Long-term Transanal Excision Outcomes in Patients With T1 Rectal Cancer: Comparative Analysis of Radical Resection

Radical versus Local Surgical Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Radical excision (RE) for rectal cancer carries a higher risk of mortality and morbidity, while local excision (LE) could decrease these postoperative risks. However, the long-term benefit of LE is still debatable.

Aim

To study the effectiveness of LE versus RE in T1 and T2 rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using key databases like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included. RevMan 5.4 tool was used for data analysis. Both clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the studies were assessed, and I2 >75% was considered as highly heterogeneous. The primary outcomes being measured were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis of patients with T1-only was also conducted, without adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included for final meta-analysis. Four were RCTs, while the other 15 were retrospective cohort studies. One included study had data from both RCT and non-RCT study groups. Nine studies were multicentered or national studies while nine were unicentral.There was no difference in risk ratio (RR) between OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] and DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]. There were lower hazards ratios in OS: RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.14, 1.74] and DFS: RR 1.95, 95% CI [1.36, 2.78] with radical, as compared to LE. Lower recurrence rate was associated with RE. Random effect model was used due to clinical heterogeneity between studies (different surgical procedures, tumor staging, adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy).

Conclusions

LE for early-stage rectal cancer has lower 5-year OS and DFS than RE, with higher local recurrence rate. However, LE is associated with lower early postoperative mortality, morbidity and length of stay as compared to RE.

The Role of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for Early Rectal Cancer

Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES), which is performed through a variety of transanal endoluminal multitasking surgical platforms, was developed to facilitate endoscopic en bloc excision of rectal lesions as a minimally invasive alternative to radical proctectomy. Although the oncologic safety of TES in the treatment of malignant rectal tumors has been an area of vigorous controversy over the past two decades, TES is currently accepted as an oncologically safe approach for the treatment of carefully selected early and superficial rectal cancers. TES can also serve as both a diagnostic and potentially curative treatment of partially resected unsuspected malignant polyps. In this article, indications and contraindications for transanal endoscopic excision of early rectal cancer lesions are reviewed, as well as selection criteria for the most appropriate transanal excisional approach. Preoperative preparation and surgical technique for complications of TES will be reviewed, as well as recommended surveillance and management of upstaged tumors.

Short- and long-term outcomes of local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy in high-risk T1 rectal cancer patients

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

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.

The risk factors of local recurrence and distant metastasis on pT1/T2N0 mid-low rectal cancer after total mesorectal excision

Background

Radical resection is associated with good prognosis among patients with cT1/T2Nx rectal cancer. However, still some of the patients experienced cancer recurrence following radical resection. This study tried to identify the postoperative risk factors of local recurrence and distant metastasis separately.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center study comprised of 279 consecutive patients from Linkou branch of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2005–2016 with rectal adenocarcinoma, pT1/T2N0M0 at distance from anal verge ≤ 8cm, who received curative radical resection.

Results

The study included 279 patients with pT1/pT2N0 mid-low rectal cancer with median follow-up of 73.5 months. Nineteen (6.8%) patients had disease recurrence in total. Nine (3.2%) of them had local recurrence, and fourteen (5.0%) of them had distant metastasis. Distal resection margin < 0.9 (cm) (hazard ratio = 4.9, p = 0.050) was the risk factor of local recurrence. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ≥ 5 ng/mL (hazard ratio = 9.3, p = 0.0003), lymph node yield (LNY) < 14 (hazard ratio = 5.0, p = 0.006), and distal resection margin < 1.4cm (hazard ratio = 4.0, p = 0.035) were the risk factors of distant metastasis.

Conclusion

For patients with pT1/pT2N0 mid-low rectal cancer, current multidisciplinary treatment brings acceptable survival outcome. Insufficient distal resection margin attracted the awareness of risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis as a foundation for future research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02223-4.

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.

Comparison of the transanal surgical techniques for local excision of rectal tumors: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In order to assess the various surgical modalities for local resection of rectal tumors, a systematic review of the current literature and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed and conducted.

METHODS

The present study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions principles. Scholar databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically screened up to 23/12/2019. A Bayesian NMA, implementing a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis, was introduced for the probability ranking of the available surgical methods. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) of the categorical and continuous variables, respectively, were reported with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 studies and 2146 patients were introduced in our study. Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS) displayed the highest performance regarding the overall postoperative morbidity, the perioperative blood loss, the length of hospitalization, and the peritoneal violation rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was the most efficient modality for resecting an intact specimen. Although transanal local excision (TAE) had the highest ranking considering operative duration, it was associated with a significant risk for positive resection margins and tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, TEM and TAMIS display superior oncological results over TAE. Due to several limitations, validation of these results requires further RCTs of a higher methodological level.

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.