1
|
Dang H, Verhoeven DA, Boonstra JJ, van Leerdam ME. Management after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2024; 68:101895. [PMID: 38522888 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2024.101895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2023] [Revised: 02/03/2024] [Accepted: 02/15/2024] [Indexed: 03/26/2024]
Abstract
Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hao Dang
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
| | - Daan A Verhoeven
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Jurjen J Boonstra
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Monique E van Leerdam
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zwager LW, Moons LMG, Farina Sarasqueta A, Laclé MM, Albers SC, Hompes R, Peeters KCMJ, Bekkering FC, Boonstra JJ, Ter Borg F, Bos PR, Bulte GJ, Gielisse EAR, Hazen WL, Ten Hove WR, Houben MHMG, Mundt MW, Nagengast WB, Perk LE, Quispel R, Rietdijk ST, Rando Munoz FJ, de Ridder RJJ, Schwartz MP, Schreuder RM, Seerden TCJ, van der Sluis H, van der Spek BW, Straathof JWA, Terhaar Sive Droste JS, Vlug MS, van de Vrie W, Weusten BLAM, de Wijkerslooth TD, Wolters HJ, Fockens P, Dekker E, Bastiaansen BAJ. Long-term oncological outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection after previous incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC (LOCAL-study): study protocol of a national prospective cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2022; 22:516. [PMID: 36513968 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02591-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization. METHODS/DESIGN In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate. DISCUSSION Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register, NL 7879, 16 July 2019 ( https://trialregister.nl/trial/7879 ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L W Zwager
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L M G Moons
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A Farina Sarasqueta
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M M Laclé
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S C Albers
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R Hompes
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K C M J Peeters
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - F C Bekkering
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle Aan Den Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | - J J Boonstra
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - F Ter Borg
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - P R Bos
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Gelderse Vallei, Ede, The Netherlands
| | - G J Bulte
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - E A R Gielisse
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rode Kruis Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - W L Hazen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - W R Ten Hove
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Alrijne Medical Group, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - M H M G Houben
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Haga Teaching Hospital, the Hague, The Netherlands
| | - M W Mundt
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands
| | - W B Nagengast
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - L E Perk
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - R Quispel
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Reinier de Graaf, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - S T Rietdijk
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F J Rando Munoz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nij Smellinghe Hospital, Drachten, The Netherlands
| | - R J J de Ridder
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - M P Schwartz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | - R M Schreuder
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - T C J Seerden
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - H van der Sluis
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - B W van der Spek
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Noordwest Hospital Group, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - J W A Straathof
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Màxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
| | - J S Terhaar Sive Droste
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, S' Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
| | - M S Vlug
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dijklander Hospital, Hoorn, The Netherlands
| | - W van de Vrie
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
| | - B L A M Weusten
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - T D de Wijkerslooth
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H J Wolters
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - P Fockens
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B A J Bastiaansen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang M, Zhang Y, Jing H, Zhao L, Xu M, Xu H, Zhu S, Zhang X. Prognosis of Patients Over 60 Years Old With Early Rectal Cancer Undergoing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery – A Single-Center Experience. Front Oncol 2022; 12:888739. [PMID: 35774121 PMCID: PMC9239430 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.888739] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
AimTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is widely performed in early rectal cancer. This technique offers greater organ preservation and decreases the risk of subsequent surgery. However, postoperative local recurrence and distant metastasis remain challenges for patients with high-risk pathological factors. This single-center study reports the prognosis of early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old after TEM.MethodsThe data of the patients over 60 years old who underwent local anal resection were collected retrospectively. Moreover, the 5-year follow-up data were analyzed to determine the 5-year DFS and OS.Results47 early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old underwent TEM. There were 27 patients with high-risk factors and 20 patients without high-risk factors. Two patients underwent radical surgery after TEM and ten patients received adjuvant treatment. Local recurrence occurred in 7 patients, of which 4 underwent salvage surgery. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75.6%, which was lower in the high-risk patients group (69.6%) than in the non-high-risk patients group (83.3%) (P>0.05). The 5-year OS was 90.2%, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (high-risk patients 87.0%, non-high-risk patients 94.4%). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in DFS and OS between people over and under 70 years old.ConclusionSome high-risk factor patients over 60 years old do not have inferior 5-year DFS and OS to the non-high-risk patients. TEM is an option for old patients with high surgical risks. Even if postoperative pathology revealed high-risk factors, timely surgical treatment after local recurrence would be beneficial to improve the 5-year DFS and OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mingqing Zhang
