Completion surgery vs. primary TME for early rectal cancer: a national study

Local resection in rectal cancer: When, who and how?

Local resection (LR) in rectal cancer is indicated in stage T1N0M0 without unfavorable pathological factors, achieving oncologically satisfactory outcomes through transanal endoscopic surgery techniques. However, the initial step involves accurate staging and selection of these tumors through specific tests conducted in specialized colorectal units. For T2N0M0 tumors and T1 tumors with poor prognostic factors, the standard treatment is total mesorectal excision (TME), a procedure associated with high postoperative morbidity and mortality, functional impairments, and reduced quality of life. Therefore, new organ-preservation strategies are being explored as alternatives to TME. These include neoadjuvant therapy combined with LR, which has shown promising results, and neoadjuvant therapy followed by a "Watch and Wait" approach -where patients with complete clinical response are selected for strict surveillance- as an ideal future treatment, although there are still current challenges to be addressed.

Oncologic safety and technical feasibility of completion transanal total mesorectal excision after local excision; a cohort study from the International TaTME Registry

BACKGROUND

As part of an organ sparing strategy, a surgical local excision may be performed in patients with early-stage rectal cancer or following neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. In selected cases, a completion total mesorectal excision may be recommended which can be more complex because of the preceding local excision. A transanal approach to perform completion total mesorectal excision may offer an advantage through the better visualization of the surgical field in the distal rectum and less forceful retraction for exposure. However, the oncologic safety and technical feasibility of this approach have yet to be demonstrated in these patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological and technical safety of completion transanal total mesorectal excision following a local excision in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients from the prospective International Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Registry who underwent a surgical local excision prior to completion transanal total mesorectal excision were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 189 patients were included of which 22% received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. In 94% of the patients, a low anterior resection was performed. A primary anastomosis was constructed in 91% (n = 171/189) of the patients, with the majority also receiving a defunctioning stoma (84%, n = 144/171), of which 69% (n = 100/144) were reversed. Within 30 days, 7% developed an anastomotic leakage. The two-year local recurrence rate was 5% (n = 5/104) with an estimated rate of 3% (95% CI 0-7%). Two-year disease-free survival was 85% (n = 88/104) and overall survival was 95% (n = 99/104).

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal completion total mesorectal excision following local excision for rectal cancer is oncologically safe, with low complication rates and high restorative rates.

Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.

Completion Surgery after Non-Curative Local Resection of Early Rectal Cancer

Background

The expanding indications of local - endoscopic and transanal surgical - resection of early rectal cancer has led to their increased popularity and inclusion in the treatment guidelines. The accuracy of the current diagnostic tools in identifying the low-risk T1 tumors that can be curatively treated with a local resection is low, and thus several patients require additional oncologic surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME). An efficient clinical strategy which avoids overtreatment and obstacle surgical procedures is under debate between different disciplines.

Summary

Completion surgery has comparable outcomes to primary surgery regarding perioperative morbidity and mortality but also recurrence rates and overall survival. However, local scarring in the mesorectum can make mesorectal excision technically challenging, especially after full-thickness resections, and has been associated with increased rates of permanent ostomy and worse quality of the TME specimen. This risk seems to be lower after muscle-sparing procedures like endoscopic submucosal dissection, which seem to show a benefit in comparison to full-thickness resections.

Key Messages

Completion surgery after non-curative local resection of gastrointestinal malignancies is safe and feasible. Full-thickness resection techniques can cause scarring of the mesorectum; therefore, muscle-sparing procedures should be preferred.

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.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).

Background

Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.

Results

In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.

Conclusions

cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Current Surgical Methods in Local Rectal Excision

Background

The treatment of rectal cancer has evolved with the advancement of surgical techniques. Less invasive approaches are becoming more accepted as the primary treatment method.

Summary

Such methods as transanal excision, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, and transanal minimally invasive surgery can reduce morbidity and mortality rates. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for these procedures, and proper diagnostics are necessary to establish indications. Compared to total mesorectal excision, transanal excision techniques have been shown to have fewer complications and comorbidities while still being able to remove cancerous tissue entirely. Transanal excision is the simplest method, where the operator removes visible rectal lesions. The basic principle of transanal endoscopic microsurgery is to dilate the rectum mechanically and by air insufflation and then use special surgical instruments to remove suspicious lesions under the vision of a telescope. Transanal minimally invasive surgery combines transanal endoscopic microsurgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery, making the hard-to-reach proximal rectum accessible to classic laparoscopic instruments.

Key Message

Local excision techniques, when used as a monotherapy for treating patients with rectal cancer, have established themselves as a curative and less radical treatment for strictly selected patients with early rectal carcinoma, leading to improved quality of life. When combined with other modalities such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total neoadjuvant therapy, and immunotherapy, transanal surgery can be offered to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer as part of the organ preservation strategy. This review will discuss the patient selection and technical aspects of transanal surgery, showcasing its current role in treating rectal carcinoma.

Local full-thickness excision for sessile adenoma and cT1-2 rectal cancer: long-term oncological outcome

PURPOSE

We analyzed all patients who underwent local transanal surgery at our institution to determine oncological outcomes and perioperative risk.

METHODS

In 1997, we developed a prospective protocol for rectal tumors: transanal local full-thickness excision was considered curative in patients with benign adenoma and early cancers. In this analysis, 404 patients were included. To analyze survival, only those patients exposed to the risk of dying for at least 5 years were considered for the study.

RESULTS

The final pathological analysis revealed that 262 (64.8%) patients had benign lesions, whereas 142 had malignant lesions. Postoperative complications were recorded in 12.6%. At the median time of 21 months, 14% of the adenomas and 12% of cancers had recurred, half of which were surgically resected. The overall 5-year survival rate was 94%.

CONCLUSION

With similar outcomes and significantly lower morbidity, we found local surgery to be an adequate alternative to radical surgery in selected cases of early rectal cancer.