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

Management of T1 Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of patients with submucosal invasive (T1) colorectal cancer (CRC) have lymph node metastasis (LNM). The risk of LNM can be stratified according to various histopathological factors, such as invasion depth, lymphovascular invasion, histological grade, and tumor budding.

SUMMARY

T1 CRC with a low risk of LNM can be cured by local excision via endoscopic resection (ER), whereas surgical resection (SR) with lymph node dissection is required for high-risk T1 CRC. Current guidelines raise concern that many patients receive unnecessary SR, even though most patients achieve a radical cure. Novel diagnostic techniques for LNM, such as nomograms, artificial intelligence systems, and genomic analysis, have been recently developed to identify more low-risk T1 CRC cases. Assessing the curability and the necessity of additional treatment, including SR with lymph node dissection and chemoradiotherapy, according to histopathological findings of the specimens resected using ER, is becoming an acceptable strategy for T1 CRC, particularly for rectal cancer. Therefore, complete resection with negative vertical and horizontal margins is necessary for this strategy. Advanced ER methods for resecting the muscle layer or full thickness, which may guarantee complete resection with negative vertical margins, have been developed.

KEY MESSAGE

Although a necessary SR should not be delayed for T1 CRC given its unfavorable prognosis when SR with lymph node dissection is performed, the optimal treatment method should be chosen based on the risk of LNM and the patient's life expectancy, physical condition, social characteristics, and wishes.

Management after local excision of small rectal cancers. Indications for completion total mesorectal excision and possible alternatives

The treatment of superficial rectal cancers (local excision, or proctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Endoscopy and endorectal ultrasonography are essential for the precise initial definition of these small cancers. During endoscopy, the depth of the lesion can be estimated using virtual chromoendoscopy with magnification, thereby aiding the assessment of the possibilities of local excision. Current international recommendations indicate completion proctectomy after wide local excision for cases where the pathologic examination reveals poorly-differentiated lesions, lymphovascular invasion, grade 2 or 3 tumor budding, and incomplete resection. But debate persists regarding whether the depth of submucosal invasion can accurately predict the risk of lymph node spread. Recent data from the literature suggest that the depth of submucosal invasion should no longer, by itself, be an indication for additional oncological surgery. Adjuvant radio-chemotherapy could be an alternative to completion proctectomy in patients with pT1 rectal cancer and unfavorable histopathological criteria. A Dutch randomized controlled trial is underway to validate this strategy.

Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation

OPINION STATEMENT

The introduction of total mesorectal excision into the radical surgery of rectal cancer has significantly improved the oncological outcome with longer survival and lower local recurrence. Traditional treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer, relying on radical surgery, while effective, take their own set of risks, including surgical complications, potential damage to the anus, and surrounding structure owing to the pursuit of thorough resection. The progress of operating methods as well as the integration of systemic therapies and radiotherapy into the peri-operative period, particularly the exciting clinical complete response of patients after neoadjuvant treatment, have paved the way for organ preservation strategy. The non-inferiority oncological outcome of "watch and wait" compared with radical surgery underscores the potential of organ preservation not only to control local recurrence but also to reduce the need for treatments followed by structure destruction, hopefully improving the long-term quality of life. Radical radiotherapy provides another treatment option for patients unwilling or unable to undergo surgery. Organ preservation points out the direction of treatment for distal rectal cancer, while additional researches are needed to answer remaining questions about its optimal use.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Can CCRT/RT Achieve Favorable Oncologic Outcome in Rectal Cancer Patients With High Risk Feature After Local Excision?

Purpose

The oncologic outcome of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) after local excision in patients with high-risk early rectal cancer as compared with radical operation has not been reported. The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcome between radical operation and adjuvant CCRT after local excision for high-risk early rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

From January 2005 to December 2015, 266 patients diagnosed with early rectal cancer and treated with local excision who showed high-risk characteristics were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was applied in a ratio of 1:4, comparing the CCRT/radiotherapy (RT) (n = 34) and radical operation (n = 91) groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival.

