Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I2 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I2 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.

CONCLUSIONS

LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.

Statistical Fragility in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Studies: A Review of Randomized Trials

Purpose: The P value has been used as a statistical tool in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish significance but does not provide information on the robustness of a study when used alone. The fragility index (FI) provides a supplemental approach for demonstrating robustness in RCTs that report dichotomous outcomes. This study aims to determine the statistical fragility of RCTs that compare minimally invasive techniques with open techniques in managing benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Methods: Dichotomous outcomes of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in RCTs from 2000 to 2023 were assessed. The overall FI and fragility quotient (FQ) of each study were calculated. Results: Of the 1377 screened studies, 50 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 820 outcomes were recorded with 747 outcomes reported as not significant (P ≥ .05) and 73 as significant (P < .05). The overall FI for all studies including all outcomes was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) with a FQ of 0.031 (IQR 0.014-0.062). Of the 50 RCTs, 6 (12%) reported a loss to follow-up that was greater than the overall FI of 5. Conclusions: As RCTs are judged increasingly beyond just the P value, practicing colorectal surgeons will benefit from using and interpreting the FI, FQ, and the P value of studies both in analyzing future RCTs and in determining whether or not to make a change in their clinical practice if there is an efficiently true discovery.

T1 colorectal cancer management in the era of minimally invasive endoscopic resection

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

Comparison of local excision and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial

To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of radomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer for perioperative and oncological outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until December 2022 for RCTs which evaluated the efficacy and/or safety between TEM and TME for rectal cancer. Outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, hospital stay, complication rates, recurrence rates, and mortality. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 545 patients (272 TEM versus 273 TME) were included for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, gender, and distance from lower border of tumor to anal verge. Meta-analysis found that the TEM group was significantly favorable than the TME group for blood loss (WMD: 172.01; 95 % CI: 212.78, -131.24; P < 0.00001), hospital stay (WMD: 2.58; 95 % CI: 3.01, -2.16; P < 0.00001), operative time (WMD: 81.86; 95 % CI: 87.51, -76.21; P < 0.00001) and transfusion rates (RR: 0.05; 95 % CI: 0.01, 0.38; P = 0.004). The complication rates (RR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.32, 1.11; P = 0.10), recurrence rates (RR: 1.10; 95 % CI: 0.66, 1.83; P = 0.72), and mortality (RR: 1.23; 95 % CI: 0.67, 2.26; P = 0.51) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: TEM was an effective and safe approach with advantages in perioperative outcomes compared with TME approach. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the differences in surgical complications between TEM and TME group due to significant heterogeneity and instability.

[Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) is a surgical option to preserve fecal continence in selected low rectal cancers]

INTRODUCTION

Despite its existence for more than 40 years, the TEM method has not become widespread. The main reasons are the high acquisition costs, the sophisticated technology and alternative procedures (especially radical resection procedures), which provide greater oncological safety. However, avoiding major abdominal surgery with the creation of a stoma and higher complication rates can outweigh the higher risk of recurrence for some patients. We examined the results using V-TEM with reduced acquisition costs in the resection of adenomas and carcinomas and discussed its importance by literature .

METHOD

From 2003 to 2019, 154 patients with 170 findings were operated by V-TEM technology. Data on the operation and follow-up were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The median age was 67 years, 89 patients were male and 65 female. V-TEM was performed on 79 carcinomas, 77 adenomas and 14 other findings. The complication rate was 21.2 %. R0 resection was achieved in 78.8 %. The adenoma recurrence rate was 7.3 %, the overall recurrence rate for carcinomas 11.9 %, local recurrences were observed in 6.8 %. The disease-specific survival is 100 % at 5 years and 94.2 % at ten years.

DISCUSSION

The successful use of TEM in adenomas and early carcinomas is undisputed. When treating carcinomas from a T1 high risk stage using TEM, recurrence rates higher than 10 % must be expected. Better results can be achieved with radical procedures, this is why they are considered the therapy of choice in these cases. However, there are no differences in terms of survival rates and TEM offers proven better postoperative quality of life. In particular, the combination of neoadjuvant procedures with TEM delivered promising results in more advanced stages. Further studies on TEM and the possibility of lower acquisition costs through modification to V-TEM could make the method more popular in the future.

Practice Patterns for Organ Preservation in US Patients With Rectal Cancer, 2006-2020

Importance

In March 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsed watch and wait for those with complete clinical response to total neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy is highly efficacious, so this recommendation may have broad implications, but the current trends in organ preservation in the US are unknown.

Objective

To describe organ preservation trends among patients with rectal cancer in the US from 2006 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, observational case series included adults (aged ≥18 years) with rectal adenocarcinoma managed with curative intent from 2006 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database.

Exposure

The year of treatment was the primary exposure. The type of therapy was chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery (proctectomy, transanal local excision, no tumor resection). The timing of therapy was classified as neoadjuvant or adjuvant.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the absolute annual proportion of organ preservation after radical treatment, defined as chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, proctectomy, or transanal local excision. A secondary analysis examined complete pathologic responses among eligible patients.

