Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2016

Open Access 01.06.2016 | Colorectal Cancer

Treatment Interval between Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Study

verfasst von: A. J. M. Rombouts, MD, N. Hugen, MD, PhD, M. A. G. Elferink, PhD, I. D. Nagtegaal, MD, PhD, J. H. W. de Wilt, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 11/2016

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) has been widely implemented in the treatment of rectal cancer patients, but optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant therapy is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of prolonged intervals between long-course CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

Data on all rectal cancer patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2011 were retrieved from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry; the main outcome parameters were pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS). Outcomes were reported separately for patients with early tumors (ETs; N = 217) and locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC; N = 1073). Patients were divided into 2-week interval groups according to treatment interval, ranging from 5–6 to 13–14 weeks. Kaplan–Meier curves, and logistic regression and Cox regression models were used for data analysis.

Results

No significant difference in pCR rate was observed for ET patients according to treatment interval. Compared with a treatment interval of 7–8 weeks, pCR rates in LARC patients were higher after 9–10 weeks (18.4 %; odds ratio [OR] 1.56, 95 % CI 1.03–2.37) and 11–12 weeks of treatment interval (20.8 %; OR 1.94, 95 % CI 1.15–3.26). Treatment interval did not influence OS in ET or LARC patients.

Conclusions

Treatment intervals of 9–12 weeks between surgery and CRT seem to improve the chances of pCR in LARC patients, without an effect on OS. The length of treatment interval did not affect outcomes in patients with ET. The ongoing search for minimally invasive surgery drives the need for exploration of factors that improve pathologic response.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1245/​s10434-016-5294-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
In The Netherlands, rectal cancer is diagnosed in approximately 4500 patients annually.1 Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard in rectal cancer surgery and comprises resection of the rectal tumor together with the fatty tissue surrounding the rectum.2 Neoadjuvant treatment is used to improve outcome in case lymph node involvement is suspected or when the tumor extends to the mesorectal fascia on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).3
For locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), therapy consists of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by TME or even beyond TME surgery.4 CRT consists of long-course radiotherapy of 45–50 Gy (in fractions of 1.8–2 Gy), with concurrent 5-fluorouracil. Treatment for early tumors (ETs) without suspicion of lymph node involvement (cT1–3N0) consists of TME surgery only; however, in a search for organ-sparing treatment modalities, CRT has also recently been applied to ET patients followed by local transanal excision.511 The wait-and-see approach has recently been introduced for both LARC and ET patients.1214
Although neoadjuvant CRT has been widely implemented in the treatment of rectal cancer patients, the optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant therapy is as yet unclear.15 Surgery was previously performed 6–8 weeks after completion of CRT;16,17 however, recent studies suggest a time-related response of the tumor to CRT. There is growing evidence that extending the treatment interval might increase the proportion of patients with a complete pathologic response (pCR).18 It has also been suggested that a prolongation of the treatment interval might improve overall survival (OS).18,19 A meta-analysis on this topic did not show better OS in patients with longer treatment intervals, but the amount of evidence was scarce and the authors suggested further validation of the results.18
The currently available literature concerning the treatment interval between CRT and surgery does not differentiate between ET and LARC patients, despite the fact that there are substantial differences in oncological outcomes. This nationwide study aimed to evaluate the effects of prolonged treatment intervals on pCR and OS in ET and LARC patients separately.

