Local excision might represent an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Methods
Between August 2005 and July 2011, 63 patients with mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma who had a major/complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were enrolled in a multicenter prospective phase 2 trial and underwent transanal full thickness local excision. The main endpoint of this study was to evaluate the 5- and 10-year overall, relapse-free, local, and distant relapse-free survival, which were calculated by applying the Kaplan–Meier method. The rate of patients with rectum preserved and without stoma were also calculated.
Results
Of 63 patients, 38 (60%) were male and 25 (40%) were female, with a median (range) age of 64 (25–82) years. At baseline, the following clinical stages were found: cT2, n = 21 (33.3%); cT3, n = 42 (66.6%), 39 (61.9%) patients were cN+. At a median (range) follow-up of 108 (32–166) months, the estimated cumulative 5- and 10-year overall survival, relapse-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival were 87% (95% CI 76–93) and 79% (95% CI 66–87), 89% (95% CI 78–94) and 82% (95% CI 66–91), both 91% (95% CI 81–96), and 90% (95% CI 80–95) and 86% (95% CI 73–93), respectively. Overall, 49 (77.8%) patients had their rectum preserved, and 54 (84.1%) were stoma-free.
Conclusion
In highly selected patients, the local excision approach after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is associated with excellent long-term outcomes, high rates of rectum preservation and absence of permanent stoma.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). This strategy has been shown to decrease the rate of local recurrence up to 6%1 with estimated 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) of approximately 75 and 60%,1,2 respectively. Moreover, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, up to 28% of patients show a pathological complete response (pCR),3 and a further 20% show a major (few residual cancer cells) pathological response.4 These findings are clinically relevant as patients with pCR to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by TME show a significantly better outcome compared with non-responders.5 However, TME is associated with higher rates of morbidity, impairment of bowel function and quality of life,6 and permanent stoma.
The above considerations explain the increasing interest in rectum-sparing approaches, either local excision (LE) or watch-and-wait, for patients with complete or major clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The transanal LE approach has been used for many years in patients unfit or refusing major surgery and has been evaluated by several retrospective studies. More recently, a few prospective trials have been performed in the setting of a rectum-sparing strategy for patients with both major and complete clinical response.7‐11 These studies found that patients who underwent LE had comparable short-term oncological outcomes, associated with better bowel function and quality of life,12 and reduced rates of complications compared with those who underwent standard TME.10,13 While these studies report on short-term outcomes, there is a lack of information related to the long-term outcomes.14,15
Anzeige
The present study aimed to evaluate long-term survival outcomes of rectal cancer patients who underwent LE following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Methods
Study Design
This study is an update of a previously published prospective multicenter phase 2 trial that enrolled patients who underwent LE after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in four Italian centers.8 The trial was approved by the local ethics committee of each center involved in the study. Inclusion criteria, and patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics have been previously reported.8 The inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years, histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma, located up to 11 cm from anal verge. Either clinical T3 or low-lying T2 tumors, with a major (complete or near complete) clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. The baseline work-up included clinical history, digital rectal examination, colonoscopy, carcino-embryonic antigen level, chest/abdomen computed tomography scan and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Major clinical response has been previously defined as the absence of a positive regional lymph node on MRI, and either no mucosal abnormality or a flat residual scar (complete response), or a superficial ulcer less than 2 cm at proctoscopy (major response).16 The differentiation between complete and major clinical response was not formally required when the protocol was planned. Clinical and pathological TNM staging were reported according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer, 8th Edition.17 The following histopathological data were collected: yT stage, tumor regression grade (TRG),18 status of resection margin, tumor differentiation, and vascular and lymphatic invasion. The pathologic response was defined as complete (pCR) if no viable tumor cells were found in the surgical specimen. When residual cancer was found, the pathologist was requested to report on the presence of the following unfavorable features: pT > 1, lympho-vascular invasion, poor differentiation grade, involved margin, and TRG > 2.
Treatment Details
Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was administered concomitantly with radiotherapy at a total dose of 50.4 Gy, given in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy each. Patients were re-staged at least 5 weeks after the completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and those with major response were considered eligible for LE and enrolled in the study. After signing the informed consent, the patients underwent a full-thickness excision using the traditional transanal approach or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).
