Survival outcomes following salvage abdominoperineal resection for recurrent and persistent anal squamous cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The primary treatment for locoregional failure following chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is salvage abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it is necessary to distinguish between recurrent and persistent diseases because of their varied pathologies. We aimed to clarify the survival outcomes following salvage APR for recurrent and persistent diseases and investigate the significance of salvage APR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre retrospective cohort study used clinical data from 47 hospitals. All patients were diagnosed with SCCA and underwent definitive radiotherapy as the primary treatment between 1991 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) was compared between the following cohorts: salvage APR for recurrence, salvage APR for persistence, non-salvage APR for recurrence, and non-salvage APR for persistence.

RESULTS

Five-year OS of salvage APR for recurrence, salvage APR for persistence, non-salvage APR for recurrence, and non-salvage APR for persistence were 75% (46%-90%), 36% (21%-51%), 42% (21%-61%), and 47% (33%-60%), respectively. OS of salvage APR for the recurrent disease was significantly higher than that for persistent disease (p = 0.00597). For recurrent disease, OS following salvage APR was significantly higher than that following non-salvage APR (p = 0.0204); however, for persistent disease, there was no significant difference between salvage and non-salvage APR (p = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Survival outcomes following salvage APR for persistent disease were significantly worse than that for recurrent disease. Salvage APR did not improve survival outcomes for persistent disease compared to non-salvage APR. These results will elicit a review of persistent disease treatment strategies.

The efficacy of adjuvant radioactive iodine after reoperation in patients with persistent or recurrent differentiated thyroid cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of adjuvant radioiodine (RAI) after reoperation in patients with persistent or recurrent differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) is controversial. Although various organizations recognize that strong evidence for the use of RAI is lacking, they continue to recommend the use of adjuvant RAI therapy for select groups of patients. This is concerning as RAI therapy has potential side effects such as gastrointestinal symptoms, bone marrow suppression, and gonadal damage.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized trials or observational studies that examined the outcomes of adjuvant RAI after reoperation for recurrent DTC, among patients of any age. The baseline characteristics, treatment response, disease progression, and overall survival of these studies were synthesized and reported. A meta-analysis of the use of RAI on progression-free survival was also performed.

RESULTS

Six observational studies, comprising a combined cohort of 437 patients who underwent reoperation, were included from 1212 records. Adjuvant RAI after reoperation in recurrent DTC was not associated with longer progression-free or overall survival. There was also no association of RAI with excellent structural or biochemical treatment response, lower thyroglobulin levels, nor a lower rate of second recurrence or distant metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant RAI after reoperation in recurrent DTC was not associated with improved cancer or treatment-related outcomes. However, as the included studies were of inadequate quality, there is an urgent need for randomized trials and well-analyzed cohort studies. Physicians should exercise clinical judgment to prescribe adjuvant RAI for only selected, high-risk patients.

Salvage surgery for patients with residual/persistent diseases after improper or insufficient treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma: can we rectify these mistakes?

BACKGROUND

Patterns of failure after treatment of oral and squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) are diversified, with recurrences being one of the common causes. A special group of patients are sometimes encountered in the outpatient clinic for improper or insufficient initial treatment with reports of positive margins, implying residual/persistent diseases. The question of whether these patients can be surgically salvaged remain unanswered.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed between January 2013 and December 2017 for patients with residual or rapid recurrent (within 3 months) OSCCs, who received salvage surgeries in our institution. The patients with residual/persistent OSCCs were those with microscopic or macroscopic positive surgical margins, while those with rapid recurrent OSCCs were those with close or negative margins, but unabated painful symptoms right after treatment. Both clinicopathological and prognostic variables were analyzed. The focus was also directed towards lessons for possible initial mistakes, resulting in these residual/persistent diseases.

RESULTS

Of 103 patients, 68 (66%) were men, with mean age of 56.3 years. The overall survival reached 60.2%. Regarding the primary OSCC status, most of our patients (n = 75, 72.8%) were diagnosed with ycT2-3 stages. Besides, most patients were found with macroscopic residual diseases (52.4%) before our salvage surgery. The sizes of the residual/persistent OSCCs were generally under 4 cm (87.3%) with minimally residual in 21 (20.4%). Among all the variables, primary T stage (p = 0.003), and residual lesion size (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the prognosis in multivariate analysis. Though the causes for the initial surgical failure were multifactorial, most were stemmed from poor planning and unstandardized execution.

CONCLUSIONS

Cases with residual/persistent OSCCs were mostly due to mistakes which could have been avoided under well-round treatment plans and careful surgical practice. Salvage surgery for cases with smaller residual/persistent OSCCs is still feasible with acceptable outcomes.