Methods

Data on all rectal cancer patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2011 in The Netherlands were retrieved from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The main source of notification of the NCR is the automated pathological archive (PALGA). Data were extracted from the medical records by trained registrars. Tumors are staged according to the TNM classification (5th edition) and classified according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O).
According to Dutch guidelines, all patients are staged using MRI.17 CRT is administered in patients with cT4 or cT3 and distance to the mesorectal fascia ≤1 mm, or cN2 and/or positive extramesorectal lymph nodes. All patients who were treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by any kind of surgery were selected (n = 3042). Patients who were diagnosed with a tumor other than adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (AC), mucinous adenocarcinoma, and signet ring cell adenocarcinoma were excluded (n = 30). Patients with metastatic disease (n = 249) or a treatment interval between CRT and surgery of <5 weeks or >15 weeks (n = 101) were also excluded since these were considered outliers (electronic supplementary Fig. 1). Missing data could not be retrieved retrospectively and patients for whom data concerning the time interval between CRT and surgery were unavailable were also excluded from the analysis (n = 1186). ETs were defined as a stage cT1-3N0 tumor (n = 217), and LARC was defined as a stage cT3Nx, cT3N1, cT4 and/or cN2 tumor (n = 1073). Patients with a cTx, cT1N1, or cT2N1 tumor (n = 186) did not meet the criteria of either of the groups and were not further analyzed.
pCR was defined as ypT0N0, and good pathologic response was defined as ypT0–T1N0. Registration of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) of the variables, and distance to anus in the cancer registry, was available from 2008. CRM was considered positive in case of a tumor-free resection margin ≤1 mm. The treatment interval was calculated from the end of CRT until the date of surgery, and follow-up data on vital status were retrieved by linkage to the nationwide municipal population registries network. Information concerning the cause of death was not available. Follow-up was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death from any cause, or until 31 December 2011.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ 2 test, or, in case of an expected cell count <5, the Fishers exact test or Monte Carlo simulation (number of samples 10,000) was used. OS was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. Patients who were alive at the end of follow-up were censored. Independent predictor variables for survival were estimated using Cox regression, and binary logistic regression was used to analyze predictors for pathologic response. Hazard ratios (HRs) resulting from Cox regression and odds ratios (ORs) resulting from logistic regression were reported alongside a 95 % confidence interval (CI). Variables to be taken into account in multivariable analyses were selected by significance during univariable analysis and clinical relevance; however, the variables of CRM and distance to anus were not included in the multivariable models because data were missing for patients before 2008. Reference groups for multivariable analyses were chosen based on the largest group size and results are only given in case of a p value of <0.1. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

The median interval between CRT and surgery was 8 weeks for ET and LARC patients. Baseline characteristics of patients included in the cohort were comparable with those of patients who were excluded because of unknown treatment interval and intermediate tumor stage (data not shown). Median follow-up was 50 months (range 5–106) in ET patients and 50 months (range 5–109) in LARC patients.
In ET patients, baseline characteristics were similar for groups divided according to treatment interval (Table 1), while in LARC patients, treatment intervals were longer for cT4 tumors (p = 0.007) and clinical node-positive tumors (p = 0.019; Table 2). The type of performed surgical procedure also differed between groups (p = 0.032); patients in the longer treatment interval groups more often underwent Hartmann procedures (Table 2).
Table 1
Characteristics for ET patients grouped according to interval between CRT and surgery
 
5–6 weeks (N = 23)
7–8 weeks (N = 84)
9–10 weeks (N = 74)
11–12 weeks (N = 31)
13–14 weeks (N = 5)
p value
Age, years
     
0.639
 Mean (range)
63 (45–79)
63 (34–85)
63 (36–84)
65 (39–84)
68 (62–76)
 
 <45
5 (6.0)
3 (4.1)
1 (3.2)
 
 45–59
8 (34.8)
19 (22.6)
24 (32.4)
5 (16.1)
 
 60–74
11 (47.8)
45 (53.6)
39 (52.7)
18 (58.1)
4 (80.0)
 
 >75
4 (17.4)
15 (17.9)
8 (10.8)
7 (22.6)
1 (20.0)
 
Sex
     
0.549
 Male
17 (73.9)
54 (64.3)
42 (56.8)
17 (54.8)
3 (60.0)
 
 Female
6 (26.1)
30 (35.7)
32 (43.2)
14 (45.2)
2 (40.0)
 
Distance to anus, cm (n = 189)a
     
0.284
 0–5
6 (42.9)
48 (64.0)
44 (67.6)
22 (73.3)
3 (60.0)
 
 6–10
7 (50.0)
20 (26.7)
10 (15.4)
5 (16.7)
2 (40.0)
 
 >10
1 (7.1)
5 (6.7)
5 (7.7)
1 (3.3)
 
 Unknown
2 (2.7)
6 (9.2)
2 (6.7)
 
Histology
     
1.000
 AC
21 (91.3)
77 (91.7)
68 (91.9)
29 (93.5)
5 (100.0)
 
 MC
2 (8.7)
6 (7.1)
6 (8.1)
2 (6.5)
 
 SRCC
1 (1.2)
 
cT stage
     
0.927
 cT1
 
 cT2
3 (13.0)
13 (15.5)
13 (17.6)
6 (19.4)
 
 cT3
20 (87.0)
71 (84.5)
61 (82.4)
25 (80.6)
5 (100.0)
 
Surgical procedure
     
0.393
 LAR
6 (26.1)
30 (35.7)
26 (35.1)
10 (32.3)
3 (60.0)
 
 APR
16 (69.6)
45 (53.6)
40 (54.1)
14 (45.2)
1 (20.0)
 
