Local excision for T1 rectal tumours: are we getting better?

Local resection in rectal cancer: When, who and how?

Local resection (LR) in rectal cancer is indicated in stage T1N0M0 without unfavorable pathological factors, achieving oncologically satisfactory outcomes through transanal endoscopic surgery techniques. However, the initial step involves accurate staging and selection of these tumors through specific tests conducted in specialized colorectal units. For T2N0M0 tumors and T1 tumors with poor prognostic factors, the standard treatment is total mesorectal excision (TME), a procedure associated with high postoperative morbidity and mortality, functional impairments, and reduced quality of life. Therefore, new organ-preservation strategies are being explored as alternatives to TME. These include neoadjuvant therapy combined with LR, which has shown promising results, and neoadjuvant therapy followed by a "Watch and Wait" approach -where patients with complete clinical response are selected for strict surveillance- as an ideal future treatment, although there are still current challenges to be addressed.

Risk Factors for Rectal Cancer Recurrence after Local Excision of T1 Lesions from a Decade-Long Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background: Local surgical excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinoma is a well-established approach. Yet, there are still open questions regarding the recurrence rates and its risk factors. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study including all patients who underwent local excision of early rectal cancer with an open or MIS approach and had a T1 lesion from 2010 to 2020 in six academic centers. Data included demographics, preoperative studies, surgical findings, postoperative outcomes, and local and systemic recurrence. A univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for recurrence. Results: Overall, 274 patients underwent local excision of rectal lesions. Of them, 97 (35.4%) patients with a T1 lesion were included in the cohort. The mean age was 69 ± 10.5 years, and 42 (43.3%) were female. The mean distance of the lesions from the anal verge was 7.8 ± 3.2 cm, and the average tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.6 cm. Eighty-two patients (85%) had a full-thickness resection. Eight patients (8%) had postoperative complications. Kikuchi classification of submucosal (SM) involvement was reported in 29 (30%) patients. Twelve patients had SM1, two SM2, and fifteen SM3. Following pathology, 24 patients (24.7%) returned for additional surgery or treatment. The overall recurrence rate was 14.4% (14 patients), with 11 patients having a local recurrence and 6 having a systemic metastatic recurrence, 3 of which had both. The mean time for recurrence was 2.78 ± 2.8 years and the overall mortality rate was 11%. On univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of recurrence vs. non-recurrence groups, the strongest and most significant association and possible risk factors for recurrence were larger lesions (4.3 vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.001) with an OR of 6.67 (CI-1.82-24.36), especially for tumors larger than 3.5 cm, mucinous histology (14.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.004, OR of 14.02, CI-1.13-173.85), and involved margins (41.7% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.003, OR of 9.59, CI-2.14-43.07). The open transanal excision (TAE) approach was also identified as a possible significant risk factor in univariant analysis, while SM3 level penetration showed only a trend. Conclusion: Surgical local excision of T1 rectal malignancy is a safe and viable option. Still, one in four patients received additional treatment. There is an almost 15% chance for recurrence, especially in large tumors, mucinous histology, or involved margin cases. These high-risk patients might warrant additional intervention and stricter surveillance protocols.

Is local excision an appropriate treatment modality in patients presenting with early-stage (cT1 N0 M0) rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Prior studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of local excision relative to surgical resection in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma have primarily included low rectal cancers treated with abdominoperineal resection as control comparison cohorts. The role of local excision in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma is incompletely defined.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019. Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of local excision instead of low anterior resection. Patients undergoing local excision were propensity score matched for age, sex, demographic characteristics, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity class score, and tumor grade and size to those undergoing low anterior resection. Short-term clinical outcomes and 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts were compared by standard methods.

RESULTS

A total of 5,693 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,973 patients underwent local excision and 3,720 low anterior resection. Age (adjusted odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.37), tumor histology (poorly differentiated histology: adjusted odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86), and size (>4 cm: adjusted odds ratio 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.25) were associated with choice of intervention. On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing LE demonstrated shorter hospital stay (2.4 ±9.8 vs 5.6 ±8.1 days; P < .001) and lower readmission rate (4% vs 7%; P = .002) but higher margin-positive resection rates (8% vs 2%; P < .001). Overall survival profiles for patients undergoing local excision were comparable with those for low anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

In patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma, local excision is associated with a higher margin-positive resection rate than low anterior resection but affords accelerated postprocedure recovery and comparable rates of overall survival.

Long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery for rectal tumors in 249 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

To delineate the long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery (MITAS) for selected rectal tumors.

METHODS

We analyzed data, retrospectively, on consecutive patients who underwent MITAS between 1995 and 2015, to establish the feasibility, excision quality, and perioperative and oncological outcomes of this procedure.

RESULTS

MITAS was performed on 243 patients. The final histology included 142 cancers, 47 adenomas, and 52 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G1). A positive margin of 1.6% and 100% en bloc resection were achieved. The mean operative time was 27.4 min. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 7% of patients, with 0% mortality. The median follow-up was 100 months (up to ≥ 5 years or until death in 91.8% of patients). Recurrence developed in 2.9% of the patients. The 10-year overall survival rate was 100% for patients with NET G1 and 80.3% for those with cancer. The 5-year DFS was 100% for patients with Tis cancer, 90.6% for those with T1 cancer, and 87.5% for those with T2 or deeper cancers. MITAS for rectal tumors ≥ 3 cm resulted in perioperative and oncologic outcomes equivalent to those for tumors < 3 cm.

CONCLUSION

MITAS is feasible for the local excision (LE) of selected rectal tumors, including tumors ≥ 3 cm. It reduces operative time and secures excision quality and long-term oncological outcomes.

Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice

In contrast to the "one-size-fits-all" approach, precision medicine focuses on providing health care tailored to individual variabilities. Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice involves selecting the appropriate procedures among the endoscopic armamentarium in the diagnosis and management of patients in a logical sequence, jointly considering the pretest probabilities of possible diagnoses, patients' comorbidities and preference, and risk-benefit ratio of the individual procedures given the clinical scenario. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence-supported strategies and measures that may enhance precision medicine in general endoscopy practice.

Local resection versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The optimal surgical approach for early-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. Radical resection is considered to be the gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. More and more studies show that local resection can replace traditional radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer. This research aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision and radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer and report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.

METHODS

The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.

RESULTS

Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance After Pathologically Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia in the United States: Commentary

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding surveillance using endoscopy and other relevant modalities after removal of dysplastic lesions and early gastrointestinal cancers with endoscopic submucosal dissection deemed to be pathologically curative. This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists with high-level expertise in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection to treat dysplasia and early cancers in the luminal gastrointestinal tract.

International consensus recommendations on key outcome measures for organ preservation after (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

Multimodal treatment strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly including the possibility of organ preservation, through nonoperative management or local excision. Organ preservation strategies can enable patients with a complete response or near-complete clinical responses after radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy to safely avoid the morbidities associated with radical surgery, and thus to maintain anorectal function and quality of life. However, standardization of the key outcome measures of organ preservation strategies is currently lacking; this includes a lack of consensus of the optimal definitions and selection of primary end points according to the trial phase and design; the optimal time points for response assessment; response-based decision-making; follow-up schedules; use of specific anorectal function tests; and quality of life and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, a consensus statement on outcome measures is necessary to ensure consistency and facilitate more accurate comparisons of data from ongoing and future trials. Here, we have convened an international group of experts with extensive experience in the management of patients with rectal cancer, including organ preservation approaches, and used a Delphi process to establish the first international consensus recommendations for key outcome measures of organ preservation, in an attempt to standardize the reporting of data from both trials and routine practice in this emerging area.

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.