Locally recurrent rectal cancer; long-term outcome of curative surgical and non-surgical treatment of 447 consecutive patients in a tertiary referral centre

Palliative management of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: Clinical presentation, treatment strategies, and overall survival

INTRODUCTION

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 6-12 % of the patients after curative treatment for primary rectal cancer. Palliative treatment plays a critical role, as over half of the patients are ineligible for curative treatment. However, data on patients treated with palliative intent is limited. This study aims to evaluate palliative treatment strategies and overall survival (OS) in LRRC patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all LRRC discussed at the multidisciplinary team in a tertiary referral center, between May 2018 and June 2023. Patients treated with palliative intent were categorized as palliative due to locally unresectable disease, metastatic disease, frailty, or patient preference. Outcomes were OS, treatment response, duration of treatment effect, and hospital admissions. Local control was defined as response or stable disease on imaging.

RESULTS

Out of 188 patients, 58 (30.9 %) were treated with palliative intent. Palliative treatments included systemic therapy, chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy. The median OS for patients treated with palliative intent was 22 months. 3-year OS was 27.1 %, compared to 73.1 % for curative intent patients. Patients with locally unresectable disease had a significantly better OS compared to patients with distant metastases (31 versus 12 months). Local control was achieved in 53.3 % of patients after any palliative treatment, with a median effect duration of 9 months. Chemoradiotherapy was associated with best results for local control.

CONCLUSION

LRRC patients treated with palliative intent can experience substantial survival, particularly those with unresectable disease. Local control due to palliative treatment is feasible, possibly improving survival. Individualized palliative treatment is crucial.

Clinical calculator based on clinicopathological characteristics predicts local recurrence and overall survival following radical resection of stage II-III colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the risk factors and survival prognosis of local recurrence in stage II-III colorectal cancer (CRC) and develop a clinical risk calculator and nomograms to predict local recurrence and survival in treated patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent radical surgery between January 2009 and December 2019 at the China National Cancer Center were included. Multivariate nomograms and a clinical risk calculator based on Cox regression were developed. Discrimination was measured with an area under curve (AUC) and variability in individual predictions was assessed with calibration curves. We stratified patients into different risk groups according to the established model to predict their prognosis and guide clinical practice.

RESULTS

The clinical risk calculator incorporated six variables: tumor thrombus, perineural invasion, tumor grade, pathology T-stage, pathology N-stage, and whether more than 12 lymph nodes were harvested. Our clinical risk calculator provided good discrimination, with AUC values of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (0.764) and overall survival (OS) (0.815) in the training cohort and LRFS (0.740) and OS (0.730) in the test cohort. Calibration plots illustrated excellent agreement between the clinical risk calculator predictions and actual observations for 3- and 5-year LRFS and OS. Recurrence risk-stratified analysis showed that low-risk patients were more likely to undergo salvage radical surgery when recurrent disease existed.

CONCLUSION

The clinical calculator can better account for tumor and patient heterogeneity, providing a more individualized outcome prognostication. The model is expected to aid in treatment planning, such as resectability evaluation, and it can be used in postoperative surveillance (https://oldcoloncancer.shinyapps.io/dynnomapp/).

A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery

Background: Conventional pelvic exenteration (PE) comprises the removal of all or most central pelvic organs and is established in clinical practise. Previously, tumours involving bone or lateral sidewall structures were deemed inoperable due to associated morbidity, mortality, and poor oncological outcomes. Recently however high-complexity PE is increasingly described and is defined as encompassing conventional PE with the additional resection of bone or pelvic sidewall structures. This observational cohort study aimed to assess surgical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), decision regret, and costs of high-complexity PE for more advanced tumours not treatable with conventional PE. Methods: High-complexity PE data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained quaternary database. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, disease control, major morbidity, HrQoL, and health resource use. For cost-utility analysis, a no-PE group was extrapolated from the literature. Results: In total, 319 cases were included, with 64 conventional and 255 high-complexity PE, and the overall survival was equivalent, with medians of 10.5 and 9.8 years (p = 0.52), respectively. Local control (p = 0.30); 90-day mortality (0.0% vs. 1.2%, p = 1.00); R0-resection rate (87% vs. 83%, p = 0.08); 12-month HrQoL (p = 0.51); and decision regret (p = 0.90) were comparable. High-complexity PE significantly increased overall major morbidity (16% vs. 31%, p = 0.02); and perioperative costs (GBP 37,271 vs. GBP 45,733, p < 0.001). When modelled against no surgery, both groups appeared cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 2446 and GBP 5061. Conclusions: High-complexity PE is safe and feasible, offering comparable survival outcomes and HrQoL to conventional PE, but with greater morbidity and resource use. Despite this, it appears cost-effective when compared to no surgery and palliation.

Outcome of intraoperative brachytherapy as a salvage treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) requires a multimodal approach. Intraoperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) may reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, the optimal therapeutic regimen remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective monocentric study was to evaluate the toxicity of HDR-BT after resection of RRC.

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2022, 17 patients with RRC received resection and HDR-BT. HDR-BT was delivered alone or as an anticipated boost with a median dose of 13 Gy (range 10-13 Gy) using an 192iridium microSelectron HDR remote afterloader (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). All participants were followed for assessment of acute and late adverse events using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 and the modified Late Effects in Normal Tissues criteria (subjective, objective, management, and analytic; LENT-SOMA) at 3‑ to 6‑month intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients were treated by HDR-BT with median dose of 13 Gy (range 10-13 Gy). Most patients (47%) had an RRC tumor stage of cT3‑4 N0. At the time of RRC diagnosis, 7 patients (41.2%) had visceral metastases (hepatic, pulmonary, or peritoneal) in the sense of oligometastatic disease. The median interval between primary tumor resection and diagnosis of RRC was 17 months (range 1-65 months). In addition to HDR-BT, 2 patients received long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT; up to 50.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions) and 2 patients received short-course CRT up to 36 Gy in 2‑Gy fractions. For concomitant CRT, all patients received 5‑fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine. Median follow-up was 13 months (range 1-54). The most common acute grade 1-2 toxicities were pain in 7 patients (41.2%), wound healing disorder in 3 patients (17.6%), and lymphedema in 2 patients (11.8%). Chronic toxicities were similar: grade 1-2 pain in 7 patients (41.2%), wound healing disorder in 3 patients (17.6%), and incontinence in 2 patients (11.8%). No patient experienced a grade ≥3 event.