 Hartmann
1 (4.3)
5 (6.0)
3 (4.1)
2 (6.5)
1 (20.0)
 
 Other
4 (4.8)
5 (6.8)
5 (16.1)
 
ypT stage
     
0.342
 ypT0
8 (34.8)
12 (14.3)
18 (24.3)
4 (12.9)
2 (40.0)
 
 ypT1
2 (8.7)
8 (9.5)
6 (8.1)
6 (19.4)
 
 ypT2
4 (17.4)
29 (34.5)
18 (24.3)
11 (35.5)
 
 ypT3
9 (39.1)
33 (39.3)
28 (37.8)
10 (32.3)
3 (60.0)
 
 ypT4
 
 ypTx
2 (2.4)
4 (5.4)
 
ypN stage
     
0.171
 ypN0
19 (82.6)
70 (83.3)
55 (74.3)
23 (74.2)
3 (60.0)
 
 ypN1
3 (13.0)
8 (9.5)
6 (8.1)
5 (16.1)
2 (40.0)
 
 ypN2
1 (4.3)
4 (4.8)
4 (5.4)
 
 ypNx
2 (2.4)
9 (12.2)
3 (9.7)
 
Differentiation
     
0.203
 Well
2 (6.5)
 
 Intermediate
3 (13.0)
22 (26.2)
18 (24.3)
6 (19.4)
3 (60.0)
 
 Poor
5 (6.0)
3 (4.1)
2 (6.5)
 
 Unknown
20 (87.0)
57 (67.9)
53 (71.6)
21 (67.7)
2 (40.0)
 
Data are expressed as n (%) unless otherwise specified
AC adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, MC mucinous adenocarcinoma, SRCC signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, LAR low anterior resection, APR abdominoperineal resection, ET early tumor, CRT chemoradiation therapy
aData were only available from 2008 and beyond
Table 2
Characteristics for LARC patients grouped according to interval between CRT and surgery
 
5–6 weeks (N = 101)
7–8 weeks (N = 369)
9–10 weeks (N = 380)
11–12 weeks (N = 154)
13–14 weeks (N = 69)
p value
Age, years
     
0.127
Mean (range)
64 (31–82)
63 (32–85)
64 (27–83)
64 (39–82)
65 (42–83)
 
 <45
4 (4.0)
24 (6.5)
21 (5.5)
3 (1.9)
1 (1.4)
 
 45–59
30 (29.7)
100 (27.1)
115 (30.3)
47 (30.5)
17 (24.6)
 
 60–74
56 (55.4)
203 (55.0)
206 (54.2)
87 (56.5)
41 (59.4)
 
 >75
11 (10.9)
42 (11.4)
38 (10.0)
17 (11.0)
10 (14.5)
 
Sex
     
0.907
 Male
63 (62.4)
224 (60.7)
240 (63.2)
97 (63.0)
40 (58.0)
 
 Female
38 (37.6)
145 (39.3)
140 (36.8)
57 (37.0)
29 (42.0)
 
Distance to anus, cm (n = 926)a
     
0.052
 0–5
24 (42.1)
145 (46.6)
173 (48.7)
76 (54.3)
32 (50.8)
 
 6–10
19 (33.3)
125 (40.2)
130 (36.6)
37 (26.4)
25 (39.7)
 
 >10
8 (14.0)
24 (7.7)
37 (10.4)
14 (10.0)
1 (1.6)
 
 Unknown
6 (10.5)
17 (5.5)
15 (4.2)
13 (9.3)
5 (7.9)
 
Histology
     
0.448
 AC
96 (95.0)
335 (90.8)
341 (89.7)
134 (87.0)
63 (91.3)
 
 MC
5 (5.0)
33 (8.9)
37 (9.7)
19 (12.3)
5 (7.2)
 
 SRCC
1 (0.3)
2 (0.5)
1 (0.6)
1 (1.4)
 
cT-stage
     
0.007
 cT3
78 (77.2)
292 (79.1)
285 (75.0)
113 (73.4)
40 (58.0)
 
 cT4
23 (22.8)
77 (20.9)
95 (25.0)
41 (26.6)
29 (42.0)
 
cN-stage
     
0.019
 cN0
4 (4.0)
18 (4.9)
24 (6.3)
5 (3.2)
7 (10.1)
 
 cN1
64 (63.4)
193 (52.3)
171 (45.0)
67 (43.5)
35 (50.7)
 
 cN2
22 (21.8)
111 (30.1)
145 (38.2)
61 (39.6)
18 (26.1)
 
 cNx
11 (10.9)
47 (12.7)
40 (10.5)
21 (13.6)
9 (13.0)
 
