Late locoregional recurrence in rectal carcinoma

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence after radical surgical treatment

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Recurrence of rectal cancer affects from 4% to even 50% of patients after surgical treatment. The incidence may be influenced by numerous factors depending on the patient, the characteristics of the tumor and the type and quality of the surgical technique used.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence, identify potential risk factors and role of patient surveillance after primary resection of rectal cancer.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> The study comprised patients operated on due to recurrence of rectal cancer at the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery of Medical University of Lodz between 2014 and 2020, who were in the follow-up program at the hospital's outpatient clinic after the primary surgery. Risk factors for disease recurrence were sought by analyzing the characteristics of the primary tumor, treatment history and postoperative care.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Twenty-nine patients were included in the study, the majority (51.7%) of the patients were men. The largest group was represented by patients with stage II and III disease. The most frequently performed primary surgery was low anterior resection (LAR) (62.8%). 35% of patients received neoadjuvant treatment prior to primary surgery. We demonstrated that the lack of neoadjuvant treatment before primary surgery increases the risk of cancer recurrence nine times. Higher stage of disease at the point of primary surgery is associated with nearly seven times the risk of recurrence compared to stage I disease.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Optimal preoperative staging, reasonable neoadjuvant treatment, proper surgical technique and precise follow-up regimen are essential for further improvement of rectal cancer outcomes.</br>.

Late Recurrence in a Rectal Cancer Patient Who Underwent Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Local Excision: A Case Report

Some patients who have undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) following surgery have been diagnosed with late recurrence more than 5 years after treatment, raising questions about the possible benefit extending surveillance beyond the recommended 5 years. In 2011, a 71-year-old male patient was diagnosed with T3N+ low-lying rectal cancer located 3 cm from the anal verge before undergoing long-course preoperative CRT. After CRT, the patient was reexamined and diagnosed with ycT1–2N0 lesion, so local excision (LE) was performed. The patient underwent intensive surveillance for up to 5 years, and no evidence of recurrence was found. At 74 months after surgery, the patient was hospitalized for a hematochezia, and local recurrence at the excision site and peritoneal seeding nodules were identified. Considering the late recurrence in this patient, it might be necessary to long-term follow-up beyond 5 years in patients with preoperative CRT followed by LE.

[Rational staging and follow-up of colorectal cancer : Do guidelines provide further help?]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors. Preoperative imaging is crucial in rectal cancer as patients can only receive optimal treatment when accurate staging is performed. The N‑staging is often difficult with the available options and must be called into question as a staging parameter.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are particularly suitable for local staging. Multiparametric MRI with diffusion imaging is indispensable for tumor follow-up.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

The assessment of infiltration of the mesorectal fascia is best accomplished using high-resolution MRI. In addition, extramural vascular infiltration (EMVI) has become established as another important prognostic factor. After neoadjuvant therapy and restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer, the identification and validation of prognostically relevant image parameters are prioritized. Multiparametric MRI of the rectum including diffusion imaging as well as the application of radiological and pathological scores (MR-TRG) are becoming increasingly more important in this context.

ASSESSMENT

For the radiologist it is important to become familiar with indicators of the resectability of rectal cancer and to be able to reliably read prognostically relevant imaging parameters in the tumor follow-up.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For the practical application, the establishment of a fixed MRI protocol is essential. In addition to a guideline-compliant TNM classification, the radiologist must provide the clinician with information on infiltration of the mesorectal fascia and extramural vascular infiltration. The MR-TRGs are becoming increasingly more important in tumor follow-up.

Is follow-up still mandatory more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess if to prolong follow-up (FU) more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is justified or not.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for a CRC before 2013 and without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery were identified from our database and included.

RESULTS

Between 1996 and 2012, 121 patients operated for rectal (RC) (median of FU of 84 months; range 60-211) and 97 with colonic cancer (CC) (median of FU of 78 months; range 60-139), without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery, presented a late tumor recurrence: 13/121 RC (10.7%) versus 2/97 CC (2.1%) (p = 0.014); 8/13 recurrences in RC (61.5%) were observed after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and 9/13 (69.2%) in pN0 tumors. Among the 13 recurrences, 3 had both local and metastatic recurrences (23%), 5 an isolated local recurrence (38.5%) and 5 an isolated metastatic recurrence (38.5%). After surgery for CC, the 2 recurrences were observed in patients with T3N0 tumors.