Results

The median follow-up period was 112 months. The 5-year disease-free survival rate and the 5-year overall survival of the radical operation group were significantly higher than those of the CCRT/RT group after propensity score matching (96.7% vs. 70.6%, p <0.001; 100% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariate analysis, salvage therapy type and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were prognostic factors for 5-year disease-free survival (p <0.001 and p = 0.021, respectively). The type of salvage therapy, the preoperative CEA, and the pT were prognostic factors for 5-year overall survival (p = 0.009, p = 0.024, and p = 0.046, respectively).

Conclusions

Patients who undergo radical operations after local excision with a high-risk early rectal cancer had better survival than those treated with adjuvant CCRT/RT. Therefore, radical surgery may be recommended to high-risk early rectal cancer patients who have undergone local excision for more favorable oncologic outcomes.

Total Mesorectal Excision vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Followed by Radiotherapy for T2N0M0 Distal Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Introduction

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an organ-preserving treatment alternative for patients with early rectal cancer. However, TEM alone is associated with greater risk of local recurrence and inferior survival in comparison with total meso-rectal excision (TME). As an important adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy can effectively reduce the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether TEM followed by radiotherapy can be a valid alternative to TME in T2N0M0 distal rectal cancer treatment.

Methods

We plan to recruit 168 participants meeting established inclusion criteria. Following informed consent, participants will randomly receive treatment protocols of TEM followed by radiotherapy (a total dose of 45–50.4 Gy given in 25–28 factions) or TME. Depending on post-operative pathology, the participants will receive either long-term follow-up or further treatment. The primary endpoint of this trial is 3-year local recurrence rate. The secondary end points include 3-year disease-free survival rate, 3-year overall survival rate, 3-year mortality rate, post-operative quality of life, post-operative safety index, intraoperative evaluation index and post-operative short-term evaluation index.

Discussion

This trial is the first prospective randomized trial to investigate the rectum preserving treatment by using transanal local excision followed by radiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098471 on September 20, 2019.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS): safety and feasibility for the resection of benign and malignant lesions of the rectum

Objectives

Radical surgery for rectal tumours has high morbidity. Local excision of such tumours can be achieved without compromising oncologic safety. However tumours that are not accessible to local excision can be approached using Transanal Minimal Invasive Surgery (TAMIS). The aim of our study was to assess feasibility of TAMIS procedure in terms of complications, operating time, resection margin positivity, hospital stay and local recurrence rate.

Material and Methods

Forty eight patients with benign adenomas or early stage adenocarcinoma, within 4 to 12 cm from anal verge who were subjected to TAMIS over a period of 3 years were included in the study. Short and long term outcomes were assessed.

Results

TAMIS was performed for 36 benign adenomas and 12 adenocarcinomas, which were located at an average distance of 6.2 cm from anal verge. The mean operating time was 72 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications.1 (2.08%) patient suffered post operative bleeding, which was managed conservatively. 2 (4.16%) patients developed acute urinary retention who required indwelling catheterisation. Resection margin was positive in 3 (6.25%) benign cases. Average hospital stay was 2.7 days. Local recurrence occurred in 2 (4.16%) villous adenoma patients (after 11 and 13 months), whereas in malignant patients there was no recurrence at a follow up period ranging between 12 to 36 months.

Conclusion

TAMIS is a safe and feasible procedure for benign tumours and early rectal cancers, located in low and middle rectum.

Long-term outcomes of patients with poor prognostic factors following transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer

AIM

Management of early rectal cancer following transanal microscopic anal surgery poses a management dilemma when the histopathology reveals poor prognostic features, due to high risk of local recurrence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncological outcomes of such patients who undergo surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME), receive adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy (CRDT/RT) or receive close surveillance only (no further treatment).

METHODS

We identified patients with poor prognostic factors-pT2 adenocarcinoma, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion (Kikuchi SM3), lymphovascular invasion, tumour budding or R1 resection margin-between 1 September 2012 and 31 January 2020 and report their oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients, 18 had TME, 14 had CRDT and 14 had RT; seven patients did not have any further treatment. The median follow-up was 48 months, 12 developed recurrence and six died. Overall, 5-year survival (OS) was 88.9% and disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.2%. Compared to the surgical group, in which there were eight recurrences and two deaths, there were zero recurrences or deaths in the CRDT group, log-rank test P = 0.206 for OS and P = 0.005 for DFS. The 5-year survival rates in the RT and surveillance only groups were OS 78.6%, DFS 85.7% and OS 71.5%, DFS 71% respectively. TME assessment in the surgical group revealed Grade 3 quality in seven of the 16 available reports.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the strategy of adjuvant CRDT as first line treatment for patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer with poor prognostic factors on initial histological assessment.

