Local excision of rectal cancer without adjuvant therapy: a word of caution

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Predictors and outcomes of positive surgical margins after local excision of clinical T1 rectal cancer: A National Cancer Database analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal local excision and the use of specialized platforms has become increasingly popular for early-stage rectal cancer. Predictors and outcomes of positive resection margins following transanal local excision for early-stage rectal cancer have yet to be explored.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database of all patients with clinical nonmetastatic node negative T1 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent transanal local excision from 2004 to 2017. Patients with positive surgical margins were compared to those with negative resection margins to determine factors associated with predictors and outcomes of positive surgical margins after transanal local excision. The main outcome measure was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 318,548 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database, 9,078 (2.8%) met the inclusion criteria. The positive surgical margins rate was 7.4%. Predictors of positive surgical margins were older age (odds ratio, 1.03; P < .001), higher Charlson comorbidity index (odds ratio, 1.24; P = .004), poorly differentiated carcinomas (odds ratio, 1.89; P < .001), mucinous (odds ratio, 2.36; P = .003) and signet-ring cell carcinomas (odds ratio, 4.7; P = .048). Independent predictors of reduced survival were older age (hazard ratio, 1.062; P < .001), male sex (hazard ratio, 1.214; P = .011), Charlson comorbidity index 3 (hazard ratio, 1.94; P < .001), pathologic T2 (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .036) and T3 stages (hazard ratio, 1.77; P = .006), poorly differentiated carcinomas (hazard ratio, 1.47; P = .008), and positive surgical margins (hazard ratio, 1.374; P = .018). The positive surgical margins group's median overall survival was significantly shorter (88 vs 159.3 months, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Positive surgical margins after transanal local excision for early-stage node-negative rectal cancer adversely affects prognosis. Older male patients with higher Charlson comorbidity index scores and poorly differentiated mucinous or signet cell histology tumors are at risk for positive surgical margins. Patient selection according to these suggested criteria may help avoid positive surgical margins.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: An Overview of the Dutch Perspective and Recent Developments

Although current guidelines on rectal cancer treatment often recommend rectal resection with or without neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, there is growing interest in organ-preserving treatment approaches among patients and clinicians in the Netherlands. Currently, multiple ongoing studies are investigating the value of different non-operative treatment modalities to improve tumour response rates and increase the chance of successful organ preservation. Papillon contact X-ray brachytherapy is a promising treatment modality to improve the chance of organ preservation, which seems especially relevant for elderly and frail patients unable or refusing to undergo total mesorectal excision surgery. The elderly and frail patient with rectal cancer poses a significant challenge and warrants a thorough multidisciplinary approach to provide the most optimal organ-preserving treatment. In this overview, an insight into the Dutch perspectives and developments within the field of organ preservation and the set-up of a Papillon facility to complete the spectrum of organ-preserving treatment options in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment has been provided.

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway.

Transanal Local Excision of Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Is There a Place for It or Should Be Avoided at All Costs?

Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) with tumor downsizing and downstaging has significantly impacted the number of patients considered to be appropriate candidates for transanal local excision (TLE). Some patients may harbor small residual lesions, restricted to the bowel wall. These patients, who exhibit major response ("near-complete") by digital rectal examination, endoscopic assessment, and radiological assessment may be considered for this approach. Although TLE is associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, a few clinical consequences and oncological outcomes must be evaluated in advance and with caution. In the setting of nCRT, a higher risk for clinically relevant wound dehiscences leading to a considerable risk for readmission for pain management has been observed. Worse anorectal function (still better than after total mesorectal excision [TME]), worsening in the quality of TME specimen, and higher rates of abdominal resections (in cases requiring completion TME) have been reported. The exuberant scar observed in the area of TLE also represents a challenging finding during follow-up of these patients. Local excision should be probably restricted for patients with primary tumors located at or below the level of the anorectal ring (magnetic resonance defined). These patients are otherwise candidates for abdominal perineal resections or ultra-low anterior resections with coloanal anastomosis frequently requiring definitive stomas or considerably poor anorectal function.

Transanal Minimally-Invasive Surgery (TAMIS): Experience with No Closure of the Rectal Defect

Background In transanal minimally-invasive surgery (TAMIS), the closure of the rectal defect is controversial, and endoluminal suture is one of the most challenging aspects. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the short- and medium-term complications of a consecutive series of patients with extraperitoneal rectal injuries who underwent TAMIS without closure of the rectal defect.

Materials and Methods A prospective, longitudinal, descriptive study conducted between August 2013 and July 2019 in which all patients with extraperitoneal rectal lesions, who were operated on using the TAMIS technique, were consecutively included. The lesions were: benign lesions ≥ 3 cm; neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 2 cm; adenocarcinomas in stage T1N0; and adenocarcinomas in stage T2N0, with high surgical risk, or with the patients reluctant to undergo radical surgery, and others with doubts about complete remission after the neoadjuvant therapy. Bleeding, infectious complications, rectal stenosis, perforations, and death were evaluated.

