16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer.

          This systematic review was designed to determine postoperative complication rates of radical surgery for rectal cancer (abdominal perineal resection and anterior resection). Lack of accepted complication rates for rectal cancer surgery may hinder quality improvement efforts and may impede the conception of future studies because of uncertainty regarding the expected event rates. All prospective studies of rectal cancer receiving radical surgery published between 1990 and August 2008 were obtained by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as ASCO GI, CAGS, and ASCRS meeting abstracts between 2004 and 2008. There was no language restriction. The outcomes extracted were anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, postoperative death, wound infection, and fecal incontinence. Summary complication rates were obtained using a random effects model; the Z-test was used to test for study heterogeneity. Fifty-three prospective cohort studies and 45 randomized controlled studies with 36,315 patients (24,845 patients had an anastomosis) were eligible for inclusion. Most of the studies found were based in continental Europe (58%), followed by Asia (25%), United Kingdom (10%), North America (5%), and Australia/New Zealand. The anastomotic leak rate, reported in 84 studies, was 11% (95% CI: 10, 12); the pelvic sepsis rate, in 29 studies, was 12% (9, 16); the postoperative death rate, in 75 studies, was 2% (2, 3); and the wound infection rate, in 50 studies, was 7% (5, 8). Fecal incontinence rates were reported in too few studies and so heterogeneously that numerical summarization was inappropriate. Year of publication, use of preoperative radiation, use of laparoscopy, and use of protecting stoma were not significant variables, but average age, median tumor height, and method of detection (clinical vs. radiologic) showed significance to explain heterogeneity in anastomotic leak rates. Year of publication, study origin, average age, and use of laparoscopy were significant, but median tumor height and preoperative radiation use were not significant in explaining heterogeneity among observed postoperative death rates. With multivariable analysis, only average age for anastomotic leak and year of publication for postoperative death remained significant. Benchmark complication rates for radical rectal cancer surgery were obtained for use in sample size calculations in future studies and for quality control purposes. Postoperative death rates showed improvement in recent years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: a nationwide cohort study from the National Cancer Database.

            Determine rates of local excision (LE) over time, and test the hypothesis that LE carries increased oncologic risks but reduced perioperative morbidity when compared with standard resection (SR). Despite the lack of level I/level II evidence supporting its oncologic adequacy, LE is performed for stage I rectal cancer. Surgical therapy for 35,179 patients with stage I rectal cancer diagnosed in 1989 to 2003 was examined over time, utilizing the National Cancer Database. A special study then analyzed perioperative outcomes, local recurrence and survival in 2124 patients diagnosed between 1994 and 1996, including 765 (T1, 601; T2, 164) treated by LE and 1359 (T1, 493; T2, 866) treated by SR. From 1989 to 2003, the use of LE has increased (T1, 26.6-43.7%; T2, 5.8-16.8%; P < 0.001 both). The special study demonstrated significantly lower 30-day morbidity after LE versus SR (5.6% vs. 14.6%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, the 5-year local recurrence after LE versus SR was 12.5 versus 6.9% (P = 0.003; hazard ratio = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62) for T1 tumors, and 22.1 versus 15.1% (P = 0.01; hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44-1.07) for T2 tumors. The 5-year overall survival (T1, 77.4% vs. 81.7%, P = 0.09; T2, 67.6% vs. 76.5%, P = 0.01) was influenced by age and comorbidities but not the type of surgery. This study provides the best evidence for both the increasing use and the associated risks of LE versus SR. For each individual patient, the benefits of LE must be balanced against the heightened risk of local failure.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

              In selected patients with early low rectal cancer, locoregional excision combined with neoadjuvant therapy may be an alternative treatment option to total mesorectal excision (TME). This prospective randomized trial compared endoluminal locoregional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus laparoscopic TME in the treatment of patients with small non-advanced low rectal cancer. Patients with rectal cancer staged clinically as cT2 N0 M0, histological grade G1-2, with a tumour less than 3 cm in diameter, within 6 cm of the anal verge, were randomized to ELRR or TME. All patients underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Fifty patients in each group were analysed. Overall tumour downstaging and downsizing rates after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were 51 and 26 per cent respectively, and were similar in both groups. All patients had R0 resection with tumour-free resection margins. At long-term follow-up, local recurrence had developed in four patients (8 per cent) after ELRR and three (6 per cent) after TME. Distant metastases were observed in two patients (4 per cent) in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival (P = 0·686). In selected patients, ELRR had similar oncological results to TME. Unique Protocol ID: URBINO-LEZ-1995; registration number: NCT01609504 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ryane92a5@gmail.com
                jenodyssey@gmail.com
                ufo789.ufo789@gmail.com
                wensyt@gmail.com
                jmjiang@cgmh.org.tw
                hsiehps@yahoo.com
                hsinyuan@adm.cgmh.org.tw
                chnyuh@gmail.com
                sumfu@cgmh.org.tw
                lai5556@cloud.cgmh.org.tw
                rptang@cloud.cgmh.org.tw
                drchenjs@gmail.com
                blueslun@gmail.com
                Journal
                World J Surg Oncol
                World J Surg Oncol
                World Journal of Surgical Oncology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1477-7819
                9 December 2019
                9 December 2019
                2019
                : 17
                : 212
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.145695.a, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, , Chang Gung University College of Medicine, ; Linkou, 5, Fu-Hsing Street, Guei-Shan, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3068-8999
                Article
                1763
                10.1186/s12957-019-1763-9
                6902326
                31818295
                765bb22a-bc14-4fae-a452-febbd8c8fe34
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 19 September 2019
                : 28 November 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Surgery
                rectal cancer,local excision,total mesorectal excision,chemoradiation,sphincter-sparing surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article