While patients with pCR (ypT0), or with ypT1 and histopathologically favorable features were observed, those with residual cancer showing at least one of the unfavorable histopathological features were recommended to undergo a subsequent completion TME surgery.
Anzeige
Long-Term Outcomes Definition and Statistical Analysis
Patients underwent a strict follow-up, the modalities of which have been detailed elsewhere.8 Local recurrence was defined as any pelvic endoluminal or extraluminal recurrence, while recurrences outside the pelvis were defined as distant. To evaluate the overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), the Kaplan–Meier method was used. Each outcome was calculated from the date of LE to the date of the event (local, and distant recurrence, death, or the last follow-up). The proportion of patients without stoma or with rectum preserved were also calculated. All analyses were carried out with STATA version 13.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
Results
Patient, Tumor, and Treatment Characteristics
Between August 2005 and July 2011, 63 patients were enrolled in the study. The baseline characteristics of patients, tumor, and treatment modality have been previously reported8 and are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics
Variables
N = 63
%
Age
Median (range), years
64 (25–82)
Gender
Males
38
60.3
Females
25
39.7
Carcinoembryonic antigen level
≤ 5 ng/ml
37
58.7
> 5 ng/ml
7
11.1
Missing
19
30.2
Baseline clinical T stage
cT2
21
33.3
cT3
42
66.6
Baseline clinical N stage
Negative
24
38.1
Positive
39
61.9
Tumor distance from anal verge
Median (range), cm
5.8 (3–11)
Radiotherapy, total dose
< 50.4 Gy
2
3.2
> 50.4 Gy
61
96.8
Chemotherapy
Capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil alone
37
58.7
Capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin
24
38.1
Others
2
3.2
Local excision technique
Transanal excision
30
47.6
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery
33
52.4
Histopathology
The histopathological tumor characteristics and post-LE treatment details are summarized in Table 2. Interestingly, out of 42 patients who showed a pCR, only 19 (45.2%) were clinically considered to be complete responders (ycT0), the remaining 23 (54.8%) had a major clinical response which was considered near complete. Therefore, on the basis of favorable histopathological features in one patient, a total of 43 patients were observed. A completion radical surgery was recommended in the remaining 20 patients. Of them, 11 underwent a TME (low anterior resection, n = 7; abdominoperineal resection, n = 4), two underwent a transanal local re-excision, and seven refused any further surgery (Fig. 1).
Table 2
Histopathology characteristics of tumors after local excision, and subsequent surgical treatment of patients with unfavorable histopathology features
Variables
N = 63
%
ypT stage
T0
42
66.7
T1
4
6.3
T2
15
23.8
T3
2
3.2
Tumor regression grade
1
42
66.7
2
5
7.9
3–5
16
25.4
Margin
Negative
59
93.7
Positive
4
6.3
Subsequent completion radical surgery
Low anterior resection
7
11.1
Abdominoperineal resection
4
6.3
Local re-excision§
2
3.2
Refused
7
11.1
Not required
43
68.3
§Patients refused major surgery and only accepted minor (local excision) surgery
Fig. 1
Pathological response, completion radical surgery and long-term outcomes of the study group after a median follow-up of 108 months
×
Outcomes
Long-term survival outcomes are summarized in Fig. 2. At a median (range) follow-up of 108 (32–166) months, the estimated cumulative 5- and 10-year OS were 87% (95% CI 76–93) and 79% (95% CI 66–87), respectively (Fig. 2a). The estimated cumulative 5- and 10-year RFS were 89% (95% CI 78–94) and 82% (95% CI 66–91), respectively (Fig. 2b).
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier estimate. a Overall survival. b Relapse-free survival. c Local relapse-free survival. d Distant relapse-free survival
×
The estimated cumulative 5- and 10-year LRFS were both 91% (95% CI 81–96) (Fig. 2c). Overall, five (8%) patients were found to have a local recurrence, which occurred within the first 5 years of follow-up. Two recurrences were endoluminal and three extra-luminal. Characteristics of patients with local and distant recurrence are summarized in Table 3. Of five patients experiencing local recurrence, one refused further treatments, one underwent chemoradiotherapy for concomitant distant disease, and three underwent surgery (local re-excision, abdominoperineal resection, and low anterior resection + intraoperative radiotherapy). Of these five patients, four also showed distant recurrence and four died.