Tolerability and safety of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with S-1 after limited surgery for T1 or T2 lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) after local excision for pT1 with high-risk features or pT2 rectal cancer is recommended as an optional treatment to achieve both curability and maintenance of quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term safety of combining limited surgery with adjuvant CRT for T1 or T2 lower rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, single-arm, prospective phase II trial. Patients diagnosed with lower rectal or anal canal cancer (clinical T1 or T2 with a maximum diameter of 30 mm and N0 and M0) underwent local excision or endoscopic resection. Patients received CRT with S-1 (tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil) after confirmation of well- or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and negative margins, and/or depth of submucosal invasion ≥ 1000 µm or muscularis propria, and/or positive lymphovascular invasion, and/or tumor budding grade of 2/3. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall and local relapse-free survival, safety, anal sphincter preservation rate, and anal function.

RESULTS

Pathological diagnosis was T1 in 36 patients and T2 in 16 patients. Serious complications after surgery were not reported. The CRT completion rate per protocol was 86.5% (45/52). Thirty-two patients developed 54 events of CRT-related adverse events, including only one patient with a grade 3 event (stomatitis). The most common CRT-related adverse event was diarrhea (n = 14). No patients showed deterioration of anal function at 3 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

CRT with S-1 after limited surgery for T1 or T2 lower rectal cancer resulted in a low incidence of toxicities and maintenance of anal function.

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.

Recurrence Outcomes Less Favorable in T1 Rectal Cancer than in T1 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

With the implementation of screening programs worldwide, diagnosis of early-stage colorectal cancer steadily increased, including T1 cancer. Current T1 cancer treatment does not differ according to anatomic location. We therefore compared the disease-free survival of T1 cancer arising from the rectum versus the colon.

METHODS

The hospital-based study included subjects with T1 cancer at National Taiwan University Hospital from 2005 to 2014. Clinical, colonoscopy, and histopathology were reviewed for patients with a mean follow-up time of 7.1 (0.7-12.9) years. We conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the risk of recurrence by cancer location and Cox regression analysis to identify risk factors for T1 cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

The final cohort included a total of 343 subjects with T1 cancer (mean age, 64.9 ± 11.7 years; 56.1% male), of whom 25 underwent endoscopic resection alone. Of the subjects who underwent surgery, 50 had lymph node metastasis and 268 did not. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the risk of recurrence was higher in T1 rectal cancer than T1 colon cancer (p = .022). Rectal location and larger neoplasm size were independent risk factors for recurrence, with hazard ratios of 4.84 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-19.92), and 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.65), respectively. The occurrence of advanced histology did not differ between T1 rectal and colon cancers (p = .58).

CONCLUSION

T1 cancers arising from the rectum had less favorable recurrence outcomes than those arising from the colon. Further studies are needed to examine whether adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in T1 rectal cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Current T1 colorectal cancer treatment and surveillance do not differ according to anatomic location. Clinical, colonoscopy, and histopathology were reviewed for 343 patients with T1 cancer with a mean follow-up time of 7.1 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the risk of recurrence was higher in T1 rectal cancer than T1 colon cancer. Moreover, the rectal location was an independent risk factor for recurrence. T1 cancers from the rectum had less favorable recurrence outcomes than those arising from the colon. It is critical to clarify whether adjuvant therapy or more close surveillance can reduce recurrence risk in T1 rectal cancer.

Short-term safety of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local resection for patients with high-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer: a single-arm, multicenter phase II trial

Background

Surgery is recommended for patients with high-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer (SM-RC) after local resection but affects the quality of life due to stoma placement or impaired anal function; therefore, alternative treatment approaches are needed to prevent local metastasis. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term safety of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine in patients with high-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer after local resection.