CONCLUSION

Reirradiation using HDR-BT is well tolerated with low toxicity. An individualized multimodality approach using HDR-BT in the oligometastatic setting should be evaluated in prospective multi-institutional studies.

A matter of survival-patients' and carers' perspectives on the decision to undergo pelvic exenteration surgery for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

Pelvic exenteration is the only potentially curative treatment for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate how patients decide to undergo such radical surgery.

METHOD

This qualitative study employed an exploratory interpretive design informed by hermeneutic philosophy. During semi-structured interviews, individuals who had undergone pelvic exenteration at a specialised centre and their carers were asked to reflect on the decision-making process around surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight interviews were conducted with 39 participants (34 patients and five carers). Four themes were identified. There really wasn't a choice-participants indicated that long-term survival was their absolute priority, with many feeling that there was no alternative. Only one participant expressed decision regret due to the consequences of surgery. Grappling with the magnitude of surgery-despite extensive preoperative education and counselling, the enormity of the surgery and recovery experience was incomprehensible to participants until they were 'in it', with many surprised by a slow and protracted recovery. A spectrum of psychological states and support needs-participants reflected on their psychological state prior to surgery, identifying family or professional pre-surgery counselling as sources of support. Understanding life after surgery-although most participants were willing to accept anything in order to survive, many identified the impact on bodily functions, body image and overall quality of life as important.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival was the principal factor influencing the decision to undergo pelvic exenteration. Individualised preoperative counselling may improve patient preparedness for the consequences of surgery.

Ten-year survival and pattern of recurrence in patients with locally recurrent rectal or sigmoid cancer undergoing resection

AIM

The aim of this work is to report actual overall survival (AOS) at 5 and 10 years after multimodal treatment for locally recurrent rectal or sigmoid cancer (LRRC) and the importance of local re-recurrence (reLRRC) and distant metastases for AOS.

METHOD

All patients resected for LRRC at a single centre between years 1990 and 2007 were included. Resections were based on images taken after neoadjuvant treatment. Patients were prospectively followed up for 5 years. After a minimum of 10 years, the records of referring hospitals were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients underwent resection. At 5 and 10 years 33% and 17%, respectively, had survived. Median survival was 38 months [interquartile range (IQR) 62 months]. Patients with complete resections had 5- and 10-year survival of 56% and 28%, respectively, versus 22% and 11% for those with microscopic remaining tumour; none with macroscopic remains survived beyond 4 years. Median survival was 71 months (IQR 106 months), 33 months (IQR 35 months) and 15 months (IQR 17 months), respectively. With a median survival of 123 months (IQR 80 months), the 54 patients without recurrence had 5- and 10-year survival of 69% and 59%, respectively. The independent predictor of survival was R-stage. Of the 197 patients who had radical resection, 83 developed reLRRC and 108 distant metastases. ReLRRC appeared at a median of 18 months (IQR 21 months) and distant metastases at 12 months (IQR 21 months). Lung metastases were the most common form of distant disease.

CONCLUSION

More than 5 years postoperatively the mortality from cancer was substantial. Most metastases appeared not to be secondary to reLRRC. Planning surgery from pretreatment images might reduce reLRRC.

Current Management of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), which occurs in 6-12% of patients previously treated with surgery, with or without pre-operative chemoradiation therapy, represents a complex and heterogeneous disease profoundly affecting the patient's quality of life (QoL) and long-term survival. Its management usually requires a multidisciplinary approach, to evaluate the several aspects of a LRRC, such as resectability or the best approach to reduce symptoms. Surgical treatment is more complex and usually needs high-volume centers to obtain a higher rate of radical (R0) resections and to reduce the rate of postoperative complications. Multiple factors related to the patient, to the primary tumor, and to the surgery for the primary tumor contribute to the development of local recurrence. Accurate pre-treatment staging of the recurrence is essential, and several classification systems are currently used for this purpose. Achieving an R0 resection through radical surgery remains the most critical factor for a favorable oncologic outcome, although both chemotherapy and radiotherapy play a significant role in facilitating this goal. If a R0 resection of a LRRC is not feasible, palliative treatment is mandatory to reduce the LRRC-related symptoms, especially pain, minimizing the effect of the recurrence on the QoL of the patients. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the literature regarding the management of LRRC.

Roles of MRI evaluation of pelvic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer

Developments in the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer with advances in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), surgical techniques, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy have had a significant impact on patient outcomes, increasing the rates of curative surgeries and reducing pelvic recurrence. Patients with pelvic recurrence have worse prognoses, with an impact on morbidity and mortality. Although local recurrence is more frequent within 2 years of surgical resection of the primary tumor, late recurrence may occur. Clinical manifestations can vary from asymptomatic, nonspecific symptoms, to pelvic pain, bleeding, and fistulas. Synchronous metastatic disease occurs in approximately 50% of patients diagnosed with local recurrence. MRI plays a crucial role in posttreatment follow-up, whether by identifying viable neoplastic tissues or acting as a tool for therapeutic planning and assessing the resectability of these lesions. Locally recurrent tissues usually have a higher signal intensity than muscle on T2-weighted imaging. Thus, attention is required for focal heterogeneous lesions, marked contrast enhancement, early invasive behavior, and asymmetric appearance, which are suspicious for local recurrence. However, postsurgical inflammatory changes related to radiotherapy and fibrosis make it difficult to detect initial lesions. This study therefore aimed to review the main imaging patterns of pelvic recurrence and their implications for the surgical decision-making process. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays a crucial role in the posttreatment follow-up of rectal cancer, whether by identifying viable neoplastic tissues or by acting as a tool for therapeutic planning. This study reviewed the main imaging patterns of pelvic recurrence. KEY POINTS: MRI aids in surgical planning and the detection of pelvic recurrence and postoperative complications. Being familiar with surgical techniques enables radiologists to identify expected MRI findings. Patterns of rectal cancer recurrence have been categorized by pelvic compartments. Neoplastic tissue may mimic postsurgical and postradiotherapy changes. Resectability of pelvic recurrence is highly related to lesion location.