Table 3
Characteristics of tumors and patients who showed recurrence
Age/Gender
Baseline cTN
nCRT
Post nCRT ycTN
Post LE ypT
TRG
Margin
Completion TME surgery
TTLR (months)
Treatment for local recurrence
TTDR
Site of Distant recurrence
53/M
T3N+
Capecitabine + 50.4 Gy
ycT1N0
2
3
Negative
Required/Refused
49
Local re-excision
10
Liver
74/M
T3N+
Capecitabine + oxaliplatin + 50.4 Gy
ycT2N0
2
2
Positive
Required/Refused
32
LAR + IORT
61
Lung
61/M
T3N+
Capecitabine + 55 Gy
ycT0N0
3
3
Negative
Required/Refused
41
APR
53
Liver, lung
79/F
T2N+
Capecitabine + 50.4 Gy
ycT0N0
0
1
Negative
Not required
44
Refused
None
None
72/F
T3N+
Capecitabine +oxaliplatin +50.4 Gy
ycT2N+
0
1
Negative
Not required
41
CRT
45
Adrenal gland
63/M
T2N+
Capecitabine +55 Gy
ycT1N0
0
1
Negative
Not required
None
None
32
Liver, lung
54/F
T2N+
Capecitabine +oxaliplatin +50.4 Gy
ycT2N0
1
4
Negative
Performed
None
None
33
Lung
54/M
T2N0
Capecitabine +oxaliplatin +50.4 Gy
ycT3N0
0
1
Negative
Not required
None
None
101
Nodal, bone
54/M
T3N+
Capecitabine + 55 Gy
ycT3N0
2
3
Negative
Performed
None
None
9
Liver
APR abdominoperineal resection, cTN clinical tumor-nodal stage, LAR low anterior resection, LAR + IORT low anterior resection and intraoperative radiotherapy, LE local excision, nCRT neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, TME total mesorectal excision, TTLR time to local recurrence, TTDR time to distant recurrence, ypT post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy pathological tumor stage
The estimated cumulative 5- and 10-year DRFS were 90% (95% CI 80–95), and 86% (95% CI 73–93), respectively (Fig. 2d). Eight (13%) patients had distant recurrences. Of eight patients experiencing distant recurrences, five died.
Overall, 49 (77.8%) patients had their rectum preserved, and 54 (84.1%) were stoma-free. The reasons for a definitive stoma were fecal incontinence after sphincter saving surgery (n = 1), rectal stricture after LE (n = 1), completion surgery after LE because of the presence of histopathologically unfavorable features (n = 5), and salvage radical surgery for local recurrence (n = 2).
At the last follow-up, 13 patients (20.6%) had died.