Surgical procedure
     
0.032
 LAR
42 (41.6)
176 (47.7)
170 (44.7)
55 (35.7)
27 (39.1)
 
 APR
49 (48.5)
150 (40.7)
150 (39.5)
61 (39.6)
29 (42.0)
 
 Hartmann
5 (5.0)
23 (6.2)
25 (6.6)
20 (13.0)
7 (10.1)
 
 Other
5 (5.0)
20 (5.4)
35 (9.2)
18 (11.7)
6 (8.7)
 
ypT stage
     
0.003
 ypT0
8 (7.9)
52 (14.1)
78 (20.5)
35 (22.7)
13 (18.8)
 
 ypT1
5 (5.0)
16 (4.3)
23 (6.1)
12 (7.8)
2 (2.9)
 
 ypT2
23 (22.8)
103 (27.9)
79 (20.8)
28 (18.2)
13 (18.8)
 
 ypT3
57 (56.4)
171 (46.3)
166 (43.7)
62 (40.3)
27 (39.1)
 
 ypT4
7 (6.9)
17 (4.6)
22 (5.8)
14 (9.1)
11 (15.9)
 
 ypTx
1 (1.0)
10 (2.7)
12 (3.2)
3 (1.9)
2 (4.3)
 
ypN stage
     
0.565
 ypN0
64 (63.4)
237 (64.2)
244 (64.2)
101 (65.6)
45 (65.2)
 
 ypN1
25 (24.8)
80 (21.7)
81 (21.3)
33 (21.4)
14 (20.3)
 
 ypN2
12 (11.9)
51 (13.8)
49 (12.9)
19 (12.3)
7 (10.1)
 
 ypNx
1 (0.3)
6 (1.6)
1 (0.6)
3 (4.3)
 
Differentiation
     
0.221
 Well
2 (2.0)
5 (1.4)
5 (1.3)
3 (4.3)
 
 Intermediate
27 (26.7)
83 (22.5)
79 (20.8)
38 (24.7)
20 (29.0)
 
 Poor
4 (4.0)
17 (4.6)
25 (6.6)
13 (8.4)
5 (7.2)
 
 Unknown
68 (67.3)
264 (71.5)
271 (71.3)
103 (66.9)
41 (59.4)
 
Data are expressed as n (%) unless otherwise specified
AC adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, MC mucinous adenocarcinoma, SRCC signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, LAR low anterior resection, APR abdominoperineal resection, LARC locally advanced rectal cancer, CRT chemoradiation therapy
aData were only available from the year 2008 and beyond

Early Tumors

The overall pCR rate in ET patients was 16.1 %. The highest pCR rates and good response rates in ET patients were demonstrated after a treatment interval of 5–6 weeks (30.4 %, n = 7; and 39.1 %, n = 9, respectively; Fig. 1a), which was not significantly different in either univariable or multivariable logistic regression analysis (pCR, p = 0.148 [Electronic Supplementary Table S1]; good response, p = 0.541).
No relation was found between treatment interval and CRM involvement (Fig. 1a), ypT stage, or ypN stage (Table 1). Differences in treatment interval did not affect survival during either univariable or multivariable analysis (Electronic Supplementary Table S2). The relationship between pathologic response and OS was also analyzed, and patients with a complete or good pathologic response did not show an improved OS compared with other ET patients. In patients with a pCR, 5-year OS was 82.9 % (95 % CI 75.8–90.0) versus 75.6 % (95 % CI 71.6–79.6) in non-pCR patients (p = 0.332).

Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

The overall pCR rate in LARC patients was 15.9 %. pCR and good response rates were highest after an 11–12 week interval, with rates of 20.8 % (p = 0.028) and 26.6 % (p = 0.013), respectively (Fig. 1b). Outcomes of logistic regression are depicted in Table 3 and show that there was a higher odds of pCR in the 9- to 10-week and 11- to 12-week treatment interval groups than in the 7- to 8-week treatment interval group. This was also the case for good response rates (9–10 weeks: OR 1.67, 95 % CI 1.14–2.45, p = 0.008; and 11–12 weeks: OR 2.15, 95 % CI 1.34–3.48, p = 0.002). Other predictors for pCR in LARC patients were age, histology, and tumor differentiation (Table 3). Patients who were 45–59 years of age had lower pCR rates compared with patients who were aged between 60 and 74 years (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.38–0.88), and mucinous tumors were associated with lower pCR rates compared with patients with AC tumors (OR 0.19, 95 % CI 0.07–0.52; Table 3). pCR was more common in patients with an unknown tumor differentiation compared with patients with an intermediate tumor differentiation (OR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.25–3.05).
Table 3
Outcomes of multivariable logistic regression analysis of variables predicting pCR in LARC patients
 
