Sphincter saving and abdomino-perineal resections following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced low rectal cancer

Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery for patients with lower rectal cancer remains unclear compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes for lower rectal cancer patients after ISR and APR through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed through January 12, 2022. The primary outcomes included 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence, perioperative outcomes, and other long-term outcomes. The pooled odds ratios, mean difference, or hazard ratios (HRs) of each outcome measurement and their 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 20 nonrandomized controlled studies were included in the qualitative analysis, with 1217 patients who underwent ISR and 1135 patients who underwent APR. There was no significant difference in 5y-DFS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55-1.29; P =0.43) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.46; P =0.76) between the two groups. Using the results of five studies that reported matched T stage and tumor distance, we performed another pooled analysis. Compared to APR, the ISR group had equal 5y-DFS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.30; P =0.31) and 5y-LRFS (local recurrence-free survival) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.29-1.78; P =0.48). Meanwhile, ISR had equivalent local control as well as perioperative outcomes while significantly reducing the operative time (mean difference: -24.89, 95% CI: -45.21 to -4.57; P =0.02) compared to APR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the long-term survival and safety of patients is not affected by ISR surgery, although this result needs to be carefully considered and requires further study due to the risk of bias and limited data.

Application of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in curative surgery for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment is still a subject of debate.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy and toxic side effects between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced EC (LAEC).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Article. Studies up to December 2022 comparing nCRT and nCT in patients with EC were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed significant differences between nCRT and nCT in terms of disease-free survival. The results indicated that nCRT provided better outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OSR) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.95], complete response rate (OR = 3.15), and R0 clearance rate (CR) (OR = 2.25). However, nCT demonstrated a better 5-year OSR (OR = 1.02) than nCRT. Moreover, when compared to nCRT, nCT showed reduced risks of cardiac complications (OR = 1.15) and pulmonary complications (OR = 1.30).

CONCLUSION

Overall, both nCRT and nCT were effective in terms of survival outcomes for LAEC. However, nCT exhibited better performance in terms of postoperative complications.

Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the standard surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer for a century. In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to avoid the permanent colostomy. Up to now, there is no relevant meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures. Methods. A comprehensive search of online databases was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to obtain comparative studies of ISR and APR. Then the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Results. A total of 12 studies covering 2438 patients were included. No significant differences were found between ISR and APR in gender, body mass index, distance from tumor to anal edge, operative time, and blood loss. In addition, hospital stay (weighted mean differences = -2.98 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.54 to -2.43; P < .00001) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.99; P = .04) were significantly lower in ISR group compared with APR group. However, patients who underwent ISR showed lower pathological T-stage (T3T4%, OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.86; P = .01) and lymph node metastasis rate (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06) compared with those who underwent APR. Moreover, oncological outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion. ISR may provide a safe alternative to APR, with shorter hospital stays, lower postoperative morbidity, and similar oncological outcomes. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Imaging of the Postoperative Colon

Recognition of postoperative complications is important for the immediate diagnosis and treatment needed for appropriate patient care. Identification of postoperative complications from colon surgery requires not only knowledge of the type of procedure, but also the expected normal postoperative appearance. The purpose of this article is to discuss and review the expected anatomic changes after colorectal surgery, and the appearance of the most common postoperative complications.

Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Undergoing Radical Surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective pilot study was to determine the efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy with six cycles of FOLFOX 6 (without radiation therapy) followed by radical surgery followed by six additional cycles of FOLFOX 6 for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2014, patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who met the eligibility criteria were enrolled in this study. Patients received FOLFOX 6 chemotherapy comprising oxaliplatin and leucovorin calcium i.v. over 2 hours on day 1, then bolus, and then continuous fluorouracil i.v. over 46 hours on days 1 and 2. Treatment was repeated every 14 days for 6 courses followed by radical surgery followed by additional 6 cycles of FOLFOX 6.

RESULTS

In total, 45 patients were enrolled in this study. In the preoperative re-evaluation, the overall response rate was 68.8% (clinical complete response was 4.4%, and the partial response was 64.4%). There were 14 cases (31.2%) of stable disease. No patients had progressive disease. Postoperatively, the pathologic complete response rate was 8 of 45 (17.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.9%-28.9%). The median follow-up was 29 months (range 9-54 months). The actuarial 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates for all patients were 80.8% (standard error, 1.877; 95% CI: 69.3%-92.3%) and 67.9% (standard error, 2.319; 95% CI: 54.3%-81.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX) without radiotherapy is active and safe but cannot be considered a standard of care until the results of prospective randomized phase III trials are available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy of rectal cancer represents the current standard of care. However, its use is also associated with short-term toxicity and long-term morbidity. With the increasing use of total mesorectal resection resulting in better local control and advances in systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, this study highlights the question of whether radiation is a necessary component of neoadjuvant therapy for all patients with rectal cancer or whether select patients could be spared the additional toxicities and inconvenience of radiotherapy. This study suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFOX without radiotherapy is active and safe, but it could not be considered a standard of care till now.