Results A total of 35 patients were treated using TAMIS without closure of the defect. The average size of the lesions was of 3.68 ± 2.1 cm (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.7 cm to 9 cm), their average distance from the anal margin was of 5.7 ± 1.48 cm, and the average operative time was of 39.2 ± 20.5 minutes, with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 1 year. As for the pathologies, they were: 15 adenomas; 3 carcinoid tumors; and 17 adenocarcinomas. In all cases, the rectal defect was left open.

The overall morbidity was of 14.2%. Two patients (grade II in the Clavien-Dindo classification) were readmitted for pain treatment, and three patients (grade III in the Clavien-Dindo classification) were assisted due to postoperative bleeding, one of whom required reoperation.

Conclusion The TAMIS technique without closure of the rectal defect yields good results, and present a high feasibility and low complication rate.

Treatment of clinical T1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands; a population-based overview of clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Local excision is increasingly used as an alternative treatment for radical surgery in patients with early stage clinical T1 (cT1) rectal cancer. This study provides an overview of incidence, staging accuracy and treatment strategies in patients with cT1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with cT1 rectal cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2018 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. An overview per time period (2005-2009, 2010-2014 and 2015-2018) of the incidence and various treatment strategies used, e.g. local excision (LE) or major resection, with/without neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), were given and trends over time were analysed using the Chi Square for Trend test. In addition, accuracy of tumour staging was described, compared and analysed over time.

RESULTS

In total, 3033 patients with cT1 rectal cancer were diagnosed. The incidence of cT1 increased from 540 patients in 2005-2009 to 1643 patients in 2015-2018. There was a significant increased use of LE. In cT1N0/X patients, 9.2% received NAT, 25.5% were treated by total mesorectal excision (TME) and 11.4% received a completion TME (cTME) following prior LE. Overall accuracy in tumour staging (cT1 = pT1) was 77.3%, yet significantly worse in cN1/2 patients, as compared to cN0 patients (44.8% vs 77.9%, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over time, there was an increase in the incidence of cT1 tumours. Both the use of neoadjuvant therapy and TME surgery in clinically node negative patients decreased significantly. Clinical accuracy in T1 tumour staging improved over time, but remained significantly worse in clinical node positive patients.

Widespread anorectal lymphovascular networks and tissue drainage: analyses from submucosal India ink injection and indocyanine green fluorescence imaging

AIM

Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor prognosis in patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. This study aimed to analyse the functional lymphovascular network and tissue drainage in the anorectal region.

METHODS

In this descriptive study, we performed microanatomical evaluations and intra-operative imaging analysis in a cadaver and patients with rectal cancer. Specimens with India ink injection were collected from a cadaver and from six patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection. Intra-operative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging was performed on four patients who underwent surgery for lower rectal cancer. India ink was injected into the submucosa at the dentate line of specimens. Tissue sections were examined by immunohistochemistry for D2-40 and CD31. Intra-operative indocyanine green was injected into the submucosa at the dentate line. Lymph flow was traced using a near-infrared camera system.

RESULTS

Fascia branching from the rectal longitudinal muscle layer extended to the posterior hiatal ligament and lateral endopelvic fascia connective tissue lamina on the surface of the levator ani muscle. The fascia contained veins labelled with ink in their lumina and initial lymphatics. Intra-operative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging revealed extensive lymph flow from the muscle layer of the anal canal to the hiatal ligament and endopelvic fascia along the longitudinal muscle layer fibres.

CONCLUSIONS

The anorectal region contained widespread venous and lymphatic networks in proportion to its specific connective tissue framework around the longitudinal-muscle-layer-extending muscle bundles, which provides extensive networks for tissue fluid and cells.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are good options for the treatment of rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas, but whether long-term outcomes of these procedures are comparable is not known. The aim of this study was to address this question.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study evaluating 98 consecutive procedures between June 2008 and December 2017 was performed in a tertiary cancer center. Consecutive patients who had undergone either endoscopic submucosal resection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas were evaluated, and long-term recurrence and complication rates were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar regarding sex, age, preoperative surgical risk, and en bloc resection rate (95.7% in the endoscopic and 100% in the surgical group, P = 0.81). Mean follow-up period was 37.6 months. Lesions resected endoscopically were significantly larger (68.5 mm) than those resected by transanal resection (44.5 mm), P = 0.003. Curative resections occurred in 97.2% of endoscopic resections and 85.2% of the surgical ones (P = 0.04). Comparing resections that fulfilled histologic curative criteria, there were no recurrences in the endoscopic group (out of 69 cases) and two recurrences in the transanal group (8.3% of 24 cases), P = 0.06. Late complications occurred in 12.7% of endoscopic procedures and 25.9% of surgical procedures (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, endoscopic submucosal resection seems to have advantages over transanal endoscopic microsurgery, with similar en bloc resection rate and lower rate of late complications and recurrences. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to support our findings.