- Nankai University School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
- The Institute of Translational Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center of Nankai University, Tianjin, China
| | - Yongdan Zhang
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
| | - Haoren Jing
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
| | - Lizhong Zhao
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
| | - Mingyue Xu
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
| | - Hui Xu
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
| | - Siwei Zhu
- Nankai University School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
- The Institute of Translational Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center of Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- *Correspondence: Siwei Zhu, ; Xipeng Zhang,
| | - Xipeng Zhang
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Office, Tianjin Institute of Coloproctology, Tianjin, China
- The Institute of Translational Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center of Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- *Correspondence: Siwei Zhu, ; Xipeng Zhang,
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gijsbers KM, van der Schee L, van Veen T, van Berkel AM, Boersma F, Bronkhorst CM, Didden PD, Haasnoot KJ, Jonker AM, Kessels K, Knijn N, van Lijnschoten I, Mijnals C, Milne AN, Moll FC, Schrauwen RW, Schreuder RM, Seerden TJ, Spanier MB, Terhaar Sive Droste JS, Witteveen E, de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Vleggaar FP, Laclé MM, ter Borg F, Moons LM. Impact of ≥ 0.1-mm free resection margins on local intramural residual cancer after local excision of T1 colorectal cancer. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10:E282-E290. [PMID: 35836740 PMCID: PMC9274442 DOI: 10.1055/a-1736-6960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims A free resection margin (FRM) > 1 mm after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) is known to be associated with a low risk of local intramural residual cancer (LIRC). The risk is unclear, however, for FRMs between 0.1 to 1 mm. This study evaluated the risk of LIRC after local excision of T1 CRC with FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm in the absence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), poor differentiation and high-grade tumor budding (Bd2-3). Patients and methods Data from all consecutive patients with local excision of T1 CRC between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 11 hospitals. Patients with a FRM ≥ 0.1 mm without LVI and poor differentiation were included. The main outcome was risk of LIRC (composite of residual cancer in the local excision scar in adjuvant resection specimens or local recurrence during follow-up). Tumor budding was also assessed for cases with a FRM between 0.1 and 1mm. Results A total of 171 patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm and 351 patients with a FRM > 1 mm were included. LIRC occurred in five patients (2.9 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.0-6.7 %) and two patients (0.6 %; 95 % CI 0.1-2.1 %), respectively. Assessment of tumor budding showed Bd2-3 in 80 % of cases with LIRC and in 16 % of control cases. Accordingly, in patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm without Bd2-3, LIRC was detected in one patient (0.8%; 95 % CI 0.1-4.4 %). Conclusions In this study, risks of LIRC were comparable for FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm and > 1 mm in the absence of other histological risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim M. Gijsbers
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands,Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Lisa van der Schee
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa van Veen
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Femke Boersma
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
| | | | - Paul D. Didden
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Krijn J.C. Haasnoot
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Anne M. Jonker
- Department of Pathology, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
| | - Koen Kessels
-
Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein,
The Netherlands
| | - Nikki Knijn
- Pathology-DNA, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | | | - Clinton Mijnals
- Department of Pathology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Anya N. Milne
- Pathology-DNA, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Freek C.P. Moll
- Department of Pathology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - Ruud W.M. Schrauwen
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Bernhoven, Uden, The Netherlands
| | - Ramon-Michel Schreuder
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Tom J. Seerden
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Marcel B.W.M. Spanier
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | | | - Emma Witteveen
- Department of Pathology, Noordwest Hospital, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | | | - Frank P. Vleggaar
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Miangela M. Laclé
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Frank ter Borg
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Leon M.G. Moons
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Full-Thickness Scar Resection After R1/Rx Excised T1 Colorectal Cancers as an Alternative to Completion Surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117:647-653. [PMID: 35029166 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to completion surgery (CS), provided that no local intramural residual cancer (LIRC) is found. However, a comparison on long-term oncological outcome between both strategies is missing. METHODS A large cohort of patients with consecutive T1 CRC between 2000 and 2017 was used. Patients were selected if they underwent a macroscopically complete local excision of a T1 CRC but positive or unassessable (R1/Rx) resection margins at histology and without lymphovascular invasion or poor differentiation. Patients treated with CS or FTRS were compared on the presence of CRC recurrence, a 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. RESULTS Of 3,697 patients with a T1 CRC, 434 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 66 years, 61% men). Three hundred thirty-four patients underwent CS, and 100 patients underwent FTRS. The median follow-up period was 64 months. CRC recurrence was seen in 7 patients who underwent CS (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9%-4.6%) and in 8 patients who underwent FTRS (9.0%, 95% CI 3.9%-17.7%). Disease-free survival was lower in FTRS strategy (96.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.019), but 5 of the 8 FTRS recurrences could be treated with salvage surgery. The metastasis-free survival (CS 96.8% vs FTRS 92.1%, P = 0.10) and overall survival (CS 95.6% vs FTRS 94.4%, P = 0.55) did not differ significantly between both strategies. DISCUSSION FTRS after local excision of a T1 CRC with R1/Rx resection margins as a sole risk factor, followed by surveillance and salvage surgery in case of CRC recurrence, could be a valid alternative strategy to CS.