Results

Of the 175 545 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 63 (13) years, 39.7% were female, 17.4% had clinical stage I disease, 24.7% had stage IIA to IIC disease, 32.1% had stage IIIA to IIIC disease, and 25.7% had unknown stage. The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by 9.8 percentage points (from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020; P < .001). From 2006 to 2020, the absolute rate of organ preservation increased by 13.0 percentage points for patients with stage IIA to IIC disease (19.5% to 32.5%), 12.9 percentage points for patients with stage IIIA to IIC disease (16.2% to 29.1%), and 10.1 percentage points for unknown stages (16.5% to 26.6%; all P < .001). Conversely, patients with stage I disease experienced a 6.1-percentage point absolute decline in organ preservation (from 26.4% in 2006 to 20.3% in 2020; P < .001). The annual rate of transanal local excisions decreased for all stages. In the subgroup of 80 607 eligible patients, the proportion of complete pathologic responses increased from 6.5% in 2006 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy. Given the National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorsement of watch and wait, the increasing trends in organ preservation, and the nearly 3-fold increase in complete pathologic responses, international professional societies should urgently develop multidisciplinary core outcome sets and care quality indicators to ensure high-quality rectal cancer research and care delivery accounting for organ preservation.

Endoscopic and trans-anal local excision vs. radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The management of early-stage rectal cancer in clinical practice is controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare oncological and postoperative outcomes for T1T2N0M0 rectal cancers managed with local excision in comparison to conventional radical resection.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases was performed. Relevant studies were selected using PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes measured were 5-year local recurrence and overall survival. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative complication, 30-day mortality, positive margin and permanent stoma formation.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials and 27 observational studies contributed 8570 patients for analysis. Radical resection was associated with reduced 5-year local recurrence in comparison to local excision. This was statistically significant in comparison to trans-anal local excision (odds ratio (OR) 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.30) and favourable in comparison to endoscopic techniques (OR 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.23) although this did not reach clinical significance. Positive margin rates were lowest for radical resection. However, 30-day mortality rates, perioperative complications and permanent stoma rates all favoured local excision with no statistically significant difference between endoscopic and trans-anal techniques.

CONCLUSION

Radical resection of early rectal cancer is associated with the lowest 5-year local recurrence rates and the lowest rate of positive margins. However, this must be balanced with its higher 30-day mortality and complication rates as well as the increased risk of permanent stoma. The emerging potential role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to local resection, and the heterogeneity of its use, as an alternative treatment for early rectal cancer further complicates the treatment paradigm and adds to controversy in this field.

Transanal local excision versus intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer with stage ypT0-1ycN0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: an inverse probability weighting analysis for oncological and functional outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision (LE) and intersphincteric resection (ISR) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieved a significant or complete pathological response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from patients with stage ypT0-1ycN0 low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy who underwent LE or ISR between June 2016 and June 2021. Baseline characteristics, short-term outcomes, long-term oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes, were compared between the two groups. To reduce the selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed.

RESULTS

This study included 106 patients (LE group: n = 51, ISR group: n = 55). There were significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P < 0.05). After IPTW, there were almost no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups. The LE group showed less postoperative complications and better function outcomes compared to the ISR group. The LE group had significantly lower rates of complications (13.7% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.014). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer achieving significant or complete pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy, both LE and ISR present comparable oncological outcomes. Yet, LE seems to show more advantages in terms of postoperative complications and functional outcomes. These findings offer important insights for surgical decision-making, emphasizing the necessity to consider both oncological and functional outcomes in selecting the optimal surgical approach.

Long-term efficacy of transanal local excision versus total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the long-term efficacy of transanal local excision (TLE) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

METHOD

The Web of Science, Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for correlational research. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality of cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4.

RESULT

A total of 13 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 cohort studies (CSs), involving 1402 patients, were included in the analysis. Of these, 570 patients (40.66%) underwent TLE, while 832 patients (59.34%) underwent TME. In the meta-analysis of CSs, no significant difference was observed between the TLE group and TME group regarding 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (P > 0.05). However, the TLE group had a higher rates of local recurrence (LR) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95%CI (1.18, 3.14), P = 0.008] and a lower rates of 5-years local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.79, 95%CI (1.04, 7.50), P = 0.04] compared to the TME group. In the meta-analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference observed between the TLE group and TME group in terms of LR, 5-year OS, 5-year DFS, and 5-year disease-specific survival (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

After undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, TLE may provide comparable 5-year OS and DFS to TME for rectal cancer. However, neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may has a higher LR and lower 5-year LRFS compared to neoadjuvant therapy followed by TME, so patients should be carefully selected. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may be a suitable option for patients who prioritize postoperative quality of life. However, the effectiveness of this approach requires further research to draw a definitive conclusion.