Risk factors and treatment strategies for local recurrence of locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in total mesorectal excision (TME) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy, locally advanced rectal cancer remains challenging, impacting patient quality of life and mortality. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and assess treatment strategies for recurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 682 patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant CRT and TME at Samsung Medical Center from 2008 to 2017. The exclusion criteria ensured a homogenous cohort. Clinical staging involved colonoscopies, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and digital rectal exam. Risk factors, treatment modalities, and oncological outcomes for local recurrence were evaluated.

RESULT

During a median 62-month follow-up, 47 patients (6.9 %) experienced local recurrence. The risk factors for local recurrence included a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), venous invasion, and perineural invasion. Of the 47 patients with local recurrence, 25 (53.2 %) were considered resectable. Out of these, 23 patients underwent curative resections, and 15 (65.2 %) achieved R0 resection. Patients with R0 resections exhibited superior 5-year survival rates compared to R1-2 resection or non-surgical treatment, and there was no survival difference between R1-2 resection and non-surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

In locally advanced rectal cancer, positive CRM, venous invasion, and perineural invasion were associated with local recurrence. R0 resection showed favorable outcomes, emphasizing the importance of surveillance in high-risk patients. Treatment decisions should consider these factors for improved oncologic outcomes and quality of life.

Analysis of re-recurrent rectal cancer after curative treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Substantiating data guiding clinical decision making in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is lacking, specifically in target volume (TV) definition for chemoradiotherapy (CRT). A case-by-case review of local re-recurrences (re-LRRC) after multimodal treatment for LRRC was performed, to determine location of re-LRRC and assess whether treatment could have been improved.

METHODS

All patients treated with curative intent for LRRC at the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven from October 2016 onwards, in whom complete imaging of (re-)LRRC and radiotherapy was available, were retrieved. Patients were discussed in plenary meetings with expert colorectal surgeons, radiation oncologists and radiologists. Each case was classified based on re-LRRC location, whether it was in accordance with the (current) radiotherapy protocol, and whether multimodal management would have been different in retrospect.

RESULTS

Thirty-three cases were discussed. LRRC treatment was deemed suboptimal in 17/33 patients, due to different target volumes (13/17) and/or different surgery (9/17). 15/33 (46 %) of re-LRRC developed in-field of the prior radiotherapy TV, possibly showing RT-resistant disease. Other re-LRRCs developed out-field (n = 5, 15 %), marginally (n = 6, 18 %), or in a combined fashion (n = 7, 21 %). In retrospect, 48 % of cases were irradiated in line with current TV recommendations. TVs of 13/33 cases would have been altered if irradiated today.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights room for improvement within current standard-ofcare treatment for LRRC. Different surgical management or TVs may have improved outcome in up to half of discussed cases. Further delineation guideline development, incorporating the results from this study, may improve oncological outcome, specifically local control, for LRRC patients.

Outcomes of chemotherapy/chemoradiation vs. R2 surgical debulking vs. palliative care in nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer

Locally recurrent rectal cancer is resected with clear margins in only 50% of cases, and these patients achieve a three-year survival rate of 50%. Outcomes and therapeutic strategies for nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer have been much less explored. The aim of the study was to assess the three-year progression-free survival and the three-year overall survival in locally recurrent rectal cancer patients treated by chemotherapy/chemoradiation only vs. chemotherapy/chemoradiation and R2 surgical debulking vs. palliative care. A total of 86 patients affected by nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer were included: three-year progression-free survival was 15.8% with chemotherapy/chemoradiation vs. 20.3% with R2 surgical debulking (Log-rank p=0.567), but both rates were higher than best palliative care (0.0%, Log-rank p=0.0004). Three-year overall survival rates were respectively 62.0%, 70.8% and 0.0% (Log-rank p<0.0001). Chemotherapy/chemoradiation (HR 0.33, p=0.028) and R2 surgical debulking with or without chemotherapy/chemoradiation (HR 0.23, p=0.005) were independent predictors of improved progression-free survival on multivariate analysis. In conclusion, both chemotherapy/chemoradiation alone and R2 surgery with or without chemotherapy/chemoradiation provide a survival benefit over palliative care in nonresectable locally recurrent rectal cancer. However, considering that pelvic debulking is burdened by a high rate of complications, and considering its negligible impact on progression-free survival and overall survival when associated to medical therapy, surgery should be avoided in this setting.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism after surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence is common after curative resections of rectal cancer. Surgical resection is considered a primary curative treatment option for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). LRRC often requires a combined resection of other organs, especially in the case of posterior recurrence, which requires a combined resection of the sacrum, making the surgery highly invasive. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the lethal complications in the postoperative period, particularly in the field of pelvic surgery. We found no reports regarding the risks of postoperative VTE in surgery for LRRC, a typical highly invasive procedure in the field of colorectal surgery. This study aims to evaluate the risk of postoperative VTE in surgery for LRRC patients.