Odds ratio (95 % CI)
Adjusted p value
Treatment interval, weeks
 
0.022
 5–6
0.57 (0.25–1.28)
0.172
 7–8
1.00
 9–10
1.56 (1.03–2.37)
0.037
 11–12
1.94 (1.15–3.26)
0.013
 13–14
1.44 (0.68–3.04)
0.346
Age, years
 
0.006
 <45
1.78 (0.90–3.51)
0.099
 45–59
0.58 (0.38–0.88)
0.011
 60–74
1.00
 >75
0.63 (0.35–1.15)
0.132
Histology
 
0.006
 AC
1.00
 MC
0.19 (0.07–0.52)
0.001
 SRCC
1.19 (0.10–13.60)
0.887
Differentiation
 
0.014
 Well
0.59 (0.07–4.76)
0.620
 Intermediate
1.00
 Poor
1.01 (0.36–2.80)
0.989
 Unknown
1.95 (1.25–3.05)
0.003
Other variables entered into the model were sex, cT stage, cN stage, and year of surgery
AC adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, MC mucinous adenocarcinoma, SRCC signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, pCR pathologic complete response, LARC locally advanced rectal cancer, CI confidence interval
The treatment interval in LARC patients was related to CRM involvement during univariable analysis (Fig. 1b), with the lowest rate of CRM-positive resections after a treatment interval of 7–8 weeks. Treatment interval did not affect ypN stage (p = 0.565). ypT0 was most prevalent in the 9- to 10-week (20.5 %) and 11- to 12-week (22.7 %) groups (p = 0.003). Longer treatment intervals did not affect survival (p = 0273; Table 4). Variables that did affect OS in LARC patients on multivariable analysis were pathologic response, age, sex and differentiation. LARC patients with a pCR had a better OS than patients who did not have a pCR: 88.9 % (95 % CI 86.3–91.5) of patients with pCR were alive after 5 years of follow-up compared with 71.0 % (95 % CI 69.3–72.7) of patients without pCR (HR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.27–0.68). Patients who were 75 years of age or older were associated with poorer survival compared with patients who were aged between 60 and 74 years (HR 2.0.1, 95 % CI 1.44–2.80). Patients who had a poorly differentiated tumor were associated with a poorer survival compared with patients whose tumor was intermediately differentiated (HR 2.43, 95 % CI 1.56–3.80). Female patients had better OS compared with male patients (HR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.57–0.96).
Table 4
Multivariable Cox regression analysis of variables predicting overall survival in LARC patients
 
Hazard ratio (95 % CI)
Adjusted p-value
Treatment interval, weeks
 
0.273
 5–6
1.39 (0.95–2.03)
0.095
 7–8
1.00
 9–10
0.99 (0.73–1.34)
0.935
 11–12
1.13 (0.77–1.66)
0.543
 13–14
1.44 (0.88–2.35)
0.144
pCR
 
<0.000
 Yes
0.43 (0.27–0.68)
 
 No
1.00
 
Sex
 
0.024
 Male
1.00
 
 Female
0.74 (0.57–0.96)
 
Age, years
 
<0.000
 <45
0.67 (0.34–1.34)
0.259
 45–59
0.91 (0.68–1.23)
0.548
 60–74
1.00
 >75
2.01 (1.44–2.80)
<0.000
Histology
 
0.093
 AC
1.00
 MC
1.28 (0.88–1.84)
0.197
 SRCC
3.36 (0.96–11.79)
0.058
Differentiation
 
<0.000
 Well
0.63 (0.20–2.03)
0.443
 Intermediate
1.00
 Poor
2.43 (1.56–3.80)
<0.000
 Unknown
0.94 (0.70–1.26)
0.675
pCR pathologic complete response (ypT0N0), AC adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, MC mucinous adenocarcinoma, SRCC signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, LARC locally advanced rectal cancer, CI confidence interval