Comparing neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision to total mesorectal excision in the treatment of early stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard-of-care in early, clinical stage (cT2-3 N0 M0) rectal cancer. Local excision (LE) may be an alternative after adequate response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), with either long-course chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT), as a means of preserving the rectum and potentially obviating the morbidity of TME.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines for studies that randomly assigned patients with cT2-3 N0 M0 rectal cancer to either NAT + LE or TME that reported radiologic, oncologic, surgical, and morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs comprise 462 patients (232 patients receiving NAT + LE; nCRT n = 205; SCRT n = 27) and 230 undergoing TME, respectively. NAT compliance was 98.86%. The rate of early completion TME in the NAT + LE group was 22.3%, while the proportion of patients achieving durable organ preservation was 75.4% at mean follow-up of 5.6 years. There was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) (HR [hazard ratio] 1.19; 95% CI 0.95, 1.49; p = 0.13) or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.72, 1.23; p = 0.63]) according to the assigned treatment arm. The local recurrence rate (LRR) (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.5-3.02; p = 0.66) and distant metastases (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.45, 1.90; p = 0.82) were also comparable between the groups. There was a significant reduction in major (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21, 0.95; p = 0.04) and minor morbidity (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24, 0.85; p = 0.01) for patients undergoing NAT + LE. Overall stoma formation was decreased in the NAT + LE group (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.0, 0.23; p ≤ 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

NAT + LE reduces adverse effects of TME, without any compromise in oncological outcomes, and the potential for an organ preserving strategy should be discussed with patients with T2-3N0 rectal cancers prior to treatment.

Organ Preservation in MSS Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease with complex genetic and molecular subtypes. Emerging progress of neoadjuvant therapy has led to increased pathological and clinical complete response (cCR) rates for microsatellite stable (MSS) rectal cancer, which responds poorly to immune checkpoint inhibitor alone. As a result, organ preservation of MSS rectal cancer as an alternative to radical surgery has gradually become a feasible option. For patients with cCR or near-cCR after neoadjuvant treatment, organ preservation can be implemented safely with less morbidity. Patient selection can be done either before the neoadjuvant treatment for higher probability or after with careful assessment for a favorable outcome. Those patients who achieved a good clinical response are managed with nonoperative management, organ preservation surgery, or radiation therapy alone followed by strict surveillance. The oncological outcomes of patients with careful selection and organ preservation seem to be noninferior compared with those of radical surgery, with lower postoperative morbidity. However, more studies should be done to seek better regression of tumor and maximize the possibility of organ preservation in MSS rectal cancer.

Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for mid and low rectal cancer: a multicentric French study from the GRECCAR group

AIM

A complete or subcomplete tumour response (CTR) is observed in 10%-25% of patients with mid/low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The aim of our study was to report a multicentric French experience in local excision (LE) after CRT.

METHOD

All patients who underwent LE for mid/low rectal cancer with suspected CTR after CRT, from 2006 to 2019 in seven GRECCAR centres were included. LE was considered adequate if the specimen showed a ypT0/Tis/T1R0 tumour, otherwise, a completion total mesorectal excision (TME) was discussed. Morbi-mortality, functional results and oncological outcomes were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were included. LE specimens showed 36% ypT0, 4% ypTis and 19% ypT1. Thus, 108 patients (42%) had theoretical indication of completion TME, which was performed in only 42 patients. Overall, 30-day morbidity after LE was 11%, including 2% Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. After completion TME, 47% described major low anterior resection syndrome versus 5% after LE alone (p < 0.001). After a mean follow-up of 4 years (range 2-6 years), the recurrence rate was 11% after LE, 32% after completion TME and 20% in patients for whom completion TME was indicated but not performed (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

TME remains the gold standard for mid/low rectal cancer after CRT. LE in selected patients is safe for operative and functional, but also oncological, results. However, completion TME was indicated in 42% of patients after LE, highlighting the difficulty of the preoperative diagnosis of CTR after CRT.

Clinical consequences of diagnostic variability in the histopathological evaluation of early rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss' Kappa- (ĸ) or intra-class correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or ĸ 0.530-0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (ĸ = 0.530, 95% CI 0.375-0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated.

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.

[Transanal Tumor Resection: Indication, Surgical Technique and Management of Complications]

Transanal resection procedures are special operations for the minimally invasive treatment of rectal tumours. Apart from benign tumours, this procedure is suitable for the excision of low-risk T1 rectal carcinomas, if these can be completely removed (R0 resection). With stringent patient selection, very good oncological results are achieved. Various international trials are currently evaluating whether local resection procedures are oncologically sufficient if there is a complete or near complete response after neoadjuvant radio-/chemotherapy. Numerous studies have shown that the functional results and the postoperative quality of life after local resection are excellent, especially considering the well-known functional deficits of alternative operations, such as low anterior or abdominoperineal resection.Severe complications are very rare. Most complications, such as urinary retention or subfebrile temperatures, are minor in nature. Suture line dehiscences are usually clinically unremarkable. Major complications comprise significant haemorrhage and the opening of the peritoneal cavity. The latter must be recognized intraoperatively and can usually be managed by primary suture. Infection, abscess formation, rectovaginal fistula, injury of the prostate or even urethra are extremely rare complications.

Surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection is typically the standard treatment for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer as local resection may result in a high rate of recurrence and risk of distant metastasis. A growing number of studies have shown that local excision after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy can significantly reduce recurrence rates and is a feasible strategy to preserve the rectum as an alternative to conventional radical resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with radical surgery for early- and mid-stage rectal cancer and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

Clinical trials comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of local and radical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with early- to mid-stage rectal cancer were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science, and Cochrane databases, and a total of 5 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study trials were included.

RESULTS

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 = 0.99, 95%CI (0.85, 1.15), p = 0.858], DFS [HR = 1.01, 95%CI (0.64, 1.58), p = 0.967], distant metastasis rate [RR = 0.76, 95%CI (0.36,1.59), p = 0.464], and local recurrence rate [RR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.69, 2.47), p = 0.420]. However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications [RR = 0.49, 95% CI (0.33, 0.72), p < 0.001], length of hospital stays [WMD =  - 5.13, 95%CI (- 6.22, - 4.05), p < 0.001], enterostomy [RR = 0.13, 95%CI (0.05, 0.37), p < 0.001], operative time [- 94.31, 95%CI (- 117.26, - 71.35), p < 0.001], and emotional functioning score [WMD = 2.34, 95% CI (0.94, 3.74), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Local resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy may be an effective alternative to radical surgery in patients with early and middle rectal cancer.

Total neoadjuvant treatment and organ preservation strategies in the management of localized rectal cancer: a narrative review and evidence-based algorithm

The multimodal approach with total mesorectal excision preceded by neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy represented the mainstay treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) for a long time. However, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of distant relapse reduction is limited. Recently, chemotherapy regimens administered before surgery and incorporated with (chemo)radiotherapy in total neoadjuvant treatment protocols have been established as new options in the management of LARC. Meanwhile, patients with clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment can benefit from organ preservation strategies, aimed at sparing surgery and long-term post-operative morbidities, while preserving an adequate disease control. However, the introduction of a non-operative management in clinical practice is a matter of debate with some concerns regarding the risk of local recurrence and long-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss how these recent advances are reshaping the multimodal management of localized rectal cancer and propose an algorithm to place them in the clinical practice.

Outcomes after the watch-and-wait strategy and local excision treatment for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy and local excision (LE) have been used in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) for rectal cancer, but the comparative outcomes of the two strategies are controversial. We compared the efficacy of the W&W strategy with LE for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Several domestic and foreign databases were searched for the relevant literature on comparative trials of the W&W strategy and LE surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with the following outcomes; differences in local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM/DM+LR), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Nine articles, were analyzed. Overall, 442 patients were included, with 267 and 175 patients in the W&W and LE groups, respectively. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences the between W&W and LE groups with respect to LR, DM/DM+LR, 3-year DFS, 3-year LRFS, and 3-year OS. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022331208).

CONCLUSION

The W&W strategy may be preferred for some rectal cancer patients who select LE and reach cCR or near cCR after nCRT or TNT.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta- analysis

PURPOSE

In the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer, a growing number of studies have shown that transanal endoscopic microsurgery is one of the alternatives to radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision that can reduce the incidence of adverse events without compromising treatment outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and treatment effect of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision to provide a basis for clinical treatment selections.

METHOD

We searched the literatures of four major databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library, without limitation of time. The literatures included randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing two surgical procedures of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery adhering to total mesorectal excision. Treatment effectiveness and safety results of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery were extracted from the included literatures and statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4 and stata17.

RESULT

Ultimately, 13 papers were included in the study including 5 randomized controlled studies and 8 cohort studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the treatment effect and safety of both transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical surgery in distant metastasis (RR, 0.59 (0.34, 1.02), P > 0.05), overall recurrence (RR, 1.49 (0.96, 2.31), P > 0.05), disease-specific-survival (RR, 0.74 (0.09, 1.57), P > 0.05), dehiscence of the sutureline or anastomosis leakage (RR, 0.57 (0.30, 1.06), P > 0.05), postoperative bleeding (RR, 0.47 (0.22, 0.99), P > 0.05), and pneumonia (RR, 0.37, (0.10, 1.40), P > 0.05) were not significantly different. However, they differ significantly in perioperative mortality (RR, 0.26 (0.07, 0.93, P < 0.05)), local recurrence (RR, 2.51 (1.53, 4.21), P < 0.05),_overall survival_ (RR, 0.88 (0.74, 1.00), P < 0.05), disease-free-survival (RR, 1.08 (0.97, 1.19), P < 0.05), temporary stoma (RR, 0.05 (0.01, 0.20), P < 0.05), permanent stoma (RR, 0.16 (0.08, 0.33), P < 0.05), postoperative complications (RR, 0.35 (0.21, 0.59), P < 0.05), rectal pain (RR, 1.47 (1.11, 1.95), P < 0.05), operation time (RR, -97.14 (-115.81, -78.47), P < 0.05), blood loss (RR, -315.52 (-472.47, -158.57), P < 0.05), and time of hospitalization (RR, -8.82 (-10.38, -7.26), P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery seems to be one of the alternatives to radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer, but more high-quality clinical studies are needed to provide a reliable basis.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Excision, and Observation for Early Rectal Cancer: The Phase II NEO Trial (CCTG CO.28) Primary End Point Results

PURPOSE

Organ-sparing therapy for early-stage I/IIA rectal cancer is intended to avoid functional disturbances or a permanent ostomy associated with total mesorectal excision (TME). The objective of this phase II trial was to determine the outcomes and organ-sparing rate of patients with early-stage rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by transanal excision surgery (TES).

