1 and 3 years was 0% and 6.9%, compared to 16.8% and 21.2% in a propensity-score-matched group who were followed by surveillance alone. Local recurrence was diagnosed at a median of 23 months post-TEM in the radiotherapy group, compared to 8 months in the matched group.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy after TEM is associated with a trend towards a reduced rate of local recurrence, even for high-risk disease. Radiotherapy would appear to offer a viable alternative to radical completion surgery in the presence of unforeseen adverse histopathological features, as long as a meticulous surveillance programme is in place.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Local excision is now accepted as a standard treatment option for certain patients with early rectal cancer. However, there is a higher risk of local recurrence than after radical surgery with total mesorectal excision. Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision may reduce this excess risk, and yet retain the benefits of local excision, with rectal preservation.

METHODS

A review of the literature pertaining to the use of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer and a discussion of current practice.

RESULTS

We first considered local excision as a treatment option for early rectal cancer, looking at technical developments and the risks and benefits of organ preservation, in particular, the advantages for quality of life and the risk of leaving residual disease which may result in local recurrence. We then looked at reported outcomes for studies using adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision. Few of the studies routinely used modern endoscopic methods of local excision and only the recent used chemoradiation. Local recurrence rates after adjuvant radiotherapy have improved over time, with rates of around 3.5% in the recent studies. Adverse effects of adjuvant radiotherapy are not commonly described, but generally, they are relatively mild when described. We then discussed current practice regarding adjuvant radiotherapy, including pathological criteria, discussion of local recurrence risk with the patient and the importance of a surveillance regime to detect any recurrence at an early stage.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the current state of knowledge regarding adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision suggests a potential role in decreasing the risk of local recurrence but further studies are required to better define this effect, clarify which patients will gain the most benefit from this pathway, and identify those who should avoid exposure to the risks of radiotherapy.

Comparison of guidelines for the management of rectal cancer

A comparison between NCCN, ESMO and JSCCR Guidelines is presented, concerning the treatment of rectal cancer, with an analysis and discussion of their discrepancies. Differences indicate areas for research.