Discussion

Neoadjuvant CRT has been widely implemented in the treatment of rectal cancer to enable downsizing and downstaging and to improve outcome. In the present nationwide study, a treatment interval of 9–12 weeks led to the highest rates of pCR in LARC patients. This is a longer treatment interval than the usually reported interval in the literature, and half of the LARC patients in our cohort were operated within this 4-week interval. In ET patients, treatment interval did not seem to influence pCR rates. The length of treatment interval did not affect OS in either LARC or ET patients.
In addition to various important factors such as tumor stage, histology, and CRM,20 tumor response has been recognized as an important predictor of local recurrence and OS in rectal cancer surgery.21 It has repeatedly been suggested that the length of treatment interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery might influence pathologic response.2226 To date, only two randomized controlled trials have been published comparing short and long treatment intervals between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery, and the outcomes are contradictory. The Lyon R90-01 trial (N = 201) in 1999 showed better pathologic tumor downstaging (T0–1) in a long interval group (6–8 weeks; 26 %) compared with a short interval group (2 weeks; 10.3 %; p = 0.005) between radiotherapy and surgery.27 In 2014, Saglam et al. compared outcomes for 4 or 8 weeks post-CRT (N = 153) and could not identify differences in complete response levels.28 A recent meta-analysis of all non-randomized trials on this topic (N = 3584) showed increased pCR rates after an interval of more than 6–8 weeks compared with pCR rates after a shorter treatment interval (from 13.7 to 19.5 %).24 This corroborates well with the findings in the current cohort of LARC patients.
Other factors that were identified as predictors of pathologic response in LARC patients were age, tumor differentiation, and mucinous histology. The latter is in accordance with a recent study from our group that reported on outcomes in LARC patients with mucinous AC and AC. This study demonstrated that pCR was not observed in any mucinous AC patient compared with over 16 % in AC patients, which did not affect survival.29 In the current cohort, pCR rates were again significantly lower in mucinous AC patients without an effect on OS. A recent study of the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) (N = 23,747) identified a longer treatment interval, lower tumor grade, lower cT and cN stage, and higher radiation dose as predictors for pCR.26 Other studies did not identify any independent determinants in achieving pCR other than treatment interval.22,23
Outcomes for ET patients were analyzed separately in the current study and the treatment interval in these patients was not related to pathologic response. As far as we know, no other study to date has analyzed the effects of treatment interval in a select group of ET patients. The observed overall pCR rate in ET patients in the current study was 16.1 %, which is substantially lower than reported pCR rates in recent literature of 22–44 %.6,8,9,11,30 Several issues for this discrepancy can be noted. First, most of these studies with higher pCR rates are conducted prospectively and patient selection might explain the high response rates. Furthermore, in the present study, details on clinical staging could not be checked, and stages could have been higher. Also, the group of ET patients is probably biased since these patients received CRT, although this is not generally recommended according to national guidelines. Larger studies are needed to assess whether the duration of treatment interval influences pathologic response in ET patients and could reduce the need for surgery.
Treatment interval was not related to OS in either ET or LARC patients. Only a limited number of studies have demonstrated improved survival for LARC patients with a long treatment interval.15,31 To the best of our knowledge, none of the studies to date that have analyzed the relationship between a prolonged treatment interval and OS have specifically looked into outcomes of ET patients.15,25,28,3133
The present study describes a population-based analysis of a large number of rectal cancer patients, however it has some limitations. The retrospective nature of this study poses particular caution because of heterogeneity in CRT regimens and other potential confounding variables. For example, reasons for either a short or longer treatment interval could not be retrieved. It is not inconceivable that patient or tumor characteristics have influenced the timing of surgery. In addition, 1186 patients had to be excluded from analysis because the length of their treatment interval was unknown. This could have introduced a selection bias, but comparison of this group with the included patients in the study did not show differences in characteristics. Randomized trials are necessary to determine the optimal treatment interval following CRT. Several trials are ongoing at the moment and are evaluating treatment intervals of 6–7 weeks versus 11–12 weeks following neoadjuvant CRT.3436
Promising outcomes have been reported in studies analysing different treatment modalities, including a wait and see approach12,14 and local transanal excision.511 Oncological outcomes have been shown to be comparable with those of patients with a pCR after major surgery.5,6,11,12,14 Moreover, a reduction in the number of complications and permanent stomas might lead to a better functional outcome;12 however, these outcomes still have to be confirmed in randomized trials. Another drawback of the rectum-saving approach is that patients who need completion surgery will be overtreated with CRT, which has potential and serious side effects and long-term complications.7,14 It is therefore necessary that selection criteria of eligible patients be further explored prior to implementation.

Conclusions

Treatment intervals of 9–12 weeks seem to improve the chances of pCR in LARC patients, without an effect on OS. The optimal treatment interval between surgery and CRT for ET patients could not be identified. The ongoing search for minimally invasive surgery drives the need for exploration of factors that improve pathologic response.

Disclosure

None.
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.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

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!