METHODS

This phase II trial included patients with clinical T1-T3abN0 low- or mid-rectal adenocarcinoma eligible for endoscopic resection who were treated with 3 months of chemotherapy (modified folinic acid-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin 6 or capecitabine-oxaliplatin). Those with evidence of response proceeded to transanal endoscopic surgery 2-6 weeks later. The primary end point was protocol-specified organ preservation rate, defined as the proportion of patients with tumor downstaging to ypT0/T1N0/X and who avoided radical surgery.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients enrolled, all commenced chemotherapy and 56 proceeded to surgery. A total of 33/58 patients had tumor downstaging to ypT0/1N0/X on the surgery specimen, resulting in an intention-to-treat protocol-specified organ preservation rate of 57% (90% CI, 45 to 68). Of 23 remaining patients recommended for TME surgery on the basis of protocol requirements, 13 declined and elected to proceed directly to observation resulting in 79% (90% CI, 69 to 88) achieving organ preservation. The remaining 10/23 patients proceeded to recommended TME of whom seven had no histopathologic residual disease. The 1-year and 2-year locoregional relapse-free survival was, respectively, 98% (95% CI, 86 to 100) and 90% (95% CI, 58 to 98), and there were no distant recurrences or deaths. Minimal change in quality of life and rectal function scores was observed.

CONCLUSION

Three months of induction chemotherapy may successfully downstage a significant proportion of patients with early-stage rectal cancer, allowing well-tolerated organ-preserving surgery.

Geriatric Radiation Oncology: What We Know and What Can We Do Better?

Elderly patients represent a growing subgroup of cancer patients for whom the role of radiation therapy is poorly defined. Older patients are still clearly underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in very limited high-level evidence. Moreover, elderly patients are less likely to receive radiation therapy in similar clinical scenarios compared to younger patients. However, there is no clear evidence for a generally reduced radiation tolerance with increasing age. Modern radiation techniques have clearly reduced acute and late side effects, thus extending the boundaries of the possible regarding treatment intensity in elderly or frail patients. Hypofractionated regimens have further decreased the socioeconomic burden of radiation treatments by reducing the overall treatment time. The current review aims at summarizing the existing data for the use of radiation therapy or chemoradiation in elderly patients focusing on the main cancer types. It provides an overview of treatment tolerability and outcomes with current standard radiation therapy regimens, including possible predictive factors in the elderly population. Strategies for patient selection for standard or tailored radiation therapy approaches based on age, performance score or comorbidity, including the use of prediction tests or geriatric assessments, are discussed. Current and future possibilities for improvements of routine care and creation of high-level evidence in elderly patients receiving radiation therapy are highlighted.

Short- and long-term outcomes in ypT2 rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy and local excision: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.

Local excision of T1 colorectal cancer: good differentiation, absence of lymphovascular invasion, and limited tumor radial infiltration (≤4.25 mm) may allow avoiding radical surgery

BACKGROUND

Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is defined as T1NXM0 colorectal cancer (CRC). Although a non-negligible number of T1-CRCs presents metastatic lymph-nodes, local excision is increasingly proposed as alternative to radical resection. Several criteria have been suggested to identify low-risk T1-CRC, but recommendations on this topic are still heterogeneous. This study aims to identify criteria associated with N+ T1-CRC, to select patients to undergo (or not) local excision.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of demographic, clinical, and histology criteria of 122 consecutive T1-CRC patients undergoing radical resection at Parma University Hospital between 2000 and 2018 has been performed.

RESULTS

Lymph-node metastasis (LNM) was observed in 15/122 patients (12.3%). No LNM was observed among well-differentiated (G1) tumors (0/37), while 10/65 (15.4%) G2 cases as well as 5/20 (25%) G3 patients presented LNM. G1 was associated with absence of LNM (p = 0.013). After excluding G1 patients, the rate of N + T1-CRC was 17.6% (15/85). LNM was observed in 4/8 (50%) patients with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and in 11/77 (14.2%) without LVI. LVI resulted being associated with LNM (p < 0.042). LNM was reported in 28.3% of cases with a tumor infiltration >4.25 mm (13/46), compared to 5.1% in cases with an infiltration ≤4.25 mm (2/39) (p = 0.012). In Cox regression analysis, the higher hazard ratio (HR) was reported for the LVI + and infiltration >4.25 mm (HR 24.849).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ECC (pT1NXM0), good differentiation (G1), absence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI-), and tumor radial infiltration ≤4.25 mm may allow performing local resection and avoiding radical surgery.