The correlation between tumor size, lymph node status, distant metastases and mortality in rectal cancer patients without neoadjuvant therapy

Tumor size has an effect on decision making for the treatment rectal cancer. Transanal local excision can be selected to remove rectal cancer with favorable histopathological features. It is generally recognized that the risk of lymph node involvement and distant metastases increases as the tumor enlarges. However, the majority of the studies classified patients into two groups using concrete value as a cutoff point. The coarse classification was not sufficient to reveal a correlation between the tumor size and lymph node status or distant metastases across the full range of sizes examined. Between 1988 and 2015, a total of 77,746 patients were diagnosed with first primary rectal cancer who had not received neoadjuvant therapy. These subjects were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. The association between tumor size, lymph node status, distant metastases and cancer-specific mortality was investigated. Tumor size was examined as a continuous (1-30 mm) and categorical variable (11 size groups; 10-mm intervals). A non-linear correlation between increasing tumor size and the prevalence of lymph node involvement was observed, while a near-positive correlation between tumor size and distant metastases was presented. In addition, the 5-year and 10-year rates of rectal cancer-specific mortality were increased as the tumor enlarged. For small tumors (under 30 mm), a positive correlation was noted between tumor size and lymph node involvement. The clinical value of the tumor size should be reevaluated by exact classification.

Local recurrence after local excision of early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of completion TME, adjuvant (chemo)radiation, or no additional treatment

BACKGROUND

The risks of local recurrence and treatment-related morbidity need to be balanced after local excision of early rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1-2 rectal cancer followed by no additional treatment (NAT), completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (aCRT).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was local recurrence. Statistical analysis included calculation of the weighted average of proportions.

RESULTS

Some 73 studies comprising 4674 patients were included in the analysis. Sixty-two evaluated NAT, 13 cTME and 28 aCRT. The local recurrence rate for NAT among low-risk pT1 tumours was 6·7 (95 per cent c.i. 4·8 to 9·3) per cent. There were no local recurrences of low-risk pT1 tumours after cTME or aCRT. The local recurrence rate for high-risk pT1 tumours was 13·6 (8·0 to 22·0) per cent for local excision only, 4·1 (1·7 to 9·4) per cent for cTME and 3·9 (2·0 to 7·5) per cent for aCRT. Local recurrence rates for pT2 tumours were 28·9 (22·3 to 36·4) per cent with NAT, 4 (1 to 13) per cent after cTME and 14·7 (11·2 to 19·0) per cent after aCRT.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial risk of local recurrence in patients who receive no additional treatment after local excision, especially those with high-risk pT1 and pT2 rectal cancer. The lowest recurrence risk is provided by cTME; aCRT has outcomes comparable to those of cTME for high-risk pT1 tumours, but shows a higher risk for pT2 tumours.

Primary local excision of stage 1 rectal cancer is not associated with worse oncological outcomes when compared with major resection

PURPOSE

Primary local excision (PLE) for early rectal cancers is associated with decreased surgical morbidity and mortality compared with major resection (MR). However, it is thought to be associated with poorer oncological outcomes. There is a paucity of data regarding PLE within the Australasian population. We present comparative post-operative and survival outcomes for stage 1 rectal cancers treated with PLE or MR from three Western Australian hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing PLE or MR for stage 1 rectal cancers between February 1996 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 533 patients, 81 underwent PLE. Median post-operative admission was shorter for those undergoing PLE, with no significant difference in post-operative complication rate. Five-year overall survival was greater following MR (89.6% CI 86.1-92.3) compared with PLE (84.6% CI 73.8-91.2; p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in 5-year cancer-specific survival (MR, 94.4% CI 91.5-96.3; PLE, 95.3% CI 86.0-98.5; p = 0.98) or 5-year disease-free survival (MR, 92.3% CI 89.1-94.7; PLE, 89.1% CI 78.5-94.7; p = 0.36). Local excision provided poorer local tumour control with an inferior 5-year local recurrence rate (MR, 2.16% CI 1.08-4.28; PLE, 10.9% CI 5.30-21.6; p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounders, PLE was significantly associated with worse local recurrence but did not significantly impact overall survival, cancer-specific survival, overall recurrence, or metastatic recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Local excision of early rectal cancer remains a viable alternative, in those unwilling or unable to undergo MR. Patients should be informed that while PLE is associated with poorer local pelvic control, this does not translate to worse survival.

Evaluation of risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T2 lower rectal cancer to perform chemoradiotherapy after local resection

The oncological outcome of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after local excision (LE) for T2 lower rectal cancer has demonstrated a high local recurrence (LR) rate. The aim of the present study was to determine the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in order to reduce LR in T2 lower rectal cancer after LE and CRT. Specimens were collected from 95 consecutive patients with T2 lower rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent R0 resection by total mesenteric excision or tumor-specific mesenteric excision between January 2008 and December 2018 at Osaka International Cancer Institute. All specimens were checked and evaluated to determine the risk factors for LNM. LNM was observed in 26 patients (27%), including 2 patients (2%) with lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis. Univariate analysis indicated lymphovascular invasion (LVI; P=0.008), tumor budding (P=0.012) and histology other than well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (P=0.08) were associated with LNM; multivariate analysis revealed that LVI (P=0.03) was the only independent risk factor for LNM. LNM was confirmed in 0% (0/8) of patients without LVI, tumor budding and histological type. LVI, tumor budding and histological type can be risk factors for LNM in lower rectal cancer. The present study may be helpful to select patients for performing LE and CRT with good oncological outcome.