Methods

This single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial included patients undergoing local resection for high-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer within 12 weeks prior to enrollment. High-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer was defined as the presence of at least one of the following factors: poor differentiation of adenocarcinoma, submucosal invasion depth > 1 mm, presence of lymphovascular invasion and grade-2 or -3 tumour budding. Protocol treatment comprised 45.0 Gy radiotherapy with conventional fractionation and 1650 mg/m² capecitabine given twice daily until radiotherapy completion. The primary endpoint was treatment completion rate with an expected rate of 95% and a threshold of 80%.

Results

Twenty-nine patients from six institutions were enrolled between May 2015 and February 2018. One patient was ineligible. Twenty-three patients completed treatment, with a completion rate of 82% (80% confidence interval, 69–91%); the remaining five patients completed treatment with protocol deviation. The median relative dose intensity of capecitabine was 100% (range, 58–100%). Common adverse events included radiation dermatitis (54%), anal pain (39%) and anal mucositis (29%). No grade-3 or higher adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy using capecitabine demonstrated acceptable short-term safety profiles in patients with high-risk submucosal invasive rectal cancer after local resection.

Local excision and chemoradiation for clinical node-negative anal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Given the lack of consensus in the surgical treatment of anal adenocarcinoma, practice-patterns demonstrate utilization of organ-preserving techniques. The adequacy of local excision compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR) as a surgical approach for stage II disease is unknown. Our study examines the utilization of local excision in the treatment of stage II anal adenocarcinoma, rates of R0 resection, and differences in overall survival compared to APR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2016), we retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with clinical stage II anal adenocarcinoma who received chemoradiation and surgery. Patient cohorts were assigned based on the surgical procedure they received. Propensity score matching was used to offset selection bias and confounding factors. Treatment approach, pathologic margin status, and overall survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 359 patients underwent resection of clinical stage II anal adenocarcinoma and received chemoradiation therapy. Of these patients, 87 (24%) underwent local excision, whereas 272 (76%) received an abdominoperineal resection. In a propensity score-matched cohort, patients who underwent local excision were less likely to achieve an R0 resection (40% vs 90%), and more likely to receive adjuvant instead of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Overall survival was not significantly different between the propensity-matched groups. Surgical approach and pathologic margin status were not independently associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with clinical stage II anal adenocarcinoma who received chemotherapy and radiation, complete resection was significantly less likely with local excision compared to abdominoperineal resection, however, overall survival was not affected. Prospective studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision are warranted.

Submucosal Enhancing Stripe as a Contrast Material-enhanced MRI-based Imaging Feature for the Differentiation of Stage T0-T1 from Early T2 Rectal Cancers

Background Accurate differentiation of stage T0-T1 rectal tumors from stage T2 rectal tumors facilitates the selection of appropriate surgical treatment. MRI is a recommended technique for local staging, but its ability to distinguish T1 from T2 tumors is poor. Purpose To explore the value of a submucosal enhancing stripe (SES), an uninterrupted enhancing band between the rectal tumor and the muscular layer on contrast material-enhanced T1-weighted images, as a potential imaging feature to differentiate T0-T1 from T2 rectal tumors. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients with pT0-T1 and pT2 rectal tumors who underwent pretreatment MRI and rectal tumor resection between January 2012 and November 2019. Two radiologists independently evaluated tumor characteristics (SES; status of muscularis propria [SMP]; and tumor shape, location, and size) at MRI. The associations of clinical and imaging characteristics with stage T0-T1 or T2 tumors were assessed, β values were calculated, and predictive models were built. The diagnostic accuracies for the differentiation of T0-T1 tumors from T2 tumors with SES and SMP were compared. Results Data from 431 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; 261 men) were evaluated. SES (β = 3.9; 95% CI: 3.1, 4.7; P < .001), SMP (β = 1.3; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.9; P < .001), and carpetlike shape (β = 1.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.8; P = .01) were independent factors distinguishing T0-T1 tumors from T2 tumors. The diagnostic accuracy was 87% (95% CI: 84, 90; 376 of 431) for SES and 67% (95% CI: 63, 72; 290 of 431) for SMP (P < .001). Conclusion Submucosal enhancing stripe (SES) at contrasted-enhanced MRI, status of muscularis propria (SMP) on T2-weighted images, and tumor shape can serve as independent imaging features to differentiate stage T0-T1 rectal tumors from stage T2 rectal tumors. Moreover, SES is a more accurate feature than is SMP. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Turkbey in this issue.