Impact of adequate lymph nodes dissection on survival in patients with stage I rectal cancer

Background and Aims

The NCCN guidelines recommended an assessment of ≥ 12 lymph nodes (LN) as an adequate LN dissection (LND) for rectal cancer (RC). However, the impact of adequate LND on survival in stage I RC patients remained unclear. Thus, we aimed to compare the survival between stage I RC patients with adequate and inadequate LND.

Methods

A total of 1,778 stage I RC patients in the SEER database from 2010 to 2017 treated with radical proctectomy were identified. The association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was examined using the multivariate Cox regression and the multivariate competing risk model referenced to &lt; 12 LND.

Results

Stage I RC patients with ≥ 12 LND experienced a significantly lower hazard of cancer-specific death compared with those with &lt; 12 LND in both multivariate Cox regression model (adjusted HR [hazard ratio], 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P &lt; 0.001) and the multivariate competing risk model (adjusted subdistribution HR [SHR], 0.45, 95% CI, 0.30-0.69; P &lt; 0.001). Further, subgroup analyses performed by pT stage. No positive association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was found in pT1N0 RC patients (adjusted HR: 0.62, 95%CI, 0.32-1.19; P = 0.149; adjusted SHR: 0.63, 95%CI, 0.33-1.20; P = 0.158), whereas a positive association between ≥ 12 LND and survival was found in pT2N0 RC patients (adjusted HR: 0.35, 95%CI, 0.21-0.58; P &lt; 0.001; adjusted SHR: 0.36, 95%CI, 0.21-0.62; P &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions

The long-term survival benefit of adequate LND was not found in pT1N0 but in pT2N0 RC patients, which suggested that pT2N0 RC patients should be treated with adequate LND and those with inadequate LND might need additional therapy.

Towards personalized treatment of T2N0 rectal cancer: A systematic review of long-term oncological outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the treatment of choice in T2N0 tumors. However, evidence suggest that one-size-fits-all approach is not always beneficial for this group of patients. The aim of this study is to synthesize data on long-term outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by local excision (LE) in T2N0 rectal cancer patients in the perspective of a rectal-preserving strategy.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases was conducted until October 2021 to identify studies comparing LE after NAT and TME or reporting oncologic outcomes after conservative approach. A pooled analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model in the case of non-significant heterogeneity (P > 0.1), and a random effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) when significant heterogeneity was present (P < 0.1) CRD42022300344.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. Three of them were comparative studies. The pooled 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year OS, 5-year OS, local and distant recurrence rates were 92.8% (95% CI 81.6-99.5%), 91.3% (95% CI 88.3-94.3%), 96.1% (95% CI 90.5-100%), 72.6% (95% CI 57.5-87.7%), 4% (95% CI 18-63%), and 4.9% (95% CI 2-7.8%), respectively, in subjects treated with NAT followed by LE. No heterogeneity was found for all these analyses, except for the 5-year OS sub-analysis (I² 95.5%, P < 0.001). Complete pathological response (ypT0) rate after NAT and LE ranges from 26.7% to 59%.

CONCLUSION

LE following neoadjuvant CRT may provide comparable survival benefit to radical surgery for patients with clinical stage T2N0 in selected patients although the evidence is still limited to provide solid recommendations. A personalized therapeutic approach taking into account tumor and patient-related factors should be considered.

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.

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision After Transanal Local Excision of Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the quality of completion resections and the impact on oncological safety remain unanswered.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize and analyze the outcomes associated with completion surgery and undertake a comparative analysis with primary rectal resections.

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included PubMed, Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting any outcome of completion surgery after transanal local excision of an early rectal cancer were selected. Case reports, studies of benign lesions, and studies using flexible endoscopic techniques were not included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was completion total mesorectal excision after transanal local excision of early rectal cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures included histopathological and long-term oncological outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision. Secondary outcome measures included short-term perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 646 patients met the eligibility criteria, and 8 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients undergoing completion surgery have longer operative times (standardized mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0002) and higher intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.01-0.5; p = 0.04) compared with primary resections, but perioperative morbidity is comparable (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62; p = 0.08). Completion surgery is associated with higher rates of incomplete mesorectal specimens (risk ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.41-6.62; p = 0.005) and lower lymph node yields (standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.06; p = 0.01). Comparative analysis on long-term outcomes is limited, but no evidence of inferior recurrence or survival rates is found.

LIMITATIONS

Only small retrospective cohort and case-control studies are published on this topic, with considerable heterogeneity limiting the effectiveness of meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides the strongest evidence to date that completion surgery is associated with an inferior histopathological grade of the mesorectum and finds insufficient long-term results to satisfy concerns regarding oncological safety. International collaborative research is required to demonstrate noninferiority.

REGISTRATION NO

CRD42021245101.

Total Mesorectal Excision vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Followed by Radiotherapy for T2N0M0 Distal Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an organ-preserving treatment alternative for patients with early rectal cancer. However, TEM alone is associated with greater risk of local recurrence and inferior survival in comparison with total meso-rectal excision (TME). As an important adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy can effectively reduce the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether TEM followed by radiotherapy can be a valid alternative to TME in T2N0M0 distal rectal cancer treatment.