Caring for Patients with Rectal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The extraordinary spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has dramatically and rapidly changed the way in which we provide medical care for patients with all diagnoses. Conservation of resources, social distancing, and the risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19-positive cancer patients have forced practitioners and surgeons to completely rethink routine care. The treatment of patients with rectal cancer requires both a multidisciplinary approach and a significant amount of resources. It is therefore imperative to rethink how rectal cancer treatment can be aligned with the current COVID-19 pandemic paradigms. In this review, we discuss evidence-based recommendations to optimize oncological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

Can less be more? Organ preservation strategies in the management of rectal cancer

Background

Total mesorectal excision (tme) is the current standard of care for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, that surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and patients are seeking alternatives to radical resection. Currently, prevalent organ-sparing strategies under investigation include local excision and nonoperative management (nom).

Methods

We reviewed the current evidence in the literature to create an overview of the use of transanal endoscopic surgery and watch-and-wait strategies in the modern management of rectal cancer.

Results

Compared with radical resection, transanal endoscopic surgery in patients with early rectal cancer (cT1) having favourable histopathologic features is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, but no difference in 5-year survival. In patients with T2 or early T3 cancer, strategies that use neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as adjuncts to local excision are under evaluation. Nonoperative management is a new option for patients who experience a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ncrt). The selection criteria that will appropriately identify patients for whom nom will succeed are not established.

Conclusions

Local excision is appropriate for early rectal cancer with favourable histopathologic features. Although organ-preserving strategies are promising, the quality of the evidence to date is insufficient to replace the current standard care in most patients. Patients should be offered nom in the safe setting of a clinical trial or registry. Rigorous follow-up, including endoscopy and imaging at frequent intervals is recommended when radical resection is forgone.

Long-Term Outcomes and Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients Receiving Radical Surgery for Pathological T1 Lower Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Few reports have evaluated the long-term outcomes of pathological T1 (pT1) lower rectal cancer (LRC), perhaps because pT1 LRC is classified as TNM stage I if lymph node metastasis (LNM) is absent and stage IIIA if LNM is present. Moreover, it is difficult to diagnose regional LNM preoperatively. This study aimed to clarify the long-term outcomes of radical surgery for pT1 LRC and risk factor(s) for LNM. Additionally, we examined whether preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings were predictive of LNM in pT1 LRC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics, short-term operative outcomes, and long-term survival rates of 155 patients who received radical surgery and were diagnosed with pT1 LRC at our hospital between January 1993 and February 2017.

RESULTS

Among patients with pT1 LRC, 5-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates were 94.0% and 95.8%, respectively. LNM status was not associated with statistically significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival. Even in patients with LNM, the recurrence rate was only 9%. Among patients who lacked visible mesorectal lymph nodes on preoperative CT and MRI, LNM rates were 3.5% and 4.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcomes after radical surgery for pT1 LRC are satisfactory or good, regardless of the presence or absence of LNM. In patients with pT1 LRC, the absence of visible mesorectal lymph nodes on preoperative CT and MRI is associated with a reduced likelihood of LNM and has a high negative predictive value for LNM.

[Treatment strategy for early stage rectal cancer (T1 carcinoma)]

BACKROUND

A common consensus for the definition for early rectal cancer does not exist. This item is used in cases of histological findings including pTis, pT1 or pT2 tumors. The term early rectal cancer is not mentioned in the German S3 guidelines on colorectal cancer. The pTis tumors are located at the mucosa level of the intestinal wall and they have nearly no tendency to develop metastases but pT2 tumors have a high risk of local metastases; therefore, the term early rectal cancer is not adequate for pT2 tumors.

OBJECTIVE

This focus of this article is exclusively on pT1 rectal cancer. Following the histological definition, pT1 tumors of the rectum are located at the level of the mucosa and submucosa of the intestinal wall.

CONCLUSION

With respect to the nature of the tumor (e.g. size, grading, invasion of lymphatic and/or blood vessels, Kikuchi classification) local methods (endoscopic procedure, surgical techniques) or radical resections are recommended. Tumor budding is of increasing interest and importance. Depending on the severity of the tumor budding classification (bd1-bd3) there is an association with a more frequent occurrence of lymph node metastases and should therefore be taken into consideration in treatment decisions in the future.

For Patients with Early Rectal Cancer, Does Local Excision Have an Impact on Recurrence, Survival, and Quality of Life Relative to Radical Resection?

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate treatment for early-stage rectal cancers is controversial. The advantages of local excision regarding morbidity and function must be weighed against poorer oncologic efficacy. This study aimed to clarify further the role for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data addressing five key questions about outcomes of local versus radical resection of rectal cancer were analyzed.

RESULTS

The 16 studies identified by this study were mostly retrospective, and none were randomized. Local excision was associated with fewer complications and better functional outcome than radical resection. Of 12 studies evaluating local recurrence, 6 showed a higher local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision. Two additional studies showed no increase in local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision of T1 lesions but a significantly higher local recurrence rate among those who underwent local excision of T2 lesions. High histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and depth within submucosa were features associated with a higher risk of local recurrence. In 7 of 15 studies, long-term survival was reduced compared with that of patients who underwent radical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although local excision for early-stage rectal cancer is associated with increased local recurrence and decreased overall survival compared with radical resection, local excision may be appropriate for select individuals who have T1 tumors with no adverse pathologic features.

