1
|
Lynch P, Ryan OK, Donnelly M, Ryan ÉJ, Davey MG, Reynolds IS, Creavin B, Hanly A, Kennelly R, Martin ST, Winter DC. 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. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023; 38:263. [PMID: 37924372 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04558-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Lynch
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Odhrán K Ryan
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Mark Donnelly
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Éanna J Ryan
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
| | - Matthew G Davey
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Ian S Reynolds
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Ben Creavin
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Ann Hanly
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Rory Kennelly
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Seán T Martin
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Des C Winter
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chong EH, Jang JY, Choi SH. Robotic central pancreatectomy: a surgical technique. J Minim Invasive Surg 2023; 26:155-161. [PMID: 37712316 PMCID: PMC10505369 DOI: 10.7602/jmis.2023.26.3.155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2023] [Revised: 05/25/2023] [Accepted: 06/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/16/2023]
Abstract
Robotic central pancreatectomy has not been widely performed because of its rare indications, technical difficulties, and concern about the high complication rate. We reviewed six robotic central pancreatectomy cases between May 2016 and June 2021 at a single institution. This multimedia article aims to introduce our technique of robotic central pancreatectomy with perioperative and follow-up outcomes. All patients experienced biochemical leakage of postoperative pancreatic fistula, except in one with a grade B pancreatic fistula, which resulted in a pseudocyst formation and was successfully managed by endoscopic internal drainage. All patients achieved completely negative resection margins. There was no new-onset diabetes mellitus or recurrence during the median follow-up period of 13.5 months (range, 10-74 months). With an acceptable complication rate and the preservation of pancreatic function, robotic central pancreatectomy could be a good surgical option for patients with benign and borderline malignant tumors of the pancreatic neck or proximal body.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eui Hyuk Chong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Jae Young Jang
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Sung Hoon Choi
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sanchez Loria F, Iseas S, O'Connor JM, Pairola A, Chacon M, Mendez G, Coraglio M, Mariani J, Dieguez A, Roca E, Huertas E. Non-surgical management of rectal cancer. Series of 68 cases, long follow up in two leading centres in Argentina. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48:1372-7. [PMID: 27260329 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2016.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2016] [Revised: 03/25/2016] [Accepted: 05/13/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The non-surgical management in a selected group of rectal cancer patients has shown promising results with adequate follow up. AIMS describing the results of the non-surgical management in patients with complete clinical response, with a close follow up. METHODS Between 2006 and 2015, patients with rectal cancer, stages I-III, without metastasis, treated with neoadjuvant CRT/CT, who had clinical complete response were included. CCR was defined through digital palpation, endoscopy-based criteria and MRI. Follow up was set according to institutional guidelines. RESULTS 68 patients were included. Initial stage was assessed with MRI in 55/68 pts and EUS 11/68. Considering the recurrence risk factors 57.6% (29/68) were T2-3ab N0, 3.3% (2/68) were T4N0, 29% (20/68) were T3-4 N1-2, with 39.7% with positive MRC. Mean distance to the anal margin was 3cm. Chemoradiation included radiotherapy at 50.4cGy, and concurrent capecitabine. In 22% a fluoropirimidine and oxaliplatin-based schema was used as induction therapy. Median follow up was 37.5 months and response assessment time 9 weeks (5-19). Eleven patients recurred, 6 endoluminally, 3 developed mesorectal recurrence, and two distant failure. Five years DFS and OS were 76.3% and 93.8%. CONCLUSIONS conservative management was feasible with close follow up in leading cancer centres. In this series, DFS and OS were comparable to the data already reported in the literature.
Collapse
|
4
|
Borstlap WAA, Tanis PJ, Koedam TWA, Marijnen CAM, Cunningham C, Dekker E, van Leerdam ME, Meijer G, van Grieken N, Nagtegaal ID, Punt CJA, Dijkgraaf MGW, De Wilt JH, Beets G, de Graaf EJ, van Geloven AAW, Gerhards MF, van Westreenen HL, van de Ven AWH, van Duijvendijk P, de Hingh IHJT, Leijtens JWA, Sietses C, Spillenaar-Bilgen EJ, Vuylsteke RJCLM, Hoff C, Burger JWA, van Grevenstein WMU, Pronk A, Bosker RJI, Prins H, Smits AB, Bruin S, Zimmerman DD, Stassen LPS, Dunker MS, Westerterp M, Coene PP, Stoot J, Bemelman WA, Tuynman JB. A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2016; 16:513. [PMID: 27439975 PMCID: PMC4955121 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2557-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2016] [Accepted: 07/13/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W A A Borstlap
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P J Tanis
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T W A Koedam
- Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C A M Marijnen
- Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - C Cunningham
- Department of Surgery, Oxford University Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - E Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M E van Leerdam
- Department of Gastroenterology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N van Grieken
- Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I D Nagtegaal
- Department of Pathology, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - C J A Punt
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M G W Dijkgraaf
- Clinical Research Unit, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J H De Wilt
- Department of Surgery, RadboudUMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - G Beets
- Department of Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E J de Graaf
- Department of Surgery, IJselland Hospital, Capelle aan de Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | | | - M F Gerhards
- Department of surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - I H J T de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - J W A Leijtens
- Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands
| | - C Sietses
- Department of Surgery, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - C Hoff
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Centrum Leewarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - J W A Burger
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - A Pronk
- Department of Surgery, Diaconessenziekehuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - R J I Bosker
- Department of Surgery, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - H Prins
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
| | - A B Smits
- Department of Surgery, Sint. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - S Bruin
- Department of Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D D Zimmerman
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - L P S Stassen
- Department of Surgery, MUMC, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - M S Dunker
- Department of Surgery, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - M Westerterp
- Department of Surgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - P P Coene
- Department of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Stoot
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Hospital, Sittard, The Netherlands
| | - W A Bemelman
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J B Tuynman
- Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|