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Anhänge

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Geest LG, Lam-Boer J, Koopman M, Verhoef C, Elferink MA, de Wilt JH. Nationwide trends in incidence, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2015;32(5):457–65.CrossRefPubMed van der Geest LG, Lam-Boer J, Koopman M, Verhoef C, Elferink MA, de Wilt JH. Nationwide trends in incidence, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2015;32(5):457–65.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Gerard JP, Conroy T, Bonnetain F, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy with or without concurrent fluorouracil and leucovorin in T3-4 rectal cancers: results of FFCD 9203. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4620–25.CrossRefPubMed Gerard JP, Conroy T, Bonnetain F, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy with or without concurrent fluorouracil and leucovorin in T3-4 rectal cancers: results of FFCD 9203. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4620–25.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):E1-33. Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):E1-33.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E. Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):993–9.CrossRefPubMed Denost Q, Adam JP, Rullier A, Buscail E, Laurent C, Rullier E. Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):993–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Verseveld M, de Graaf EJ, Verhoef C, et al. Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (CARTS study). Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):853–60.CrossRefPubMed Verseveld M, de Graaf EJ, Verhoef C, et al. Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (CARTS study). Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):853–60.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Morino M, Risio M, Bach S, et al. Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(4):755–73.CrossRefPubMed Morino M, Risio M, Bach S, et al. Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(4):755–73.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A, Guerrieri M, et al. Local excision after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1349–56.CrossRefPubMed Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A, Guerrieri M, et al. Local excision after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1349–56.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Garcia-Aguilar J, Shi Q, Thomas CR Jr, et al. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2N0 rectal cancer: preliminary results of the ACOSOG Z6041 trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):384–91.CrossRefPubMed Garcia-Aguilar J, Shi Q, Thomas CR Jr, et al. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2N0 rectal cancer: preliminary results of the ACOSOG Z6041 trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):384–91.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Garcia-Aguilar J, Renfro LA, Chow OS, et al. Organ preservation for clinical T2N0 distal rectal cancer using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision (ACOSOG Z6041): results of an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):1537–46.CrossRefPubMed Garcia-Aguilar J, Renfro LA, Chow OS, et al. Organ preservation for clinical T2N0 distal rectal cancer using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision (ACOSOG Z6041): results of an open-label, single-arm, multi-institutional, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):1537–46.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Stipa F, Picchio M, Burza A, Soricelli E, Vitelli CE. Long-term outcome of local excision after preoperative chemoradiation for ypT0 rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(11):1245-1252.CrossRefPubMed Stipa F, Picchio M, Burza A, Soricelli E, Vitelli CE. Long-term outcome of local excision after preoperative chemoradiation for ypT0 rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(11):1245-1252.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Maas M, Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, et al. Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(35):4633–40.CrossRefPubMed Maas M, Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, et al. Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(35):4633–40.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):711–7; discussion 717–8. Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):711–7; discussion 717–8.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Appelt AL, Ploen J, Harling H, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for distal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):919–27.CrossRefPubMed Appelt AL, Ploen J, Harling H, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for distal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):919–27.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Calvo FA, Morillo V, Santos M, et al. Interval between neoadjuvant treatment and definitive surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer: impact on response and oncologic outcomes. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(10):1651–60.CrossRefPubMed Calvo FA, Morillo V, Santos M, et al. Interval between neoadjuvant treatment and definitive surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer: impact on response and oncologic outcomes. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(10):1651–60.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bokkerink GM, Buijs EF, de Ruijter W, et al. Improved quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(2):201–7.CrossRefPubMed Bokkerink GM, Buijs EF, de Ruijter W, et al. Improved quality of care for patients undergoing an abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(2):201–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrelli F, Sgroi G, Sarti E, Barni S. Increasing the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies. Ann Surg. 2013;00:1–8;263(3):458–64. Petrelli F, Sgroi G, Sarti E, Barni S. Increasing the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies. Ann Surg. 2013;00:1–8;263(3):458–64.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Garcia-Aguilar J, Smith DD, Avila K, Bergsland EK, Chu P, Krieg RM. Optimal timing of surgery after chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter, nonrandomized phase II prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2011;254(1):97–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Garcia-Aguilar J, Smith DD, Avila K, Bergsland EK, Chu P, Krieg RM. Optimal timing of surgery after chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter, nonrandomized phase II prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2011;254(1):97–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat 20. Hugen N, Brown G, Glynne-Jones R, de Wilt JH, Nagtegaal ID. Advances in the care of patients with mucinous colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(6):361–9.CrossRefPubMed 20. Hugen N, Brown G, Glynne-Jones R, de Wilt JH, Nagtegaal ID. Advances in the care of patients with mucinous colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(6):361–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(9):835–44.CrossRefPubMed Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(9):835–44.