Does transanal local resection increase morbidity for subsequent total mesorectal excision for early rectal cancer?

AIM

Local excision is recommended for early rectal cancer (pT1). Complementary total mesorectal excision (cTME) is warranted when bad pathological features are present. The impact of a prior local resection on the outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess if prior local excision increases the morbidity of a subsequent cTME compared with primary TME.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2016 all patients who underwent TME after local excision for rectal adenocarcinoma were studied. All were matched (1:1) with patients who underwent primary TME, without neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The matching factors included age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and type of surgery. Short-term morbidity and pathological examination of the resected specimen were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included (14 women, 34%, mean age 65 ± 11 years), comprising classic transanal excision (66%) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (34%), and were matched to 41 patients who had primary TME. cTME was significantly longer (315 min ± 87 vs 275 min ± 58, P = 0.03). The overall morbidity was 48.8% in the local excision group vs 31.7% in the control group (P = 0.18). Surgical morbidity was 31.7% vs 26.8% (P = 0.8). Anastomotic related morbidity was similar (local excision 17% vs TME 14.6%, P = 0.84) and the mean length of stay was similar (14 days) in both groups. There was a tendency to a worse quality of mesorectal excision in the cTME group (17% vs 5%, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Local excision prior to TME for early rectal cancer tends to increase overall morbidity and may worsen the quality of the mesorectal plane but should be considered as a surgical approach in select cases.

Current Imaging Modalities Understage One-Third of Patients with Stage I Rectal Cancer: Implications for Treatment Selection

Accurate preoperative clinical staging is essential to optimize the treatment of rectal cancer. Primary surgical resection is typically indicated for stage I disease, whereas neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for stages II and III. The objective of this study is to examine the accuracy of clinical staging using current imaging modalities in predicting pathologic stage and, thus, selecting appropriate treatment. Adult patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer who underwent primary surgical resection were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2014. Data on clinical and pathologic staging was obtained. Kappa index was used to determine the correlation between clinical and pathologic staging. A total of 13,175 patients were identified. The correlation between clinical and pathologic staging was 69 per cent for stage I (31% upstaged) (Kappa 0.54, P < 0.001). One-third of patients who were clinically staged as stage I, and were therefore treated with primary surgical resection, had pathologic stage II or III disease. Based on their clinical staging, those patients did not receive the neoadjuvant therapy recommended by present guidelines. Where accurate clinical staging is in doubt, oncologists should carefully examine the quality of staging modality and perhaps consider multimodal imaging using both endorectal ultrasound and MRI.

Outcomes of Local Excision plus Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with T1 Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend local excision and observation as standard treatment for selected patients with clinical T1N0M0 rectal cancer. In patients with pathological T1 (pT1) rectal cancer who received local excision, the local recurrence rate is at least 10%. We studied oncological outcomes in patients with pT1 rectal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after local excision.

METHODS

Local excision was performed in 65 patients with clinical T1N0M0 rectal cancer (≤8 cm from the anal verge, tumor size < 30 mm, well or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma). The patients received CRT (40 or 45 Gy in 1.8-2.0 fractions with concurrent oral UFT [tegafur/uracil] or S-1 [tegafur/gimeracil/ote-racil]) after confirmation of pT1 and negative margins.

RESULTS

Patients who had pT2 cancer or who did not provide informed consent were excluded. The remaining 50 patients additionally received CRT. The CRT was completed in 48 patients (96%). The median follow-up period was 71 months. Local recurrence occurred in 1 patient (2%). Distant metastases occurred in 3 patients (6%). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 86%, and the 5-year overall survival rate was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that multidisciplinary treatment with local excision plus CRT can be used as a treatment option in selected patients with clinical T1N0M0 rectal cancer.

Session 3: Many ways to organ preserve the rectum but which is correct?

From the patient's perspective, cancer cure with full preservation of function is a crucial goal. There are many advances that have emerged which may make this possible in a greater proportion of patients without compromising oncological outcomes. Professor Tekkis reviews the options and evidence to date for 'organ preservation' and the expert panel discuss the implications for current and future patient care.

Can we Save the rectum by watchful waiting or TransAnal microsurgery following (chemo) Radiotherapy versus Total mesorectal excision for early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC study)?: protocol for a multicentre, randomised feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the highly effective standard treatment for rectal cancer but is associated with significant morbidity and may be overtreatment for low-risk cancers. This study is designed to determine the feasibility of international recruitment in a study comparing organ-saving approaches versus standard TME surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

STAR-TREC trial is a multicentre international randomised, three-arm parallel, phase II feasibility study in patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum. The trial is coordinated from Birmingham, UK with national hubs in Radboudumc (the Netherlands) and Odense University Hospital Svendborg UMC (Denmark). Patients with rectal cancer, staged by CT and MRI as ≤cT3b (up to 5 mm of extramural spread) N0 M0 can be included. Patients will be randomised to either standard TME surgery (control), organ-saving treatment using long-course concurrent chemoradiation or organ-saving treatment using short-course radiotherapy. For patients treated with an organ-saving strategy, clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy determines the next treatment step. An active surveillance regime will be performed in the case of a complete clinical regression. In the case of incomplete clinical regression, patients will proceed to local excision using an optimised platform such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery or other transanal techniques (eg, transanal endoscopic operation or transanal minimally invasive surgery). The primary endpoint of this phase II study is to demonstrate sufficient international recruitment in order to sustain a phase III study incorporating pelvic failure as the primary endpoint. Success in phase II is defined as randomisation of at least four cases per month internationally in year 1, rising to at least six cases per month internationally during year 2.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The medical ethical committees of all the participating countries have approved the study protocol. Results of the primary and secondary endpoints will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN14240288, 20 October 2016. NCT02945566; Pre-results, October 2016.