Methods

We plan to recruit 168 participants meeting established inclusion criteria. Following informed consent, participants will randomly receive treatment protocols of TEM followed by radiotherapy (a total dose of 45–50.4 Gy given in 25–28 factions) or TME. Depending on post-operative pathology, the participants will receive either long-term follow-up or further treatment. The primary endpoint of this trial is 3-year local recurrence rate. The secondary end points include 3-year disease-free survival rate, 3-year overall survival rate, 3-year mortality rate, post-operative quality of life, post-operative safety index, intraoperative evaluation index and post-operative short-term evaluation index.

Discussion

This trial is the first prospective randomized trial to investigate the rectum preserving treatment by using transanal local excision followed by radiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098471 on September 20, 2019.

Nonmetastatic ypt0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision: Lessons from a retrospective multicentric cohort of 383 patients

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of pathological features and oncological survival in ypT0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is required to improve patient selection criteria for rectal-preserving approach by local excision. Our aim was to define risk of lymph node metastasis and oncological outcomes in ypT0 rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for a nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma classified ypT0 after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with or without locoregional lymph node involvement (ypN+ or ypN-), in 14 French academic centers between 2002 and 2015 were included. Data were collected retrospectively. Overall and disease-free survival were explored.

RESULTS

Among the 383 ypT0 patients, 6% were ypN+ (23/283). Before chemoradiotherapy, 86% (327/380) were staged cT3-T4 and 41% (156/378) were staged cN+. The risk of ypN+ did not differ between cT3-T4 and cT1-T2 patients (P = .345) or between cN+ and cN- patients (P = .384). After a median follow-up of 61.1 months, we observed 95% confidence interval (92%-97%) of 5-year overall survival and 93% confidence interval (91%-96%) of 5-year disease-free survival. In Cox multivariate analysis, overall survival was altered by intra-abdominal septic complications (hazard ratio = 2.53, confidence interval [1.11-5.78], P = .028). Regarding disease-free survival, ypN+ status and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with a reduced disease-free survival (P = .001 for both). cT3/T4 staging and cN+ staging did not modify overall survival (P = .332 and P = .450) nor disease-free survival (P = .862 and P = .124).

CONCLUSION

The risk of lymph node metastasis and the oncological survival do not depend on the initial cT or cN staging in cases of ypT0 complete rectal tumor regression.

[Complete response after neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer: implications for surgery]

For (locally advanced) rectal cancer, a multimodal therapy concept comprising neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy, radical surgical resection with partial/complete mesorectal excision and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy represents the current international standard of care. Further developments in neoadjuvant therapy concepts, such as the principle of total neoadjuvant therapy, lead to an increasing number of patients who show a complete clinical response in restaging after neoadjuvant therapy without clinically detectable residual tumor. In view of the risk associated with radical surgical resection in terms of perioperative morbidity and a potentially non-continence-preserving procedure, the question of the oncological justifiability of an organ-preserving procedure in the case of a complete clinical response under neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being raised. The therapeutic principle of watch and wait, defined by refraining from immediate radical surgical resection and inclusion in a close-meshed, structured follow-up program, currently appears to be oncologically justifiable based on the current study situation; however, for the initial evaluation of the extent of the clinical response and for the structuring of the close-meshed follow-up program, further optimization and standardization based on broadly designed studies appear necessary in order to be able to provide this concept to a clearly defined patient collective as an oncologically equivalent therapy principle also outside specialized centers.

Rectal Sparing Approach After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: The Preliminary Results of the ReSARCh Trial

BACKGROUND

Rectum-preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer has been proposed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with major (mCR) or complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. The purpose of this study was to report on the short-term outcomes of ReSARCh (Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio- and/or Chemotherapy) trial, which is a prospective, multicenter, observational trial that investigated the role of transanal local excision (LE) and watch-and-wait (WW) as integrated approaches after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with mid-low rectal cancer who achieved mCR or cCR after neoadjuvant therapy and were fit for major surgery were enrolled. Clinical response was evaluated at 8 and 12 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. Treatment approach, incidence, and reasons for subsequent TME were recorded.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2019, 160 patients were enrolled; mCR or cCR at 12 weeks was achieved in 64 and 96 of patients, respectively. Overall, 98 patients were managed with LE and 62 with WW. In the LE group, Clavien-Dindo 3+ complications occurred in three patients. The rate of cCR increased from 8- to 12-week restaging. Thirty-three (94.3%) of 35 patients with cCR had ypT0-1 tumor. At a median 24 months follow-up, a tumor regrowth was found in 15 (24.2%) patients undergoing WW.

CONCLUSIONS

LE for patients achieving cCR or mCR is safe. A 12-week interval from chemoradiotherapy completion to LE is correlated with an increased cCR rate. The risk of ypT > is reduced when LE is performed after cCR.

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.

Comparison of guidelines on rectal cancer: exception proves the rule?