Nonsurgical Management Following Local Resection for Early Rectal Cancer in Patients with High-risk Factors: A Single-institute Experience

Objective

Additional surgery is considered for patients at high risk for lymph node metastasis (LNM) after local resection for early rectal cancer. Several factors are considered as indications for additional surgery, although there are currently no definitive criteria. This study aimed to clarify the need for additional surgery based on the number of risk factors for LNM and to evaluate the significance of submucosal invasion on recurrence.

Methods

Patients with early rectal cancer harboring risk factors for LNM who underwent local resection between March 2005 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Associations among the number of risk factors, prognosis, and additional treatment after local resection were investigated.

Results

A total of 29 eligible patients were classified into the surgery (n = 10), chemoradiotherapy (n = 7), and no-additional-treatment (NAT, n = 12) groups. Among the 29 patients, 15 patients (52%) with only one risk factor did not relapse. The NAT group harbored fewer risk factors for LNM, and 8 of the 12 patients (67%) had only deep submucosal invasion. Local recurrence occurred in one patient in the chemoradiotherapy group. The estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 88.9%, 75.0%, and 81.5% in the surgery, chemoradiotherapy, and NAT groups, respectively. There were no disease-specific deaths in the overall cohort.

Conclusions

In the present study, no recurrence occurred in patients who did not receive additional surgery with deep submucosal invasion as the only risk factor. A multicenter investigation is necessary to confirm the safety of nonsurgical options.

Oncological Outcomes of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Plus Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk T1 and T2 Rectal Cancer

Background: Radical surgery is recommended for high-risk pathological stage T1 (pT1) or pT2 rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). However, in clinical practice, many patients may unfit or decline radical surgery. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after TEM was considered as an alternative to radical surgery for these patients. This study aimed to assess oncological outcomes of adjuvant CRT after TEM for high-risk early rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: We collected retrospectively data of 97 patients who underwent TEM with pT1 and pT2 between January 2008 and December 2018. Of these, 35 patients were excluded. Of the remaining 62 patients, 42 were managed by TEM alone and 20 by TEM plus adjuvant CRT. Demographics, recurrence, and survival were analyzed between the two groups. Results: At a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival and disease-free survival (DFS) in TEM alone group were significantly lower than those in TEM+CRT group (66.6% versus 93.3%, P = .035; 63.7% versus 93.3%, P = .022). Although the 3-year overall survival in TEM+CRT group was higher than TEM alone group (100% versus 83.3%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .13). The local recurrence rate in TEM alone was 31%, compared with 5% in TEM+CRT group (P = .025). Multivariate analysis showed that adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio: 0.094; 95% confidence interval: 0.001-0.764; P = .027). Conclusions: Our study suggests that adjuvant CRT after TEM may be an alternative for pT1 high-risk and T2 rectal cancer who are not suitable or unwilling to undergo salvage radical surgery.

Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes. This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the "PICO" process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery. The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%-91.7% and 80%-94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%-94.3% and 94.4%-97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09-1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01-1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50-4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15-0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present. In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process.

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.

Protocol for a single-arm confirmatory trial of adjuvant chemoradiation for patients with high-risk rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1612 (RESCUE study)

INTRODUCTION

Intestinal resection with lymph node dissection is the current standard treatment for high-risk lower rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection; however, surgery affects patients' quality of life due to stoma placement or impaired anal sphincter function. A recent study demonstrated that adjuvant chemoradiation yields promising results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study aims to confirm the non-inferiority of adjuvant chemoradiation, consisting of capecitabine and concurrent radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions), measured by 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS), over standard surgery in patients with high-risk lower rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection. The primary endpoint is 5 year RFS. The secondary endpoints are 10 years RFS, 5-year and 10-year overall survival, 5-year and 10-year local RFS, 5-year and 10-year proportion of anus-preservation without stoma, Wexner score, low anterior resection syndrome score, adverse events and serious adverse events. During the 5-year trial period, 210 patients will be accrued from 65 Japanese institutions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The National Cancer Center Hospital East Certified Review Board approved this study protocol in October 2018. The study is conducted in accordance with the precepts established in the Declaration of Helsinki and Clinical Trials Act. Written informed consent will be obtained from all eligible patients prior to registration. The primary results of this study will be published in an English article. In addition, the main results will be published on the websites of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (www.jcog.jp) and jRCT (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/). As to data curation, it has not been prepared yet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCT1031180076.