Chemoradiation and Local Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer Offers Equivalent Overall Survival Compared to Standard Resection: a National Cancer Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Local excision (LE) alone is associated with worse survival compared to radical surgery (RS) for T2 rectal cancer, but LE with additional chemoradiation (CRT) may improve outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare combined CRT and LE versus RS for T2 rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 2004-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T2N0M0 rectal cancer undergoing LE with neoadjuvant(NA-CRT + LE) or adjuvant(LE + Adj-CRT) CRT, or RS. The main outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards was used to determine the independent effect of treatment on OS.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 patients were included (4367 RS, 242 CRT + LE, 213 LE + Adj-CRT). Mean follow-up was 48.6 (SD28.5) months. There were no differences in patient characteristics, but more high-risk features in the LE + Adj-CRT group. There were no differences in 90-day mortality. Five-year OS was similar (RS 77.4% vs. CRT + LE 76.1% vs. LE + Adj-CRT 79.7%, p = 0.786). Older age, male gender, and higher Charlson score were independently associated with worse OS, whereas treatment type was not. If 90-day mortality was excluded, LE + Adj-CRT was independently associated with worse OS compared to RS.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT with LE for T2N0M0 rectal cancer was not associated with worse OS compared to RS, and may be a viable treatment modality.

Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy After Local Resection for High-Risk T1 to T2 Low Rectal Cancer: Results of a Single-Arm, Multi-Institutional, Phase II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

After treatment with local excision for TNM stage I low rectal cancer, the risk of local recurrence is not only high for T2 lesions but also for T1 lesions with features of massive invasion to the submucosal layer and/or lymphovascular invasion.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of chemoradiotherapy combined with local excision in the treatment of T1 to T2 low rectal cancer.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective, single-arm, phase II trial.

SETTINGS

This was a multicenter study.

PATIENTS

From April 2003 to October 2010, 57 patients were treated with local excision after additional external beam irradiation (45 Gy) plus continuous 5-week intravenous injection of 5-fluorouracil (250 mg/m per day) at 10 domestic hospitals. Fifty-three patients had clinical T1N0 lesions, and 4 had T2N0 lesions in the low rectum, located below the peritoneal reflection.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary end point was disease-free survival at 5 years.

RESULTS

The completion rate for full-dose chemoradiotherapy was 86% (49/57). Serious, nontransient treatment-related complications were not reported. With a median follow-up of 7.3 years after local excision, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 94% for the 53 patients with T1 lesions and 75% for the 4 patients with T2 lesions. There were 2 local recurrences during the entire observation period. Anal function after local excision and chemoradiation were kept at almost the same levels as observed before treatment.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by the small number of registered T2 rectal cancers, retrospective evaluations of quality of life, and the exclusion of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (a high-risk feature of T1 lesions).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of chemoradiotherapy to local excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinomas with poor prognostic features including deep submucosal invasion and lymphovascular invasion could improve on less favorable historic oncologic outcomes of local excision alone in this high-risk group for lymph node metastasis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A421.

Optimal Imaging Strategies for Rectal Cancer Staging and Ongoing Management. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016;17:32. [PMID: 27255100 PMCID: PMC4891388 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-016-0403-7]

Imaging determines the optimal treatment for rectal cancer patients. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overcomes many of the known limitations of previous methods. When performed in accordance with the recommended standards, MRI enables accurate staging of both early and advanced rectal cancer, accurate response assessment, the delineation of recurrent disease and planning surgical treatment in a safe and effective manner. Tumour-related high-risk features with known adverse outcomes can be preoperatively identified and treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Further, MRI post-treatment tumour response assessment using TRG grading system also predicts the likely survival outcomes and in the future will be used to modify treatment further by stratification into good and poor responders. There is a paucity of literature with validated outcome data concerning use of diffusion-weighted imaging and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), and in the absence of any validated methods and outcome data, their use in the initial assessment and restaging after treatment is limited to research protocols. Combination MRI and CT is essential for distant spread assessment and recurrent disease, and currently PET-CT is sometimes used in the workup of patients with recurrent and metastatic disease.

Transanal Endoscopic Operation Versus Conventional Transanal Excision for Rectal Tumors: Case-Matched Study with Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUNDS

Although transanal endoscopic surgery is practiced worldwide, there is no consensus on comparative outcomes between transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) and transanal excision (TAE). In this study, we reviewed our experiences with these techniques and compared patients who underwent TEO and TAE using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

A total of 207 patients underwent local rectal tumor excision between January 2008 and November 2015. To overcome selection bias, we used PSM to achieve a one-to-one TEO: TAE ratio. We included baseline characteristics, age, sex, surgeon, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location (clockwise direction), involved circumference quadrants, tumor size, and pathology.