CONCLUSION

After surgery for a CRC, in patients without tumor recurrence during the first 5 years after surgery, follow-up after 5 years must be continued in rectal cancer patients because of a 10.7% rate of late recurrence. On the opposite, after surgery for colon cancer the 2% rate of late recurrence after 5 years suggested that only patients with pT3-T4 colonic cancer could probably be followed more than 5 years after surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: Long-term outcomes of a propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer has short-term benefits when compared to open resection. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT).

METHODS

In this propensity matched study, a series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer following NCRT between 2004 and 2010 (Lap group) were matched with 72 patients who underwent open surgery for rectal cancer in the same period (Open group). The survival and recurrence patterns were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 69.5 months (range 1-138 months), local recurrence rate was observed in 4 patients (5.5%) and 7 patients (9.7%) in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.35). The 5- and 10-year disease-free survival in the Lap and Open groups were 61.3% versus 47.9% and 48.8% versus 41%, respectively (P = 0.16). The 5- and 10-year overall survival was 66.9% versus 60.2% and 49% versus 46.2% in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery following NCRT for low and mid third rectal cancers was associated with similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery.

Survival analysis in rectal carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: various methods with different results

PURPOSE

Survival is an important indicator of outcome quality in rectal carcinoma. The 5-year survival rate is the typical outcome measurement. In patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative surgery, 7 years of follow-up is recommended. Different methods of survival analysis lead to different results. Here, we compared four different methods.

METHODS

The data of 439 patients with rectal carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery between 1995 and 2010 were analysed. After stratifying by stage, relative survival (RS), cancer-related survival (CRS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. In particular, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was compared to the 5- and 7-year overall survival rates.

RESULTS

In the total cohort, the 5-year survival rates ranged from 90% (RS), over 84% (CRS) and 83% (OS) to 72% (DFS). Depending on the stage of disease, the differences between the 5-year survival rates varied between 10 and 32 percentage points. The differences were lowest in UICC stage y0 and highest in UICC stage yIV. The 3-year DFS-rate was always lower (worse) than the 5-year OS rate and higher (better) than the 7-year OS rate, with the exception of stage yIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons of survival are only meaningful if the same methods are applied. The 3-year rate of DFS was always worse than the rate of 5-year OS. Therefore, the 3-year rate of DFS appears to be a useful surrogate indicator in rectal carcinoma treatment studies.

Local recurrence after five years is associated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy treatment in patients diagnosed with stage II and III rectal cancer

AIM

To asses the moment of local recurrence and its influence on the appraisal of the results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

We evaluated 317 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent rectal resection. Gender, age, neoadjuvant treatment, circumferencial resection margin, adjuvant treatment, pretreatment carcinoembryonic antigen level, tumor location, TNM stage, lymph node retrieval, abdominoperineal resection, and lymphatic or vascular infiltration were registered prospectively. Follow-up was performed to detect local or systemic recurrences. Timing of local recurrence (LR) in regard to analyzed variables was performed by using analysis of variance. To evaluate the influence of late local recurrence (LLR) on the results of neoadjuvant CRT, we performed a log-rank test censoring all observations at 60 and at 120 months.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 73.6 months (range, 1-171), 68 patients developed a recurrence. Twenty-three patients developed LRs (6.9%), and 5 developed LLRs. The earliest relapse was diagnosed 4 months after rectal surgery, and the latest was diagnosed 120 months after surgery. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant CRT developed LR significantly later than patients without neoadjuvant CRT (51.8 vs 13.5 months; P = 0.002). LR rates in patients who underwent preoperative CRT and those who did not were 9.2% and 3.5% (difference, 5.7%), respectively, after censoring all observations at 60 months and 9.2% and 6.1% (difference, 3.1%) after censoring all observations at 120 months.

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence was diagnosed significantly later in patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT. Follow-up longer than 5 years is needed to evaluate definitive results in patients treated with neoadjuvant CRT.