The standard of care for early or locally advanced rectal cancer is promoted by multiple clinical practice guidelines globally, but the considerable differences between the guidelines may cause confusion. We compared the latest updated clinical practice guidelines from five professional societies/authorities: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, European Society of Medical Oncology, Chinese National Health Commission, and Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology. Key evidence is discussed for a better understanding of some seemingly contradictory recommendations.

A Meta-analysis of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery versus Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

Background  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) has been suggested as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in the treatment of early rectal cancers. The extended role of TEMS for higher stage rectal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy is also experimented. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the oncological outcomes and report on the evidence-based clinical supremacy of either technique.

Methods  Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the oncological and perioperative outcomes of TEMS and a radical TME. A local recurrence and postoperative complications were analyzed as primary end points. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and duration of hospital stay were compared as secondary end points.

Results  There was no statistical difference in the local recurrence or postoperative complications with a risk ratio of 1.898 and 0.753 and p -values of 0.296 and 0.306, respectively, for TEMS and TME. A marked statistical significance in favor of TEMS was observed for secondary end points. There was standard difference in means of −4.697, −6.940, and −5.685 with p -values of 0.001, 0.005, and 0.001 for blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay, respectively.

Conclusion  TEMS procedure is a viable alternative to TME in the treatment of early rectal cancers. An extended role of TEMS after neoadjuvant therapy may also be offered to a selected group of patients. TME surgery remains the standard of care in more advanced rectal cancers.

Robotic Transanal Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Robotic transanal surgery is the culmination of major developments in rectal cancer management and minimally invasive surgery. It is the result of continuous efforts to tackle the challenges inherent to rectal cancer surgery. This latest technology holds great promise and excitement for the care of the rectal cancer patient. In this article, we will describe the evolution of transanal rectal cancer surgery and describe how the convergence of transanal transabdominal, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS), transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME), and the different robotic platforms have culminated in the development of single port robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (SP rTAMIS) and single port robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (SP rtaTME). We will describe the indications, technical aspects, outcomes, benefits, and limitations of the SP rTAMIS and SP rtaTME.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Early and late morbidity of local excision after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

Background

Local excision (LE) after chemoradiotherapy is a new option in low rectal cancer, but morbidity has never been compared prospectively with total mesorectal excision (TME). Early and late morbidity were compared in patients treated either by LE or TME after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

Method

This was a post-hoc analysis from a randomized trial. Patients with clinical T2/T3 low rectal cancer with good response to the chemoradiotherapy and having either LE, LE with eventual completion TME, or TME were considered. Early (1 month) and late (2 years) morbidities were compared between the three groups.

Results

There were no deaths following surgery in any of the three groups. Early surgical morbidity (20 per cent LE versus 36 per cent TME versus 43 per cent completion TME, P = 0.025) and late surgical morbidity (4 per cent versus 33 per cent versus 57 per cent, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LE group than in the TME or the completion TME group. of LE, was associated with the lowest rate of early (10 versus 18 versus 21 per cent, P = 0.217) and late medical morbidities (0 versus 7 versus 7 per cent, P = 0.154), although this did not represent a significant difference between the groups. The severity of overall morbidity was significantly lower at 2 years after LE compared with TME or completion TME (4 versus 28 versus 43 per cent grade 3–5, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The rate of surgical complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the LE group was half that of TME group at 1 month and 10 times lower at 2 years. LE is a safe approach for organ preservation and should be considered as an alternative to watch-and-wait in complete clinical responders and to TME in subcomplete responders.

Can transanal endoscopic microsurgery effectively treat T1 or T2 rectal cancer?A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

We aimed to compare the safety and oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and radical surgery (RS) for patients with T1 or T2 rectal cancer.

METHOD

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies comparing TEM with RS in rectal cancer published until April 2020. We focused on safety and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 3526 patients from 12 studies. Compared with RS, TEM had a shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -110.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 143.98, -76.06), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD -493.63, 95% CI: 772.66, -214.59), lower perioperative morality (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.99), and fewer postoperative surgical complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11,0.45). TEM was associated with more patients with a positive margin or a doubtfully complete margin than RS (RR 7.36, 95% CI: 3.66, 14.78). TEM was associated with higher local recurrence (RR 2.63, 95% CI: 1.60, 4.31) and overall recurrence (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.36). TEM had a negative effect on 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.96), especially in the T2 without neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) subgroup (HR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.32, 3.09), but in the subgroups of T1 or T2 with NAT before TEM, TEM did not yield a significantly lower overall survival than RS.

CONCLUSION

TEM seems appropriate for T1 rectal cancer with favourable histopathology. For patients with T2 rectal cancer, NAT before TEM may contribute to achieving oncological outcomes equivalent to that achieved with RS.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Due to the increased uptake of rectal cancer screening and the increasing rates of complete clinical response to chemoradiotherapy, more early-stage and down-staged rectal cancers are being treated. This has triggered surgeons to question the necessity for proctectomy and its associated morbidity and consider local excision and organ preservation in selected cases. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has evolved as an oncologically safe yet cost-effective platform for local excision of rectal tumors using traditional laparoscopic instruments. This review highlights the recent advances and current role of TAMIS in the treatment of rectal cancer.