RESULTS

After PSM, 72 patients were included in each group. The tumor distance from the anal verge was higher in the TEO group (8.0 [5-10] vs. TAE: 4.0 [3-5], p < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the groups (TEO: 8.3% vs. TAE: 11.1%, p = 0.39). TEO was associated with a shorter hospital stay (3.01 vs. 4.68 days, p = 0.001), higher negative margin rate (95.8 vs. 86.1%, p = 0.039), and non-fragmented specimen rate vs. TAE (98.6 vs. 90.3%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

TEO was more beneficial for patients with higher rectal tumors. Regardless of tumor location, involved circumference quadrants, and tumor size, TEO may more effectively achieve negative resection margins and non-fragmented specimens. Consequently, although local excision method according to tumor distance may be important, TEO will become the standard for rectal tumors.

Analysis of local recurrences after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for low risk rectal carcinoma

AIM

Rates of local recurrence (LR) after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal carcinoma vary; the reasons remain unclear. We analyzed LR after TEM for low-risk pT1 (G1/2/X, L0/X) rectal carcinoma to investigate the influence of completeness of resection and occult lymph node metastasis on risk of LR.

METHOD

LR location and stage, completeness of resection of primary carcinoma (minimal distance between tumor and resection line ≤1 mm vs >1 mm), and incidence of involved lymph nodes in resected LR specimens were collected, and tumor characteristics of LR were compared with primary carcinoma. Distant metastasis and overall and cancer-specific survival were determined.

RESULTS

LR developed in 14 patients; in 2/4 with R1/X resection, in 3/8 (38%) with clear margins (R0) but a minimal distance of ≤1 mm, and in 9/88 (10%) with formally complete resection. Six of nine patients with formally complete resection underwent radical surgery for LR; in five out of these six, lymph nodes were not involved. In 5/14 patients, LR was poorly differentiated compared to primary carcinoma. Main LR causes were incomplete tumor resection or tumor persistence after formally complete resection. Overall (p = 0.008) and cancer-specific (p < 0.001) survival was lower in LR patients compared to non-LR patients, even if lymph nodes were uninvolved.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that most LRs after TEM for low-risk rectal cancer were caused by residual tumor at the previous excision site and not by undetected lymph node metastases. By improved standardization of surgical techniques to ensure complete resection of carcinomas and thorough pathological assessments, most LRs seem to be avoidable.

Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer

With the increase in colorectal cancer burden, surveillance following endoscopic and surgical resection is an essential issue. The aim of surveillance programs is improvement of patient survival by early detection of residual tumor tissue or local recurrence, metachronous colorectal tumors, and metastases. Appropriate surveillance should be determined according to this risk of factors. In current guidelines, only surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after endoscopic resection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia, whereas intensive, multimodality surveillance using colonoscopy, radiological imaging and tumor marker measurements is recommended following surgical resection of invasive colorectal cancer. Detailed recommendations, including the timing of surveillance, are described based on high-quality evidence. However, there are still many unresolved issues for which more high-quality evidence is required.

Management of Rectal Polyps

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer and cancer morbidity in the United States. In comparison to colon polyps, rectal polyps pose a unique challenge. Advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed for more thorough rectal adenoma detection and removal; however, there remains a concern over piecemeal resection and negative resection margins. Advances in transanal excision techniques, such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery, have been proposed for the removal of benign polyps as well as some early stage rectal cancers, with emphasis on proper patient selection. This review will discuss the current endoscopic and surgical considerations of both benign and malignant rectal polyps.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy instead of revision radical resection after local excision for high-risk early rectal cancer

Background

After local excision of early rectal cancer, revision radical resection is recommended for patients with high-risk pathologic stage T1 (pT1) or pT2 cancer, but the revision procedure has high morbidity rates. We evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for reducing recurrence after local excision in these patients.

Methods

Eighty-three patients with high-risk pT1 or pT2 rectal cancer underwent postoperative adjuvant CCRT after local excision. We defined high-risk features as pT1 having tumor size ≤3 cm, and/or resection margin (RM) ≤3 mm, and/or lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and/or non-full thickness excision such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or unknown records regarding those features, or pT2 cancer. Radiotherapy was administered with a median dose of 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fraction size over 5–7 weeks. Concurrent 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin were administered for 4 days in the first and fifth weeks of radiotherapy.

Results

The median interval between local excision and radiotherapy was 34 (range, 11–104) days. Fifteen patients (18.1 %) had stage pT2 tumors, 22 (26.5 %) had RM of ≥3 mm, and 21 (25.3 %) had tumors of ≥3 cm in size. Thirteen patients (15.7 %) had LVI. Transanal excision was performed in 58 patients (69.9 %) and 25 patients (30.1 %) underwent EMR or ESD. The median follow-up was 61 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) rates for all patients were 94.9, 91.0, and 89.8 %, respectively. Multivariate analysis did not identify any significant factors for OS or LRFS, but the only significant factor affecting DFS was the pT stage (p = 0.027).

Conclusions

In patients with high-risk pT1 rectal cancer, adjuvant CCRT after local excision could be an effective alternative treatment instead of revision radical resection. However, patients with pT2 stage showed inferior DFS compared to pT1.