Comparative Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Treatment Prior to Total Mesorectal Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Alone in Selected Stage II/III Low and Mid Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines advocate that all rectal cancer patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages II and III disease should be subjected to neoadjuvant therapy. However, improvements in surgical technique have resulted in single-digit local recurrence rates with surgery only.

METHODS

Operative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes of patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy were compared between January 2002 and December 2013. For this purpose, all patients resected with low anterior rectal resection (LAR) and total mesorectal excision (TME) who had or had not been irradiated were identified from the authors' prospectively maintained database. Patients who were excluded were those with high rectal cancer or AJCC stage IV disease; in the surgery-only group, patients with AJCC stage I disease or with pT4Nx rectal cancer; and in the irradiated patients, patients with ypT4Nx or cT4Nx rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Overall, 454 consecutive patients were included. A total of 342 (75 %) patients were irradiated and 112 (25 %) were not irradiated. Median follow-up for all patients was 48 months. Among patients with and without irradiation, pathological circumferential resection margin positivity rates (2.9 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.5) were not different. At 5 years, in irradiated patients compared with surgery-only patients, the incidence of local recurrence was decreased (4.5 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5); however, systemic recurrences occurred more frequently (10 vs. 17.8 %, p = 0.2). Irradiation did not affect overall or disease-free survival (neoadjuvant treatment vs. surgery-only: 84.9 vs. 88.2 %, p = 0.9; 76 vs. 79.1 %, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study adds to the growing evidence that suggests a selective rather than generalized indication for neoadjuvant treatment in stages II and III rectal cancer.

Time to local recurrence as a prognostic factor in patients with rectal cancer

AIMS

Survival after the local recurrence of rectal cancer is influenced by several factors. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether the time interval from primary surgery for rectal cancer to local recurrence diagnosis has any impact on survival.

METHODS

Population-based data was collected from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. 7410 patients were operated with radical abdominal surgery for rectal cancer during the period 1995-2002. Of these, 386 (5%) developed a local recurrence as a first event. The patients were divided into two groups: early local recurrence (ELR), diagnosed <12 months after primary surgery, and late local recurrence (LLR), diagnosed ≥12 months after primary surgery. Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios were calculated for survival analyses. Survival was calculated from the date of the local recurrence diagnosis to death or end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients had ELR and 291 patients LLR. Median time to local recurrence was 1.7 (0.1-7.9) years. Patients with a stage III primary tumour and non-irradiated patients were more common in the ELR compared with the LLR group. Factors that influenced survival were age at diagnosis of local recurrence (p < 0.001), stage of primary tumour (p = 0.027), and surgical resection of local recurrence (p < 0.001). Time to diagnosis of local recurrence had no influence on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in survival from date of diagnosis of local recurrence was seen between patients with ELR and patients with LLR. All patients with local recurrence should therefore be assessed for potential curative surgery, disregarding time to local recurrence.

Time to locoregional recurrence after curative resection of rectal carcinoma is prolonged after neoadjuvant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the time to locoregional recurrence after curative resection of rectal carcinoma, assuming that this time is prolonged after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and/or present day surgery.

METHOD

English and German language peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2007 were selected. Twenty-five of 118 studies fulfilled the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For some special questions, data of the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Carcinoma (ERCRC) from 1985 to 1997 are reported.

RESULTS

After conventional surgery of rectal carcinoma, 75% (range 66-84%) of locoregional recurrence presented during the first 2 years after resection. Following the introduction of total mesorectal excision surgery and the use of neoadjuvant treatment, a general reduction of the frequency of local recurrence combined with a prolongation of the time to local recurrence was observed. In the practice of today, in particular after neoadjuvant long-course radiochemo-or radiotherapy, 24% (range 8-40%) of all local recurrences present later than 5 years after primary therapy. In contrast, such late local recurrences are observed in only 8% (range 5-9%) following primary surgery alone.

CONCLUSION

For a definite assessment of the therapeutic results regarding local control, a minimal follow up of 7-8 years either after neoadjuvant long-course radiochemo- or radiotherapy and a minimum of 5 years after surgery alone is necessary. For patients with primary surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, it is not possible to make a clear statement.