METHODS

From April 2010 to March 2022, a total of 166 patients underwent surgery for LRRC in the pelvic region at our institutions. Clinicopathological background and VTE incidence were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS

Among the 166 patients included in the study, 55 patients (33.1%) needed sacral resection. Pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of VTE was performed in 121 patients (73.3%), and the incidence of VTE was 9.09% (5/55 patients) among those who underwent surgery for LRRC with sacral resection, while it was 1.8% (2/111 patients) in those without sacral resection. In univariate analysis, the combination with sacral resection was identified as a risk factor for VTE in surgery for LRRC (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that surgery for LRRC combined with sacral resection could be a significant risk factor for VTE.

Association of resection margin distance with anastomotic recurrence in stage I-III colon cancer: data from the National Colorectal Cancer Cohort (NCRCC) study in China

PURPOSE

Few studies have focused on anastomotic recurrence (AR) in colon cancer. This study aimed to clarify the association of resection margin distance with AR and compare the prognosis with nonanastomotic local recurrence (NAR).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included the clinical data of patients who underwent radical colon cancer surgery between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 1958 colon cancer patients were included in the study. 34 of whom (1.7%) had AR and 105 of whom (5.4%) had NAR. Multivariate analysis revealed that the lower distal resection margin distance, advanced N stage, and number of lymph nodes dissected were risk factors for AR. In the proximal resection margin, the risk of AR was lowest at a distance of 6 cm or greater, with a 3-year rate of 1.3%. In the distal resection margin, the 3-year AR risk increased rapidly if the distance was less than 3 cm. The prognosis of patients in the AR group was similar to that of patients in the NAR group, regardless of synchronous distant metastases. Furthermore, the radical surgery rate for AR was significantly higher than that for NAR, but the prognosis of AR was comparable to that of NAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The distal resection margin distance, advanced N stage, and less number of lymph nodes dissected are associated with AR of colon cancer. The prognosis of patients with AR was similar to that of patients with NAR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Numbers NCT04074538 ( clinicaltrials.gov ), August 26, 2019, registered, retrospectively registered.

The Role of Intraoperative Radiotherapy Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been used in the treatment of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers for the last several decades. Given the heterogeneity of patients treated and different indications for use and dosing at different institutions, it has been difficult to discern if IORT adds any appreciable benefit to standard of care therapies. Herein, the rationale for IORT in rectal cancer is discussed along with the most modern and best available data in 2023. IORT is likely indicated in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer with threatened margins (R0 or R1 resection) to help improve local control. High-quality imaging and multidisciplinary discussion are necessary to ensure optimal patient selection. Appropriate counseling of the patient and excellent team communication are of the utmost importance given the challenging nature of these cases and the prognostic implications of R1 and R2 resections in this patient population.

Treatment of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Review

ABSTRACT

Up to 10% of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer will experience locoregional recurrence. In the setting of prior surgery and often radiation and chemotherapy, these represent uniquely challenging cases. When feasible, surgical resection offers the best chance for oncologic control yet risks significant morbidity. Studies have consistently indicated that a negative surgical resection margin is the strongest predictor of oncologic outcomes. Chemoradiation is often recommended to increase the chance of an R0 resection, and in cases of close/positive margins, intraoperative radiation/brachytherapy can be utilized. In patients who are not surgical candidates, radiation can provide symptomatic relief. Ongoing phase III trials are aiming to address questions regarding the role of reirradiation and induction multiagent chemotherapy regimens in this population.

Current Applications and Future Directions of Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer Recurrence

The ability to predict or detect colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence early after surgery enables physicians to apply appropriate treatment plans and different follow-up strategies to improve patient survival. Overall, 30-50% of CRC patients experience cancer recurrence after radical surgery, but current surveillance tools have limitations in the precise and early detection of cancer recurrence. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cancer cells that detach from the primary tumor and enter the bloodstream. These can provide real-time information on disease status. CTCs might become novel markers for predicting CRC recurrence and, more importantly, for making decisions about additional adjuvant chemotherapy. In this review, the clinical application of CTCs as a therapeutic marker for stage II CRC is described. It then discusses the utility of CTCs for monitoring cancer recurrence in advanced rectal cancer patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Finally, it discusses the roles of CTC subtypes and CTCs combined with clinicopathological factors in establishing a multimarker model for predicting CRC recurrence.

Impact of the new rectal cancer definition on multimodality treatment and interhospital variability: Results from a nationwide cross-sectional study

AIM

This study aimed to determine the consequences of the new definition of rectal cancer for decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT). The new definition of rectal cancer, the lower border of the tumour is located below the sigmoid take-off (STO), was implemented in the Dutch guideline in 2019 after an international Delphi consensus meeting to reduce interhospital variations.

METHOD

All patients with rectal cancer according to the local MDT, who underwent resection in 2016 in the Netherlands were eligible for this nationwide collaborative cross-sectional study. MRI-images were rereviewed, and the tumours were classified as above or on/below the STO.

RESULTS

This study registered 3107 of the eligible 3178 patients (98%), of which 2784 patients had an evaluable MRI. In 314 patients, the tumour was located above the STO (11%), with interhospital variation between 0% and 36%. Based on TN-stage, 175 reclassified patients with colon cancer (6%) would have received different treatment (e.g., omitting neoadjuvant radiotherapy, candidate for adjuvant chemotherapy). Tumour location above the STO was independently associated with lower risk of 4-year locoregional recurrence (HR 0.529; p = 0.030) and higher 4-year overall survival (HR 0.732; p = 0.037) compared to location under the STO.

CONCLUSION

By using the STO, 11% of the prior MDT-based diagnosis of rectal cancer were redefined as sigmoid cancer, with potential implications for multimodality treatment and prognostic value. Given the substantial interhospital variation in proportion of redefined cancers, the use of the STO will contribute to standardisation and comparability of outcomes in both daily practice and trial settings.

Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Evolution of clinical nature, treatment and survival of locally recurrent rectal cancer: Comparative analysis of two national cross-sectional cohorts

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer declined after guideline revision in 2014. This decline is thought to affect the clinical nature and treatability of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Therefore, this study compared two national cross-sectional cohorts before and after the guideline revision with the aim to determine the changes in treatment and survival of LRRC patients over time.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of primary rectal cancer in 2011 (n = 2094) and 2016 (n = 2855) from two nationwide cohorts with a 4-year follow up were included. Main outcomes included time to LRRC, synchronous metastases at time of LRRC diagnosis, intention of treatment and 2-year overall survival after LRRC.

RESULTS

Use of neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for the primary tumour decreased from 88.5% to 60.0% from 2011 to 2016. The 3-year LRRC rate was not significantly different with 5.1% in 2011 (n = 114, median time to LRRC 16 months) and 6.3% in 2016 (n = 202, median time to LRRC 16 months). Synchronous metastasis rate did not significantly differ (27.2% vs 33.7%, p = 0.257). Treatment intent of the LRRC shifted towards more curative treatment (30.4% vs. 47.0%, p = 0.009). In the curatively treated group, two-year overall survival after LRRC diagnoses increased from 47.5% to 78.7% (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Primary rectal cancer patients in 2016 were treated less often with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, while LRRC rates remained similar. Those who developed LRRC were more often candidate for curative intent treatment compared to the 2011 cohort, and survival after curative intent treatment also improved substantially.

Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy for Unresectable Locally Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Promising Curative Treatment for Both Radiation Therapy: Naïve Cases and Reirradiation Cases

PURPOSE

It is difficult to effectively cure patients with unresectable locally recurrent colorectal cancers (LRCRCs) using conventional chemotherapy or chemoradiation therapy. Furthermore, treatment options vary depending on the patient's history of radiation therapy. Carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) is a potentially curative treatment for these patients. Here, we compare the treatment outcomes of radiation therapy-naïve cases (nRT) and re-irradiation cases (reRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with LRCRC treated with CIRT at QST Hospital between 2003 and 2019 were eligible. CIRT was administered daily 4 d/wk for 16 fractions. The total irradiated dose was set at 73.6 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness-weighted dose [RBE]) for nRT and 70.4 Gy (RBE) for reRT patients.

RESULTS

We included 390 nRT cases and 83 reRT cases. The median follow-up period from the initiation of CIRT was 48 (5-208) months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates for nRT and reRT were 73% (95% CI, 68%-77%) and 76% (65%-84%), respectively. The 5-year OS rates were 50% (45%-55%) and 50% (38%-61%), respectively. These rates did not differ significantly (P = .55). The 3-year local control (LC) rates for nRT (73.6 Gy) and reRT (70.4 Gy) cases were 80% (75%-84%) and 80% (68%-88%), respectively. The 5-year LC rates were 72% (67%-78%) and 69% (55%-81%), respectively, without a significant difference (P = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that CIRT for LRCRC is a very effective and promising treatment for both nRT and reRT cases.

Redo Pelvic Surgery and Combined Metastectomy for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer with Known Oligometastatic Disease: A Multicentre Review

INTRODUCTION

Historically, surgical resection for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) had been reserved for those without metastatic disease. 'Selective' patients with limited oligometastatic disease (OMD) (involving the liver and/or lung) are now increasingly being considered for resection, with favourable five-year survival rates.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing multi-visceral pelvic resection of LRRC with their oligometastatic disease between 1 January 2015 and 31 August 2021 across four centres worldwide was performed. The data collected included disease characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy details, perioperative and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants with a mean age of 59 years were included. There was a female preponderance (n = 9). Nine patients had liver metastases, four had lung metastases and one had both lung and liver disease. The mean number of metastatic tumours was 1.5 +/- 0.85. R0 margins were obtained in 71.4% (n = 10) and 100% (n = 14) of pelvic exenteration and oligometastatic disease surgeries, respectively. Mean lymph node yield was 11.6 +/- 6.9 nodes, with positive nodes being found in 28.6% (n = 4) of cases. A single major morbidity was reported, with no perioperative deaths. At follow-up, the median disease-free survival and overall survival were 12.3 months (IQR 4.5-17.5 months) and 25.9 months (IQR 6.2-39.7 months), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing radical multi-visceral surgery for LRRC and distant oligometastatic disease appears to be feasible in appropriately selected patients that underwent good perioperative counselling.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer and distant metastases: is there still a chance ofcure?

INTRODUCTION

Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) generally have poor prognosis, especially those who have (a history of) distant metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of distant metastases on oncological outcomes in LRRC patients undergoing curative treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with surgically treated LRRC between 2005 and 2019 in two tertiary referral hospitals were retrospectively analysed. Oncological survival of patients without distant metastases were compared with outcomes of patients with synchronous distant metastases with the primary tumour, patients with distant metastases in the primary-recurrence interval, and patients with synchronous LRRC distant metastases.

RESULTS

A total of 535 LRRC patients were analysed, of whom 398 (74%) had no (history of) metastases, 22 (4%) had synchronous metastases with the primary tumour, 44 (8%) had metachronous metastases, and 71 (13%) had synchronous LRRC metastases. Patients with synchronous LRRC metastases had worse survival compared to patients without metastases (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.56 [1.15-2.12]), whilst survival of patients with synchronous primary metastases and metachronous metastases of the primary tumour was similar as those patients who had no metastases. In LRRC patients who had metastases in primary-recurrence interval, patients with early metachronous metastases had better disease-free survival as patients with late metachronous metastases (3-year disease-free survival: 48% vs 22%, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

LRRC patients with synchronous distant metastases undergoing curative surgery have relatively poor prognosis. However, LRRC patients with a history of distant metastases diagnosed nearby the primary tumour have comparable (oncological) survival as LRRC patients without distant metastases.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR.