Imaging Advances in Colorectal Cancer

The optimal management of rectal cancer is achieved through a shared multidisciplinary decision making process with accurate staging by imaging being critical for treatment planning. Good quality, high-resolution MRI has become the imaging gold standard as it allows consistent staging and stratification of patients into distinct prognostic groups according to MR-findings. Imaging features other than T and N have been proven to influence patient outcomes, and increasingly these features are taken into consideration when determining treatment options: distance of tumour to the potential circumferential margin (CRM), presence of tumour within the extramural rectal vessels (EMVI), discontinuous tumour deposits (N1c), relationship to the intersphincteric plane in low rectal tumours and to pelvic compartments in advanced disease. The presence or absence of proven adverse MR features should be included in the MRI report and shared with the patient when treatment choices are offered. MRI enables the identification of high risk tumours where the use of neoadjuvant therapy is justified and is a robust method of identifying patients with a strong likelihood of complete response after preoperative treatment.

Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO)

In rectal cancer management, accurate staging by magnetic resonance imaging, neo-adjuvant treatment with the use of radiotherapy, and total mesorectal excision have resulted in remarkable improvement in the oncological outcomes. However, there is substantial discrepancy in the therapeutic approach and failure to adhere to international guidelines among different Greek-Cypriot hospitals. The present guidelines aim to aid the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, considering both the local special characteristics of our healthcare system and the international relevant agreements (ESMO, EURECCA). Following background discussion and online communication sessions for feedback among the members of an executive team, a consensus rectal cancer management was obtained. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology voting system on two rounds to achieve further consensus by invited multidisciplinary international experts on colorectal cancer. Statements were considered of high, moderate or low consensus if they were voted by ≥80%, 60-80%, or <60%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. One hundred and two statements were developed and voted by 100 experts. The mean rate of abstention per statement was 12.5% (range: 2-45%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a high consensus. Guidelines and algorithms of diagnosis and treatment were proposed. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized.

Transanal Local Excision for Patients With Rectal Cancer: Can Radiation Compensate for What Is Perceived as a Nondefinitive Surgical Approach?

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision has long been the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer. However, in select patients, local excision is an appropriate alternative option. The role of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients treated with local excision is controversial and evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer treated with local excision and adjuvant radiation.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective chart review.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at the BC Cancer Agency, a tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 93 patients with node-negative rectal cancer treated with local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy between 2001 and 2010 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient and tumor characteristics are reported. Five-year local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Five-year overall survival, local control, and progression-free survival for patients treated with local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy were 78.5%, 86.1%, and 83.8%. In T1 disease, local control was 92.5%.

LIMITATIONS

Referral bias, selection bias, lack of uniform surveillance, and retrospective analysis are the study limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy provides a good level of local control in T1 disease and remains a good treatment option for patients who are either medically not suitable for a more radical surgical approach or who refuse this procedure. Local excision and radiotherapy should not be advocated in T2/T3 disease; however, it can provide a good alternative in those patients who are not fit enough for a more radical operation.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.

Transanal Approach to Rectal Polyps and Cancer

A transanal approach to rectal polyp and cancer excision is often an appropriate alternative to conventional rectal resection, and has a lower associated morbidity. There has been a steady evolution in the techniques of transanal surgery over the past 30 years. It started with traditional transanal excision and was revolutionized by introduction of transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early 1980s. Introduction of transanal minimally invasive surgery made it more accessible to surgeons around the world. Now robotic platforms are being tried in certain institutions. Concerns have been raised about recurrence rates of cancers with transanal approach and success of subsequent salvage operations.

Colonoscopy Surveillance after Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.

Long-term Oncologic Outcome After Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Rectal Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is superior to other methods of local excision of rectal cancer, but few studies report long-term follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the use of transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone as curative and compromise therapy based on long-term disease recurrence and mortality.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary care university medical center.

PATIENTS

The study included 133 patients treated between 1985 and 2007. There were 3 groups, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery in curative intent (low-risk rectal carcinoma, including pT1, G1/2, L0, and LX with clear margins and a minimal distance between tumor and resection margin of >1 mm (N = 64) or clear margins only (N = 18 ))) and as compromise therapy (high-risk or incompletely resected rectal carcinoma; N = 51).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Log-rank tests were used to compare overall and cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 8.6 years (range, 0.2-25.1 years), and a total of 131 of 133 patients (98.5%) were followed >5 years or until death. The preoperative diagnosis of carcinoma was not associated with belonging into 1 of the 3 categories. In patients with low-risk completely (>1 mm) resected carcinoma, the 5- and 10-year local recurrence rates were 6.6% and 11.6%. In patients with high-risk or incompletely resected carcinoma, the rates were 32.5% and 35.0% (p = 0.006). The 5- and 10-year cancer-specific survival rates for low-risk patients were 98.0% and 91.0% and 84.3% and 74.3% for high-risk patients (p = 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective design and small subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The high cancer-specific survival justifies transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone as curative treatment in low-risk rectal carcinoma. Complete resection is essential to lower the risk of local recurrence. The high local recurrence rate in patients with high-risk rectal carcinoma restricts the use of TEM alone as compromise therapy.