Risk factors of rectal cancer local recurrence: population-based survey and validation of the Swedish rectal cancer registry

AIM

Despite advances in rectal cancer treatment, local recurrence (LR) remains a significant problem. To select high-risk patients for different treatment options aimed at reducing LR, it is essential to identify LR risk factors.

METHOD

Local recurrence and survival rates of 4153 patients registered 1995-1997 in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry were analysed. LR risk factors were analysed by multivariate methods. For LR patients the registry was validated and additional data retrieved.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 45% and 62% respectively. LR was registered in 326 (8%) patients. After R0-resections for tumours in TNM stages I-III, LR developed in 10% of tumours at 0-5 cm, 8% at 6-10 cm and 6% at 11-15 cm above the anal verge. Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) reduced the LR rate irrespective of height [0-5 cm: OR 0.50 (0.30-0.83), 6-10 cm: OR 0.42 (0.25-0.71), and 11-15 cm: OR 0.29 (0.13-0.64)]. Patients without preoperative RT had significantly higher LR risk after rectal perforation [OR 2.50 (1.48-4.24)], and almost significantly decreased LR risk when rectal washout was performed [OR 0.65 (0.43-1.00)]. Preoperative RT prolonged time to LR but did not significantly influence the survival among LR patients. LR was an isolated tumour manifestation in 103 (39%) patients with validated LR.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative RT should be considered for rectal cancer also in the upper third of the rectum. Intraoperative perforation should be avoided, and rectal washout is indicated as valuable. Follow-up for the detection of isolated LR is important. Extended follow up should be considered for patients treated with RT.

Does a rectal cancer of the upper third behave more like a colon or a rectal cancer?

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate whether cancers in the upper third of the rectum should be treated according to colon or rectal cancer guidelines.

METHODS

We evaluated 499 patients with tumors located in the sigmoid colon (299 patients, 60%), the upper third of the rectum (95 patients, 19%), or the middle third of the rectum (105 patients, 21%), International Union against Cancer tumor stage II or III, no preoperative radiochemotherapy, and primary curative tumor resection between 1990 and 2006. Patients' surgical, histopathological, and prognostic parameters were compared. The median follow-up time was 80 months.

RESULTS

Patients with sigmoid cancer showed a trend of significantly better estimated cause-specific survival (5-y value +/- 95% CI: 83.6 +/- 4.7%) compared with patients with rectal cancers of the upper third of the rectum (5-y value +/- 95% CI: 74.3 +/- 9.6%) or the middle third of the rectum (5-y value +/- 95% CI: 73.4 +/- 9.2%) (P = .063). Tumor location was an independent prognostic parameter (P = .036), with an increased risk of cause-specific death for rectal cancers of the upper third (hazard ratio, 1.87; P = .007) and of the middle third (hazard ratio, 1.43; P = .022) compared with sigmoid cancers. Stratification of upper third rectal cancers according to tumor grade, tumor infiltration depth (pT), and lymph node status (pN) identified a high-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancers of the upper third of the rectum have more similarities with rectal cancers of the middle third of the rectum than with sigmoid cancers. A subgroup of patients with upper third rectal cancer can be identified who may require a more aggressive therapy than only primary resection followed by adjuvant therapy.

Regional lymph node metastasis and locoregional recurrence of rectal carcinoma in the era of TME [corrected] surgery. Implications for treatment decisions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For rectal carcinoma treated according to the concept of total mesorectal excision (TME surgery), the independent influence of regional lymph node metastasis on the locoregional recurrence risk is still in discussion. A reliable assessment of this risk is important for an individualised selective indication for neoadjuvant radio-/radiochemotherapy.

METHODS

Analysis of literature, especially of the last 20 years, and consideration of pathological and oncological basic research. Multivariate analysis of data of the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Carcinoma.

RESULTS

The clinical assessment of the pretherapeutic regional lymph node status by the present available imaging methods is still unreliable. The analysis of the association between pretherapeutic regional lymph node status and locoregional recurrence risk has to be based on follow-up data of patients treated by primary surgery and has to be distinguished between patients treated by conventional and optimised quality-assured TME surgery, respectively. Data from Erlangen show an increase of the local recurrence risk for patients with at least four involved regional lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with at least four involved regional lymph nodes, a neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy may be indicated. However, today, the pretherapeutic diagnosis is uncertain and results in overtherapy in 40%. Thus, in case of positive lymph node findings by imaging methods, the benefits and risk of neoadjuvant therapy in such situations should always be discussed with the patient in the sense of informed consent and shared decision.

[Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer]

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy has become established treatment for rectal cancer. It is indicated when primary R0 resection is not an option, in cases of higher risk of locoregional relapse following surgical treatment alone, and when initially impossible conservation of the anal sphincter becomes possible in conjunction with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The indication for radiochemotherapy in the upper third of the rectum is still controversial. Reevaluation of the tumor situation following neoadjuvant treatment is necessary before decisions on operative strategy. Modern imaging techniques are limited in this respect, as they hardly allow differentiation between living tumor tissue and lesions. In case of doubt clarity is possible only through surgical exploration, taking R1 resection into account. Overall the recognition of lymph node metastasis is not a sufficient indicator of local relapse. The frequency of postoperative complications following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy is independent of the operative method. The effect of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy on long-term survival and formation of distant metastases is still not clarified. Current studies seek clarification through the use of new chemotherapies and modified treatment regimes. Further, the correct time interval between the end of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and the following surgical therapy has yet to be determined. This applies also to the management of patients following complete remission.

Quality management in rectal carcinoma: what is feasible?

PURPOSE

A cohort study was carried out to analyse quality indicators in the diagnosis and treatment of rectal carcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 2,470 patients with rectal carcinoma treated between 1985 and 2007 at the Department of Surgery, University of Erlangen, were analysed and compared within four time intervals.

RESULTS

Most of the indicators analysed from 2004 to 2007 fulfilled the defined target values. The indicators for process quality of surgical treatment and the surrogate indicators of outcome quality in surgery showed excellent results. Comparing this to previous data, it displays the new developments such as introduction of multimodal treatment for high-risk patients. While the rate of locoregional recurrences decreased, no significant improvement in survival was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful analysis of quality indicators is important for both quality management and comparison of treatment results. The progress in diagnosis and treatment requires a continuous update of definitions and target values.

Offene Rektumchirurgie

This article describes the individual techniques and strategies of conventional surgery of the rectum, including photographic documentation of the important steps. Our own figures of postoperative complications and long-term oncological results obtained by this approach are added. In our experience, operations for radical surgery of rectal cancer have been the most frequent procedures. In the pelvis, the important planes between which dissection occurs are (1) the mesorectal fascia up to the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery and continuing laterally to the mesosigmoid fascia and (2) on the opposite side the autonomous nerves forming the plexus and web-like layers. Apart from rectal excision, complete mobilisation of the descending colon and the splenic flecture is a prerequisite for tension-free anastomoses and low leakage rates. Again this dissection follows the plane between the mesocolon and the parietal fascia covering the retroperitoneal organs. The greater omentum has to be taken down from the transverse colon with exposure of the entire lesser sac, followed by the division of the transverse mesocolon along the inferior aspect of the pancreas, including central tying of the inferior mesenteric vein.

[Surgical treatment of recurrent locoregional rectal cancer]

Local recurrence (LR) after curative surgery for rectal cancer occurs in 4 to 33% of cases especially if surgery is sub-optimal (without total excision of the mesorectum). In many cases, diagnosis of LR is made at a late stage because of the high rate of asymptomatic patients, 56% in the experience of the Mayo Clinic. MRI and PETscan are most effective for assessing local and general extension, with a high diagnostic accuracy. Surgical treatment alone or with radiation (preoperative and/or intraoperative) is the only curative treatment of LR with R0 resectability rates of 30% to 45%. Morbidity and mortality rates are high, especially for total exenteration and abdomino-sacral resection. After curative surgery, 5-year global survival is between 30% and 40%. Palliative resection of macroscopic residues is not recommended. Careful patient selection for curative surgery is the best way to optimize treatment in these cases.

Almost all five year disease free survivors are cured following rectal cancer surgery, but longer term follow-up detects some late local and systemic recurrences

BACKGROUND

The necessity, timing and benefits of follow-up after rectal cancer surgery remain controversial, with two years traditionally considered adequate to detect most local recurrences. This unit has a policy of lifetime follow-up, and this paper investigates, at 23 years, the value of prolonged surveillance.