RESULTS

Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study

Background

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5-10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients' overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC.

Methods

A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA.

Findings

Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease.

Interpretation

The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice.

Funding

None.

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Toward a Second Chance at Cure? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC.

RESULTS

Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1-2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC.

Establishing a state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team meeting in South Australia

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration surgery is complex, necessitating co-ordinated multidisciplinary input and improved referral pathways. A state-wide pelvic exenteration multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was established in SA and the outcomes of this were audited and compared with historical data.

METHODS

All patients referred for discussion between August 2021 and July 2022 to the SA State-wide Pelvic Exenteration MDT were included in this study. MDT discussion centred around disease resectability, risk versus benefit of surgery, and need for local or interstate referral. Prospective data collection included patient demographics and MDT recommendations of surgery, palliation, or referral. Patients referred for surgery locally or interstate were compared with a retrospective patient cohort treated previously between January and December 2020.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 91 patients were discussed (including nine multiple times), by a mean of 18 meeting participants each month. Forty-eight patients (58.5%) had primary malignancy, 25 (30.5%) recurrent malignancy, and 9 (11.0%) had non-malignant disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common presentation (56.1%), followed by gynaecological (30.5%) and urological (6.1%) malignancy. Pelvic exenteration surgery was recommended to be performed locally in 53.7% of patients and the remainder for non-surgical treatment, palliation, or re-discussion. During this time, 44 patients underwent surgery locally (versus 34 in 2020) and only 4 referred interstate (versus 8 in 2020).

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a dedicated state-wide pelvic exenteration MDT has resulted in better coordination of care for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancy in SA, and significantly reduced the need for interstate referral.

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed.

RESULTS

Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly.

Postoperative pain management after concomitant sacrectomy for locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To assess pain management in patients post-sacrectomy, focusing on opioid use, and to identify the factors associated with postoperative pain.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with concomitant sacrectomy at one of two hospitals between 2007 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. We examined the use of opioids preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were classified into high and low sacrectomy groups based on the sacral bone resection level passing through the S3 vertebra.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Opioid use was significantly higher in the high sacrectomy group than in the low sacrectomy group at all times assessed: on postoperative days 7, 14, 30, 90, 180, and 365. Opioid use 3 months after locally recurrent rectal cancer surgery was significantly higher in patients with local re-recurrence of the tumor than in those without re-recurrence (p < 0.05), and the median morphine-equivalent opioid use 3 months postoperatively was significantly higher in the high sacrectomy group (30 vs. 0 mg/day; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use after concomitant sacrectomy for LRRC was higher in the high sacrectomy group. Prolonged postoperative pain or increasing pain was associated with local recurrence.

Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy/(re)chemoradiation for pelvic relapse of rectal cancer undergoing complex pelvic surgery: more frequent than expected?

PURPOSE

To estimate the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy/(re)chemoradiation and its impact on survival in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) and to identify predictors of pCR or differences between neoadjuvant treatments.

METHODS

Among 394 LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Italy), 74 (27.8%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without (re)chemoradiation before surgery. The pCR rate was estimated, and its impact on 5-year survival was evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival method. Univariate analysis was performed to find pre-treatment predictors of pCR.

RESULTS

After surgery, in 12 (16.2%) patients, a pCR was observed. All patients who reached pCR had R0 margins after surgery; among the 62 non-pCR patients, R0 margins were obtained in 29 (46.8%) cases only (p = 0.0004). pCR patients showed a significantly higher 5-year overall survival compared to non-pCR cases (33.3% vs. 21.0%, p = 0.045) and a trend toward better 5-year re-local recurrence-free survival. On univariate analysis, no predictor of pCR was found in the present study based on pre-treatment features.

CONCLUSION

Since pCR is significantly associated to R0 resection and 5-year overall survival, pCR could be a target for LRRC cure. However, pCR is currently unpredictable based on pre-treatment features.

Low baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios predict increased overall survival in locally recurrent rectal cancer despite R1 margins

BACKGROUND

Prognostic features in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), beyond R0 surgery, are unknown.

AIMS

Aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic role of peripheral immune estimators, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), on survival outcomes in LRRC patients.

METHODS

184 LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Italy) were included. Optimal cut-off values for NLR and PLR were determined. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox analyses were used to assess the 5-yr overall survival (OS) according to NLR and PLR, also considering margins status.

RESULTS

NLR >3.9 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.96, P = 0.049), PLR >275 (HR 5.39, P = 0.002) and size on imaging (HR 1.36, P = 0.044) were associated to worse OS. R+ patients with NLR >3.9 showed a significantly lower 5-yr OS compared to NLR ≤3.9 (13.5% vs. 36.7%, P < 0.0001). Also PLR >275 was related with a lower 5-yr OS compared to PLR ≤275 in R+ patients (6.4% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.0003). Conversely, NLR and PLR were irrelevant in case of R0 surgery.

CONCLUSION

NLR and PLR predict 5-yr OS in LRRC, also identifying a subset of R+ patients with a similar expected survival compared to R0 cases.

Use of Image-Guided Surgical Navigation during Resection of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) presents several challenges, which is why the percentage of inadequate resections of these tumors is high. In this exploratory study, we evaluate the use of image-guided surgical navigation during resection of LRRC. Patients who were scheduled to undergo surgical resection of LRRC who were deemed by the multidisciplinary team to be at a high risk of inadequate tumor resection were selected to undergo surgical navigation. The risk of inadequate surgery was further determined by the proximity of the tumor to critical anatomical structures. Workflow characteristics of the surgical navigation procedure were evaluated, while the surgical outcome was determined by the status of the resection margin. In total, 20 patients were analyzed. For all procedures, surgical navigation was completed successfully and demonstrated to be accurate, while no complications related to the surgical navigation were discerned. Radical resection was achieved in 14 cases (70%). In five cases (25%), a tumor-positive resection margin (R1) was anticipated during surgery, as extensive radical resection was determined to be compromised. These patients all received intraoperative brachytherapy. In one case (5%), an unexpected R1 resection was performed. Surgical navigation during resection of LRRC is thus safe and feasible and enables accurate surgical guidance.