Anzeige
Discussion
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer who showed a major (complete or near complete) clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and then underwent full thickness LE. The main findings of the study were that both OS and RFS were close to 90% at 5 years and close to 80% at 10 years; and that 78% of patients had the rectum preserved, and 84% were stoma-free. These findings are encouraging and seem to support the hypothesis that LE may represent a safe alternative to TME, offering comparable results, minimal morbidity and better functional outcomes.12,14,15,19
Although with shorter follow-up, several prospective studies have been published in recent years. The American ACOSOG Z6041 multicenter phase 2 trial recruited 79 patients who underwent LE after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.11 At a median follow-up of 56 months, the estimated 5-year OS and DFS were 90.9% and 79.3%, respectively. As in our series, two out of five local recurrences were found in patients with a pCR. This is not surprising as the LE neither includes all the area of the pre-treatment primary tumor, nor removes the mesorectal nodes. Moreover, an incomplete histopathological examination cannot be excluded. In their prospective trial, Lezoche et al. randomized 100 patients who, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, underwent LE (n = 50) or standard laparoscopic TME (n = 50).19 At a median follow-up of 9.6 years, the cancer-related survival rate was 89% and the OS was 72%, without any differences compared with the laparoscopic TME arm. The rate of local recurrence was 8%. Although both previous trials included patients with favorable cases (small rectal cancer, clinically staged as cT2N0), the outcomes are comparable with our study. More recently, prospective studies included clinical T2-T3 rectal cancer.14,15 At a median follow-up of 60 months, Rullier et al. reported no difference between LE and TME arms, either in terms of 5-year local recurrence (7% vs. 7%), or in terms of metastatic disease (18% vs. 19%), OS (84% vs. 82%), or DFS (70% vs. 72%).14 Furthermore, at a median follow-up of 53 months, Stijns et al. reported a 5-year actuarial local recurrence rate of 7.7%, DFS of 81.6%, and OS of 82.8%, respectively.15 It should be noted that in our study, 60% of patients were staged as cT3 at baseline, whereas in the trials of Rullier et al. and Stijns et al. the rates of cT3 were 45% and 29%, respectively.13,14 These findings may suggest that the rectum preservation strategy should be based on clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy instead of clinical baseline staging. A clear message derived from our and the previous trials is that the risk of local recurrence after LE is higher than after TME surgery. In order to reduce this risk, patients with unfavorable histologic features, particularly ypT2-3 tumors, should undergo an early completion radical surgery. In three of five patients with local recurrences, the completion radical surgery was refused. Patients should be informed that LE is basically an excisional biopsy and that there is an increased risk of local recurrence, particularly for those patients refusing the recommended completion radical surgery (Table 3). Moreover, as all local recurrences were observed between 31 and 49 months after LE, a close and prolonged follow-up should be strongly recommended. This close follow-up is also required in patients with a pCR, as local recurrences have been observed in these patients.
Although this study reports on the LE approach, some considerations related to the watch-and-wait approach seem appropriate. Compared with the watch-and-wait policy, the LE approach is associated with postoperative morbidity and the need for completion TME, which is recommended in up to one third of cases,8,14,15 and may be challenging. On the other hand, LE provides a histological proof of pCR, avoiding the delayed diagnosis of regrowth; in these patients long-term impact on survival is matter or debate.20 In addition, while the watch-and-wait approach is only indicated in patients with clinical complete response, LE also seems appropriate in patients with a near complete clinical response. In the present study only 19 of 42 patients with a pCR were considered complete responders at restaging. Following the current indication (watch-and-wait to be performed only in patients with clinical complete response) 23 of 42 patients with pCR would have undergone TME instead of rectum preservation. An alternative approach could be to use both strategies within a rectum sparing program: watch-and-wait in patients with clinical complete response and LE in those with a near-complete clinical response. Independently from the strategy used, the key point still relies on the improvement of patient selection by better staging accuracy. As depicted in Fig. 1, in the group of patients with a pathologic major response (ypT0 and ypT1 with favorable histology) the rates of local recurrence were less than 5%, and more than 95% of patients were stoma-free with the rectum preserved.
The limitations of this study are related to the small sample size and to the lack of a comparative arm. Our institution is currently involved in a multicenter observational study (RESARCH), whose primary endpoint is to validate the rectal-sparing policy in patients with complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.16 Randomized trials in this field are challenging mainly due to the difficult accrual of patients. Likely, the best evidence may therefore derive from large observational prospective trials or national and international registry.21
Anzeige
Conclusion
The present study confirms that, in patients showing major clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the LE approach may offer, in the long-term, similar encouraging survival outcomes to those previously reported in studies with shorter follow-up.14,15,19,22 Moreover, about 80% of patients could have their rectum definitively preserved.
Disclosures
All the authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.
Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!
Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.
Der OP in der Zukunft wird mit weniger Personal auskommen – nicht, weil die Technik das medizinische Fachpersonal verdrängt, sondern weil der Personalmangel es nötig macht.
Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.
Auch wenn sich Krankenhäuser nachhaltig und grün geben – sie tragen aktuell erheblich zu den CO2-Emissionen bei und produzieren jede Menge Müll. Ein Pilotprojekt aus Bonn zeigt, dass viele Op.-Abfälle wiederverwertet werden können.
Update Chirurgie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletterund bleiben Sie gut informiert.
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