METHOD

Six hundred and sixty consecutive patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer were prospectively followed-up between 1978 and 2002, and local or systemic recurrence recorded. This analysis was performed on the 509/660 (76%) patients who underwent potentially curative surgery.

RESULTS

Total mesorectal excision (TME) was performed in 422/509 (83%) patients, mesorectal transection in 78 (15%), and local excision in 9 (2%). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 23 years (mean = 9.7). Seven (1.4%) patients had local recurrence alone, 11 (2.2%) local plus systemic, and 86 (17%) systemic recurrence alone. Of the local recurrences 3 (17%) became evident within 1 year, 9 (50%) within 2 years, 16 (89%) within 5 years, and 2 (11%) presented after 5 years, at 5.6 and 5.8 years. Of the systemic recurrences 26 (27%) became evident within 1 year, 57 (59%) within 2 years, 93 (96%) within 5 years, and 4 (4%) presented after 5 years at 5.3, 5.3, 5.4 and 7.9 years.

CONCLUSION

This long-term surveillance of patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer demonstrates that most local and systemic recurrences occur within 5 years. Almost half occurred more than 2 years after surgery. However, those centres wishing to set standards of care, or evaluate current or new therapies in rectal cancer treatment, should be aware that unexpected late recurrences occasionally develop.

Aktuelle Behandlungsstrategien beim Rektumkarzinom

In the last ten years, considerable progress has been achieved in the treatment of rectal cancer. According to improved interdisciplinary staging, rectal carcinomas can be treated based on a stage-dependent concept: "low-risk" pT1 (G1/G2) carcinomas can be cured by local full wall excision, while "high-risk" pT1 (G3/G4) and pT2 carcinomas require transabdominal resection. In contrast, locally advanced rectal cancers in cUICC-II/-III stages (T3/T4 or N(+)) should receive long-term, 5-FU-based, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to the excellent results of the CAO/AIO/ARO-94 trial of the German Rectal Cancer Study Group. High-quality resection must be based on radical oncologic principles such as "no-touch" technique, radicular dissection of vessels, and total mesorectal excision. Multimodal treatment is completed with adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy. This therapeutic approach led to a reduction in the 5-year local recurrence rate to 6% and disease-free survival of approximately 68% in advanced rectal cancer (overall survival: 76%).

Survival after surgical treatment of cancer of the rectum

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rectal carcinoma is one of the most prevalent tumour types. Prognostic factors are of special interest to estimate prognosis of the individual patient.

PATIENTS/METHODS

The data of 1,067 consecutive patients with solitary invasive rectal carcinoma, resected between 1988 and 1999 at the Department of Surgery of the University of Erlangen, were analysed. Cancer-related survival rate was calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis with respect to all relevant proven and probable prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The R classification was found to be the parameter with the greatest influence on survival of patients with rectal carcinoma. Other tumour-related prognostic factors that influenced prognosis significantly were the anatomical extent, described by the TNM classification of the UICC, tumour grade and extramural venous invasion (EVI). In addition, the operating surgeon, a therapy-related factor, and the preoperative serum CEA level were found to influence prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Tumour-related prognostic factors have the greatest influence on clinical decisions with regard to choice of a therapeutic concept. The increasing survival rates after treatment of rectal carcinoma have led to a focus on postoperative quality of life. Postoperative long-term global quality of life is similar to the preoperative level. Oncological outcome is still the most important factor, and tumour recurrence leads to a strong impairment of quality of life.

Pre-operative radiotherapy for rectal carcinoma? Has the case really been made for short course pre-operative radiotherapy if surgical standards for rectal carcinoma are optimal?

Recent publications on early results of the Dutch trial on pre-operative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision (TME) for resectable rectal cancer have initiated a major swing towards routine radiotherapy of this type. However, detailed analysis of the data so far published shows 23.3% microscopic margin involvement and 23.9% macroscopically poor specimens in a sample group. Since only mobile tumours were selected these figures are too high to validate the claim that the whole series represents 'standardized TME surgery'. The role of pre-operative radiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer undergoing optimal surgery therefore remains open. It may be expected that in future the individual indication for pre-operative radiotherapy will be based on the findings of pre-operative modern fine slice high resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).