Collapse
|
6
|
Clinical Effect of Radiotherapy Combined with Capecitabine after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2021; 2021:9972051. [PMID: 34194503 PMCID: PMC8203376 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9972051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Objective The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical effect of radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy. Methods 80 rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy in our hospital from February 2016 to February 2018 were selected as the study subjects and divided into the control group (n = 40) and experimental group (n = 40) according to the order of admission. Among them, the control group was treated with radiotherapy, while the experimental group was treated with radiotherapy combined with capecitabine. The therapeutic efficacy, CEA levels, the incidence and recurrence rate of adverse reactions, as well as the progression-free survival and survival rate after 2-year treatment were analyzed in the two groups. Results The effective rate of treatment in the experimental group of 87.5% (35/40) was significantly higher than 50% (20/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X2 = 13.09, P < 0.001). After treatment, the CEA levels in the two groups both decreased significantly, and the CEA level in the experimental group of 3.75 ± 1.76 ng/ml was significantly lower than 7.35 ± 2.11 ng/ml in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 8.29, P < 0.001). The incidence and the recurrence rate of adverse reactions of 5% (2/40) and 10% (4/40), respectively, in the experimental group were significantly lower than those of 40% (16/40) and 30% (12/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X2 = 14.05, 5.00, P < 0.001, 0.05). After the 2-year follow-up, it was found that the progression-free survival of 21.53 ± 6.23 months in the experimental group was significantly longer than that of 18.18 ± 5.41 months in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 2.57, P < 0.05), and the 2-year survival rate of 97.5% (39/40) in the experimental group was significantly higher than 80% (32/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 6.13, P < 0.05). Conclusion Radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy can improve the therapeutic efficacy with fewer adverse reactions and longer patients' survival, which is worthy of popularization and application after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.
Collapse
|
7
|
Witjes CDM, Patel AS, Shenoy A, Boyce S, East JE, Cunningham C. Oncological outcome after local treatment for early stage rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2021; 36:489-497. [PMID: 33544250 PMCID: PMC8741713 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08308-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 01/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treatment of early rectal cancer is evolving towards organ-preserving therapy which includes endoscopic resection and transanal approaches. We aimed to explore the role of local treatments such as endoscopic polypectomy (Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) or Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery/ transanal minimal invasive surgery (TEM/TAMIS) in patients who had early rectal cancer. We considered these outcomes alongside conventional major surgery using total mesorectal excision (TME) for early stage disease. METHODS All patients identified at MDT with early stage rectal cancer at our institution between 2010 and 2019 were included. Long-term outcomes in terms of local recurrence, survival and procedure-specific morbidity were analysed. RESULTS In total, 536 patients with rectal cancer were identified, of which 112 were included based on their pre-operative identification at the MDT on the basis that they had node-negative early rectal cancer. Among these, 30 patients (27%) had the lesion excised by flexible endoscopic polypectomy techniques (EMR/ESD), 67 (60%) underwent TEM/TAMIS and 15 (13%) had major surgery. There were no differences in patient demographics between the three groups except for TEM/TAMIS patients being more likely to be referred from another hospital (p < 0.001) and they were less active (WHO performance status p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in overall survival rates and cancer-specific survival between the three treatment groups. The 5-year overall survival rate for endoscopic polypectomy, TEM/TAMIS or major resection was 96% versus 90% and 88%, respectively (p = 0.89). The 5- year cancer-specific survival rate was 96%, versus 96% and 100%, respectively (p = 0.74). CONCLUSION Endoscopic polypectomy by EMR/ESD is an appropriate local treatment for early stage rectal cancer in selected patients. It is possible to achieve good oncological outcomes with a polypectomy similar to TEM/TAMIS and major surgery; however, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary enabling close surveillance and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline D M Witjes
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK.
| | - Abhilashaben S Patel
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK
| | - Aniruddh Shenoy
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK
| | - Stephen Boyce
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK
| | - James E East
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Christopher Cunningham
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Old Road, Headington, OX3 7LE, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Valdés-Hernández J, Cano A, Rodriguez-Tellez M, Gómez-Rosado JC, Mompean FO. Transanal minimally invasive surgery after incomplete resection of a rectal polyp using a full-thickness resection device. Endoscopy 2021; 53:E46-E47. [PMID: 32503074 DOI: 10.1055/a-1174-6018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Auxiliadora Cano
- Colorectal Surgery Unit, Virgen Macarena University Hospital, Seville, Spain
| | - Manuel Rodriguez-Tellez
- Department of Digestive Diseases, Virgen Macarena University Hospital, Seville, Spain.,Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Hospital San Agustin, Seville, Spain
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Comparison of the transanal surgical techniques for local excision of rectal tumors: a network meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35:1173-1182. [PMID: 32447481 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03634-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In order to assess the various surgical modalities for local resection of rectal tumors, a systematic review of the current literature and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was designed and conducted. METHODS The present study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions principles. Scholar databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically screened up to 23/12/2019. A Bayesian NMA, implementing a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis, was introduced for the probability ranking of the available surgical methods. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) of the categorical and continuous variables, respectively, were reported with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). RESULTS Overall, 16 studies and 2146 patients were introduced in our study. Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS) displayed the highest performance regarding the overall postoperative morbidity, the perioperative blood loss, the length of hospitalization, and the peritoneal violation rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was the most efficient modality for resecting an intact specimen. Although transanal local excision (TAE) had the highest ranking considering operative duration, it was associated with a significant risk for positive resection margins and tumor recurrence. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, TEM and TAMIS display superior oncological results over TAE. Due to several limitations, validation of these results requires further RCTs of a higher methodological level.
Collapse
|