Development and clinical application of bispecific antibody in the treatment of colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of colorectal cancer as one of the most commonly diagnosed and a frequent cause of cancer-related deaths is of great challenges in health-related issues.

AREAS COVERED

Immunotherapy is the fourth pillar of cancer treatment which provides more novel therapeutic options with expanding investigational potentials. One of the modalities in immunotherapy is the use of bispecific antibodies. Despite demonstrating many promising roles, it still needs more advanced studies to identify the actual pros and cons. In this review, the application of bispecific antibody in the treatment of colorectal cancer has been explained, based on preclinical and clinical studies. The literature search was conducted mainly through PubMed in June and September 2019.

EXPERT OPINION

Bispecific antibody is in its early stages in colorectal cancer treatment, requiring modern technologies in manufacturing, better biomarkers and more specific target antigens, more studies on individual genetic variations, and conducting later phase clinical trials and systematic reviews to achieve better survival benefits.

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.

Survival analysis of local excision vs total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer in pT1/pT2 stage and intermediate pathological risk

Background

Local excision (LE) is a feasible treatment approach for rectal cancers in stage pT1 and presents low pathological risk, whereas total mesorectal excision (TME) is a reasonable treatment for more advanced cancers. On the basis of the pathology findings, surgeons may suggest TME for patients receiving LE. This study compared the survival outcomes between LE with/without chemoradiation and TME in mid and low rectal cancer patients in stage pT1/pT2, with highly selective intermediate pathological risk.

Methods

This retrospective study included 134 patients who received TME and 39 patients who underwent LE for the treatment of intermediate risk (pT1 with poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, relatively large tumor, or small-sized pT2 tumor) rectal cancer between 1998 and 2016.

Results

Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cumulative recurrence rate (CRR) were similar between the LE (3-year DFS 92%) and TME (3-year DFS 91%) groups. Following subgrouping into an LE with adjuvant therapy group and a TME without adjuvant therapy group, the compared survival outcomes (OS, DFS, and CRR) were found not to be statistically different. The temporary and permanent ostomy rates were higher in the TME group than in the LE group (p < 0.001). Rates of early and late morbidity following surgery were higher in the TME group (p = 0.005), and LE had similar survival compared with TME.

Conclusion

For patients who had mid and low rectal cancer in stage pT1/pT2 and intermediate pathological risk, LE with chemoradiation presents an alternative treatment option for selected patients.

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.

Radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer may offer reduced local recurrence rates

AIM

Early rectal cancer can be managed effectively with local excision, which is now the standard of care for many T1 lesions. However, the presence of unexpected adverse histopathological factors may indicate an increased risk of local recurrence, prompting consideration of completion radical surgery. Many patients are unfit or prefer to avoid radical surgery, relying instead on surveillance and early detection of recurrent disease. Recently, radiotherapy has shown promise as an adjuvant therapy in this group. This study assesses local recurrence rates after local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy at a single centre.

METHOD

This was a retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in a single institution. Data covering a 10-year period were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 197 patients undergoing TEM for rectal cancer, 33 (17%) had adjuvant radiotherapy because of adverse histopathological features. At 3.2 years' median follow-up, there were three instances of local recurrence (9.1%). Estimated local recurrence at 1 and 3 years was 0% and 6.9%, compared to 16.8% and 21.2% in a propensity-score-matched group who were followed by surveillance alone. Local recurrence was diagnosed at a median of 23 months post-TEM in the radiotherapy group, compared to 8 months in the matched group.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy after TEM is associated with a trend towards a reduced rate of local recurrence, even for high-risk disease. Radiotherapy would appear to offer a viable alternative to radical completion surgery in the presence of unforeseen adverse histopathological features, as long as a meticulous surveillance programme is in place.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Local excision is now accepted as a standard treatment option for certain patients with early rectal cancer. However, there is a higher risk of local recurrence than after radical surgery with total mesorectal excision. Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision may reduce this excess risk, and yet retain the benefits of local excision, with rectal preservation.

METHODS

A review of the literature pertaining to the use of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer and a discussion of current practice.

