Specialization improves outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

MDT-How it is important in rectal cancer

The concept of multidisciplinary team discussion of patient's care has been a part of routine medical practice for several decades [Monson et al. in Bull Am Coll Surg 101:45-46, 2016; NHS. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer-the manual. (Guidance on commissioning cancer services-improving outcomes). 1997.]. The idea of bringing multiple specialties and ancillary services together to help optimize patient outcomes has been implemented in several clinical arenas from burns to physical medicine and rehabilitation to oncology. In the oncology realm, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) originated as a broad-based meeting that would permit the review and discussion of cancer patients to optimize treatment strategies [Cancer Co. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care: 2020 Standards. Chicago, IL: 2019.]. Over time, as further specialization occurred and clinical treatment algorithms have become more complex, multidisciplinary tumor boards have become more disease site specific. In this article we will discuss the importance of MDTs, specifically focusing on rectal cancer MDTs including their impact on treatment planning as well as the unique interplay of clinical specialties that provide internal quality control and improvement. Additionally, we will discuss some of the potential benefits of MDTs beyond the direct impact on patient care and review some of the challenges of implementation.

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.