Intraoperative adverse events as a risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer after resection surgery

AIM

Failure to achieve a radical resection as well as intraoperative rectal perforation are important risk factors for local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, but the importance of other intraoperative adverse events for the prognosis is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events during rectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether these were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was undertaken, including all patients in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, who had undergone primary resection surgery for rectal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Data were retrieved from the registry and through review of the medical records.

RESULTS

In total, 1208 patients were included in the study of whom 78 (6%) developed local recurrence during the follow-up period of at least 5 years. Intraoperative adverse events were common and occurred in 62/78 (79%) of patients with local recurrence compared to 604/1130 (53%) of patients without local recurrence. In multivariate analysis intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer, as were nonradical resection, a high pathological T stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, type of surgery and refraining from rectal washout during anterior resection and Hartmann's procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer and could possibly be used together with other known risk factors to select patients for intensified postoperative surveillance.

Type of recurrence is associated with disease-free survival after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the characteristics and outcomes of rectal cancer patients with local recurrence at a perianastomotic site (PA), a surgical field (SF) site, or in lateral lymph nodes (LLN).

METHODS

A total of 114 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for recurrent, non-metastatic rectal cancer at a single comprehensive cancer center between 1997 and 2012 were grouped on the basis of radiographic assessment of type of recurrence: PA, 76 (67%) patients; SF, 25 (22%) patients; LLN, 13 (11%) patients. Demographic, clinical, and pathological features were compared between the three groups, as were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Recurrence type was associated with positive circumferential margin in the primary resection (PA, 4 [6%]; SF, 4 [19%]; LLN, 3 [25%]; P = 0.027), prior neoadjuvant therapy for the primary tumor (PA, 57 [75%]; SF, 18 [72%]; LLN, 4 [31%]; P = 0.007), and location of the primary tumor in the upper rectum (PA, 33 [45%]; SF, 5 [23%]; LLN, 1 [8%]; P < 0.001). Patients with PA had longer median DFS (PA, 5.1 years; SF, 1.5 years; LLN, 1.2 years; P = 0.036). There was a non-significant trend toward longer OS and higher rates of R0 resection for PA.

CONCLUSION

Type of recurrence after salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with longer DFS in patients with PA recurrence.

Surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a narrative review

Objective

To summarize the recent literature on surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

Background

LRRC is a heterogeneous disease that requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment and prognosis depend on the site and type of recurrence. Radical resection remains the primary method for achieving long-term survival and improving symptom control. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy can reduce tumor volume and improve the R0 resection rate. Surgeons must clearly understand pelvic anatomy, develop a detailed preoperative plan, adopt a multidisciplinary approach for the surgical resection of the tumor as well as any invaded soft tissues, vessels, and bones, and ensure proper reconstruction. However, extended radical surgery often leads to a higher risk of postoperative complications and a low quality of life.

Methods

We searched English-language articles with keywords “locally recurrent rectal cancer”, “surgery” and “multidisciplinary team” in PubMed published between January 2000 to October 2020.

Conclusions

LRRC is a complex problem. Long-term survival is not impossible following multidisciplinary treatment in appropriately selected LRRC patients. The management of LRRC relies on a specialist team that determines the biological behavior of the tumor and evaluates treatment options through multidisciplinary discussions, thereby balancing the surgical costs and benefits, alleviating postoperative complications, and improving patients’ quality of life.

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

BACKGROUND

A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC.

METHODS

This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections.

Impact of a history of metastases or synchronous metastases on survival in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) frequently present with either synchronous metastases or a history of metastases. This study was conducted to evaluate whether LRRC patients without metastases have a different oncological outcome compared to patients with a history of metastases treated with curative intent or patients with potentially curable synchronous metastases.

METHOD

All consecutive LRRC patients who underwent intentionally curative surgery between 2005 and 2017 in a large tertiary hospital were retrospectively reviewed and categorized as having no metastases, a history of (curatively treated) metastases or synchronous metastases. Patients with unresectable distant metastases were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 349 patients who were analysed, 261 (75%) had no metastases, 42 (12%) had a history of metastases and 46 (13%) had synchronous metastases. The 3-year metastasis-free survival was 52%, 33% and 13% in patients without metastases, with a history of metastases, and with synchronous metastases, respectively (P < 0.001) A history of metastases did not influence overall survival (OS), but there was a trend towards a worse OS in patients with synchronous metastases compared with patients without synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 1.43; 95% CI 0.98-2.11).

CONCLUSION

LRRC patients with a history of curatively treated metastases have an OS comparable to that in patients without metastases and should therefore be treated with curative intent. However, LRRC patients with synchronous metastases have a poor metastasis-free survival and worse OS; in these patients, an individualized treatment approach to observe the behaviour of the disease is recommended.

Prediction of R0/R+ surgery by different classifications for locally recurrent rectal cancer

A widely adopted classification system for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is currently missing, and the indication for surgery is not standardized. To evaluate all the published classification systems in a large monocentric cohort of LRRC patients, assessing their capability to predict a radical (R0) resection. A total of 152 consecutive LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) from 2009 to 2017 were classified according to Pilipshen, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Wanebo, Yamada, Boyle, Dutch TME Trial, Royal Marsden and National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) classification systems. Central location of LRRC was significantly predictive of R0 resection across all classification systems. R + resection was predicted by the "anterior" category of MSKCC (OR 2.66, p = 0.007), the "S2b" (OR 3.50, p = 0.04) and the "S3" (OR 2.70, p = 0.01) categories of NCIM, "pelvic disease through anastomosis" of Pilipshen (OR 2.89, p = 0.002), "fixed at 2 sites" of Mayo Clinic (OR 2.68, p = 0.019), and "TR4" of Wanebo (OR 3.39, p = 0.002). The NCIM was the most predictive classification for R0 surgery. The NCIM classification seems to be superior among the others in predicting R0 surgery. Generally, lateral invasive and high sacral invasive relapses are associated with reduced probability of R0 surgery and unfavorable outcomes.

Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Analysis of Computed Tomography-Guided Radioactive 125I Seed Implantation for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer After External Beam Radiotherapy or Surgery

Background

Management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after surgery or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) remains a clinical challenge, given the limited treatment options and unsatisfactory outcomes. This study aimed to assess long-term outcomes of computed tomography (CT)-guided radioactive ¹²⁵I seed implantation in patients with LRRC and associated prognostic factors.

Methods

A total of 101 patients with LRRC treated with CT-guided ¹²⁵I seed implantation from October 2003 to April 2019 were retrospectively studied. Treatment procedures involved preoperative planning design, ¹²⁵I seed implantation, and postoperative dose evaluation. We evaluated the therapeutic efficacy, adverse effects, local control (LC) time, and overall survival (OS) time.

Results

All the patients had previously undergone surgery or EBRT. The median age of patients was 59 (range, 31–81) years old. The median follow-up time was 20.5 (range, 0.89–125.8) months. The median LC and OS time were 10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5–11.5) and 20.8 (95% CI: 18.7–22.9) months, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year LC rates were 44.2%, 20.7%, and 18.4%, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS rates were 73%, 31.4%, and 5%, respectively. Univariate analysis of LC suggested that when short-time tumor response achieved partial response (PR) or complete response (CR), or D₉₀>129 Gy, or GTV ≤ 50 cm³, the LC significantly prolonged (P=0.044, 0.041, and <0.001, respectively). The multivariate analysis of LC indicated that the short-time tumor response was an independent factor influencing LC time (P<0.001). Besides, 8.9% (9/101) of the patients had adverse effects (≥grade 3): radiation-induced skin reaction (4/101), radiation-induced urinary reaction (1/101), fistula (2/101), and intestinal obstruction (2/101). The cumulative irradiation dose and the activity of a single seed were significantly correlated with adverse effects ≥grade 3 (P=0.047 and 0.035, respectively).

Conclusion

CT-guided ¹²⁵I seed implantation is a safe and effective salvage treatment for LRRC patients who previously underwent EBRT or surgery. D₉₀ and GTV significantly influenced prognosis of such patients.

Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Different Treatment Modes for Local Recurrence of Rectal Cancer

Objective

Optimal approaches to patients with local recurrence of rectal cancer are unclear in China. This study aimed to evaluaty -30te the clinical outcomes and toxicity associated with different treatment regimens for patients with local recurrence of rectal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients with local recurrence of rectal cancer and previous radical surgical treatment between March 2010 and December 2017 with curative intent was performed. Disease-related endpoints included treatment progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan–Meier method. Toxicities were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, and complications were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

A total of 71 patients met the inclusion criteria in this study. The recurrence sites were mainly local recurrence in the pelvic cavity and regional lymph node metastasis. Twenty patients received chemoradiotherapy combined with surgery, 10 underwent surgery alone, and others received chemoradiotherapy-alone (n = 27) and chemotherapy-alone (n = 14) treatment. A clear difference was found in PFS between surgery/chemoradiotherapy with surgery and chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy groups (26.6 months vs 14.1 months, P = 0.033). The PFS of patients in the surgery combined with chemoradiotherapy, surgery alone, and chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy groups was 65.2 months, 20.2 months, and 14.2 months, respectively (P = 0.042). The multivariate analysis of PFS demonstrated that surgery was an independent factor. The proportion of patients with distant metastases after chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy was higher than that of patients undergoing surgery (36.6% vs 21.4%, P = 0.179). The OS of patients in the surgery combined with chemoradiotherapy, surgery alone, and chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy groups was 89.4 months, 66.0 months, and 62.8 months, respectively (P = 0.189). Radiation treatment and surgery did not increase extra severe toxicities.

Conclusion

Surgery combined with chemoradiotherapy was a beneficial treatment mode for managing patients with locally recurrent, nonmetastatic rectal cancer. It was associated with better local disease control, no increase in toxicity, and prolonged survival among patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer.

The role of surgery for locally recurrent and second recurrent rectal cancer with metastatic disease

BACKGROUND

The role of surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with resectable distant metastases or second LRRC remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the influence of synchronous distant metastases (SDMs), a history of distant metastasis resection (HDMR), and a second LRRC on the outcome.

METHODS

The long-term outcomes of 70 surgically treated patients with LRRC between 2006 and 2018 were compared by SDM (n = 10), HDMR (n = 17), and second LRRC (n = 7).

RESULTS

Among the 10 patients with SDM, 4 patients underwent simultaneous resection, whereas the other 6 underwent staged resection with distant first approach. Recurrence developed in 9 patients, of which 2 patients with liver re-resection achieved long-term survival without cancer. The patients with and without SDM had equivalent 5-year overall survival rate (40.5% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.519); however, patients with SDM had a worse 3-year recurrence-free survival rate than those without SDM (10.0% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis showed that primary non-sphincter-preserving surgery, second LRRC, and R1 resection were independent risk factors for overall survival. Similarly, primary non-sphincter-preserving surgery, second LRRC, SDM, and R1 resection were risk factors for recurrence-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with SDM might still be suitable to undergo salvage surgery and achieve favourable overall survival. Distant metastasectomy should be performed first, followed by a sufficient interval to avoid unnecessary LRRC resection in uncurable patients. An HDMR should not be taken into consideration when making surgical plans. Surgical indication of second LRRC should be strict, especially in referred patients.