RESULTS

We first considered local excision as a treatment option for early rectal cancer, looking at technical developments and the risks and benefits of organ preservation, in particular, the advantages for quality of life and the risk of leaving residual disease which may result in local recurrence. We then looked at reported outcomes for studies using adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision. Few of the studies routinely used modern endoscopic methods of local excision and only the recent used chemoradiation. Local recurrence rates after adjuvant radiotherapy have improved over time, with rates of around 3.5% in the recent studies. Adverse effects of adjuvant radiotherapy are not commonly described, but generally, they are relatively mild when described. We then discussed current practice regarding adjuvant radiotherapy, including pathological criteria, discussion of local recurrence risk with the patient and the importance of a surveillance regime to detect any recurrence at an early stage.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the current state of knowledge regarding adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision suggests a potential role in decreasing the risk of local recurrence but further studies are required to better define this effect, clarify which patients will gain the most benefit from this pathway, and identify those who should avoid exposure to the risks of radiotherapy.

Survival outcome of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision for T2 early rectal cancer: An analysis based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result registry database

BACKGROUND

Major resection (MR) is recommended for cases with T2 finding after local excision (LE) of early rectal cancer, but the revision procedure is accompanied with high morbidity. We evaluated the oncological safety of LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy as a rectum-preserving alternative to MR for T2 early rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 3786 patients with T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2013 were included from the SEER database. Survival rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method with a log-rank test, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional regression models.

RESULTS

Of these patients included, 429 (11.3%) treated with LE alone (LE group), 3067 (81.0%) treated with MR (MR group), and 290 (7.7%) treated with LE followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (LE + adjuvant RT group). The 5-year cancer specific survival (CSS) rate and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate were significantly lower in LE patients group than those in MR patients group (70.5% vs. 81.8%, P < 0.001; 57.3% vs. 72.3%, P < 0.001). The 5-year CSS rate and 5-year OS rate were similar between LE + adjuvant RT and MR groups (78.4% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.975, and 70.7% vs. 72.3%, P = 0.311, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression revealed that treatment strategies, age and CEA status were independently associated with CSS and OS. After age adjustment, LE was associated with reduced CSS (using MR as a reference, HR, 1.784; P < 0.001) and reduced OS (HR, 1.739; P < 0.001). However, CSS and OS related to LE + adjuvant RT of T2 rectal cancer group weren't be affected (HR, 0.994; P = 0.962 and HR, 0.904; P = 0.302, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When MR is inappropriate for T2 early rectal cancer patients because of patients refusal or co-morbidities, LE + adjuvant RT can provide acceptable levels of long-term survival.

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.

Adjuvant Management of Pathologic Node-Positive Disease After Definitive Surgery for Clinical T1-2 N0 Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cT1-2N0M0 rectal cancer are often treated with up-front surgical resection, with adjuvant treatment reserved for patients upstaged with pathologic node-positive (pN+) disease at surgery. This study evaluates practice patterns and clinical outcomes when comparing different forms of adjuvant treatment for this patient population.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was queried for cT1-2N0M0 rectal cancer patients between 2004 and 2015 with postoperative pN+ disease treated without neoadjuvant treatment. Patients were divided into groups receiving observation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with receipt of adjuvant treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves compared overall survival (OS), and Cox regression determined patient factors associated with OS.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1466 patients met the inclusion criteria; 536 patients (36.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 413 (28.2%) received adjuvant CRT, and 517 (35.3%) were observed postoperatively. Use of adjuvant treatment was associated with superior median OS (124.1 vs. 51.1 months, P < .001), persisting after propensity score matching (124.0 vs. 61.9 months, P < .001), but not between adjuvant CRT versus chemotherapy on subset analysis. Patients with positive surgical margins receiving adjuvant CRT showed a trend toward OS improvement compared to patients managed with chemotherapy (54.9 vs. 47.4 months, P = .10). Increased age, pN2 status, positive margin status, and observation were associated with poorer OS.

CONCLUSION

Most patients found to have pN+ disease after up-front surgery for cT1-2N0 rectal cancer receive adjuvant treatment, which is associated with improved OS. Chemotherapy or CRT are appropriate options, although there was a trend toward higher OS for patients with positive surgical margins receiving CRT.