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sloothaak DA, Geijsen DE, van Leersum NJ, et al. Optimal time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(7):933–39.CrossRefPubMed Sloothaak DA, Geijsen DE, van Leersum NJ, et al. Optimal time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(7):933–39.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Kalady MF, de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, et al. Predictive factors of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):582–9.PubMed Kalady MF, de Campos-Lobato LF, Stocchi L, et al. Predictive factors of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):582–9.PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrelli F, Sgroi G, Sarti E, Barni S. Increasing the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):458–64.CrossRefPubMed Petrelli F, Sgroi G, Sarti E, Barni S. Increasing the interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):458–64.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat de Campos-Lobato LF, Geisler DP, da Luz Moreira A, Stocchi L, Dietz D, Kalady MF. Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: the impact of longer interval between chemoradiation and surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(3):444–50. de Campos-Lobato LF, Geisler DP, da Luz Moreira A, Stocchi L, Dietz D, Kalady MF. Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: the impact of longer interval between chemoradiation and surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(3):444–50.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Sukhni E, Attwood K, Mattson DM, Gabriel E, Nurkin SJ. Predictors of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1177–86.CrossRefPubMed Al-Sukhni E, Attwood K, Mattson DM, Gabriel E, Nurkin SJ. Predictors of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1177–86.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Francois Y, Nemoz CJ, Baulieux J, et al. Influence of the interval between preoperative radiation therapy and surgery on downstaging and on the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: the Lyon R90-01 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(8):2396.PubMed Francois Y, Nemoz CJ, Baulieux J, et al. Influence of the interval between preoperative radiation therapy and surgery on downstaging and on the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer: the Lyon R90-01 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(8):2396.PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Saglam S, Bugra D, Saglam EK, et al. Fourth versus eighth week surgery after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in T3-4/N0 + rectal cancer: Istanbul R-01 study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(1):9–17.PubMedPubMedCentral Saglam S, Bugra D, Saglam EK, et al. Fourth versus eighth week surgery after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in T3-4/N0 + rectal cancer: Istanbul R-01 study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(1):9–17.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Hugen N, van de Velde CJ, Bosch SL, et al. Modern treatment of rectal cancer closes the gap between common adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(8):2669–76.CrossRefPubMed Hugen N, van de Velde CJ, Bosch SL, et al. Modern treatment of rectal cancer closes the gap between common adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(8):2669–76.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Borschitz T, Wachtlin D, Mohler M, Schmidberger H, Junginger T. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2-3 rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(3):712–20.CrossRefPubMed Borschitz T, Wachtlin D, Mohler M, Schmidberger H, Junginger T. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2-3 rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(3):712–20.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Haustermans K, et al. Impact of interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and TME for locally advanced rectal cancer on pathologic response and oncologic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(9):2833–41.CrossRefPubMed Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Haustermans K, et al. Impact of interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and TME for locally advanced rectal cancer on pathologic response and oncologic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(9):2833–41.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Tulchinsky H, Shmueli E, Figer A, Klausner JM, Rabau M. An interval > 7 weeks between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery improves pathologic complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(10):2661–7.CrossRefPubMed Tulchinsky H, Shmueli E, Figer A, Klausner JM, Rabau M. An interval > 7 weeks between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery improves pathologic complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(10):2661–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim SB, Choi HS, Jeong SY, et al. Optimal surgery time after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):243–51.CrossRefPubMed Lim SB, Choi HS, Jeong SY, et al. Optimal surgery time after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):243–51.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Lefevre JH, Rousseau A, Svrcek M, et al. A multicentric randomized controlled trial on the impact of lengthening the interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery on complete pathological response in rectal cancer (GRECCAR-6 trial): rationale and design. BMC Cancer 2013;13:417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lefevre JH, Rousseau A, Svrcek M, et al. A multicentric randomized controlled trial on the impact of lengthening the interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery on complete pathological response in rectal cancer (GRECCAR-6 trial): rationale and design. BMC Cancer 2013;13:417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Treatment Interval between Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Study
verfasst von
A. J. M. Rombouts, MD
N. Hugen, MD, PhD
M. A. G. Elferink, PhD
I. D. Nagtegaal, MD, PhD
J. H. W. de Wilt, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 11/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5294-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 11/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis 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.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ 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?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
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.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.