Local Excision Of Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for local excision of rectal cancer

Local excision (LE) for early-stage rectal cancer is an attractive option compared to total mesorectal excision (TME), as it avoids many of the significant comorbidities and adverse functional outcomes associated with TME. However, LE for tumors with high-risk histopathologic features can lead to unacceptably high rates of local and distant recurrence. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy can mitigate those risks in certain clinical settings and may expand the number of patients who can be safely treated with an organ-preserving approach. In this chapter, we will explore the available date supporting the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) for the treatment of high-risk early-stage rectal cancer and will discuss future studies that aim to answer some of the ongoing clinical questions related to this practice.

Transanal Local Excision of Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Is There a Place for It or Should Be Avoided at All Costs?

Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) with tumor downsizing and downstaging has significantly impacted the number of patients considered to be appropriate candidates for transanal local excision (TLE). Some patients may harbor small residual lesions, restricted to the bowel wall. These patients, who exhibit major response ("near-complete") by digital rectal examination, endoscopic assessment, and radiological assessment may be considered for this approach. Although TLE is associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, a few clinical consequences and oncological outcomes must be evaluated in advance and with caution. In the setting of nCRT, a higher risk for clinically relevant wound dehiscences leading to a considerable risk for readmission for pain management has been observed. Worse anorectal function (still better than after total mesorectal excision [TME]), worsening in the quality of TME specimen, and higher rates of abdominal resections (in cases requiring completion TME) have been reported. The exuberant scar observed in the area of TLE also represents a challenging finding during follow-up of these patients. Local excision should be probably restricted for patients with primary tumors located at or below the level of the anorectal ring (magnetic resonance defined). These patients are otherwise candidates for abdominal perineal resections or ultra-low anterior resections with coloanal anastomosis frequently requiring definitive stomas or considerably poor anorectal function.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Useful Technique That Continues to Evolve.

Colorectal cancer remains the 3rd most common cancer diagnosed among men and women in the United States. With improved screening, premalignant rectal lesions and rectal cancers are being detected at earlier stages. In addition, the use of neoadjuvant chemo- and radiotherapy has led to downstaging of larger lesions. There is growing interest among colorectal surgeons in local excision with organ preservation for patients with rectal cancer. There are multiple platforms for local excision of rectal cancers, including transanal excision (TAE), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). TAMIS was developed as an affordable platform that uses conventional laparoscopic equipment familiar to many colorectal surgeons. TAMIS allows for full-thickness benign or malignant lesion excision in any quadrant without the need for patient repositioning. The literature has shown that, for appropriately selected patients, TAMIS provides superior excision quality compared to TAE. Furthermore, TAMIS has oncologic outcomes equivalent to TEM at a fraction of the cost. Recently, robotic TAMIS has been introduced, which takes advantage of the articulating instruments of the robotic platform without the need for a skilled assistant. This article will cover multiple technical aspects for TAMIS including patient selection and preparation, technical tips for successful excision and defect closure, and recent advances, including robotic TAMIS.

Prognosis and complications of local excision for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Objective: To investigate the prognosis and postoperative complications of local excision for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A descriptive case series study was carried out. Patient inclusion criteria: (1) patients who underwent local excision by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) after nCRT; (2) magnetic resonance evaluated tumor regression grade (mrTRG) as 1, 2 after nCRT;(3) American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III. Patient exclusion criteria: (1) with multiple primary colorectal cancers; (2) with other malignant tumors within five years; (3) with emergency surgicery indications like digestive tract obstruction, perforation or bleeding. Clinicopathological and follow-up data of rectal cancer patients with obvious tumor regression after nCRT who underwent local excision in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2010 to August 2019 were retrospectively collected. Outcome measures included disease-free survival (DFS), short-term postoperative complications, and at postoperative 1-year during follow up, gas continence, fecal continence, and quality of life (using the EORTC QLQ-CR29 scale, higher score indicated worse quality of life) at postoperative 1-year. Results: A total of 40 patients were included in this study. There were 27 males and 13 females with an average age of (66.7±12.3) years. Preoperative rectal ultrasound and other imaging examinations indicated that the tumor was located in the anterior wall in 16 cases, the lateral wall in 12 cases, and the posterior wall in 12 cases. The distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal verge was (4.3±1.2) cm before nCRT and (5.1±0.9) cm after nCRT. According to mrTRG, 31 cases were assessed as mrTRG 1 and 9 cases as mrTRG 2. All the patients received local extended excision of rectal cancer using TEM platform. A total of 19 cases(47.5%) suffered from complications within one month postoperatively. Clavien-Dindo grade I complications happened in 14 cases, grade II in 3 patients, and grade III in 2 cases, who all were healed by conservative treatment. Except that 2 patient presented severe low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) at 1 year postoperatively, no severe anal dysfunction was found in this cohort patients. EORTC QLQ CR29 scale results for quality of life showed that at 1 year after TEM excision, except taste (Z=-1.968, P=0.049), anxiety (Z=-3.624, P<0.001) and skin irritation (Z=-2.420, P=0.023) were worse than the situation before neoadjuvant therapy, there were no statistically significant differences in other assessment results between pre-operation and post-operation (all P>0.05). Postoperative pathological results indicated complete tumor regression (pTRG0) in 17 cases, moderate remission (pTRG1) in 13, and mild remission (pTRG2) in 10. During the follow-up of (49.1±29.6) months, 3 patients had local recurrence and 4 had distant metastasis (3 patients with liver metastasis and 1 patient with lung metastasis followed by liver metastasis). No death was found and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 84.3%. Conclusions: Local excision through TEM following nCRT not only can be adopted as an important means to accurately determine complete clinical remission (cCR), but also has high therapeutic value for rectal cancer patients presenting cCR or near cCR, with little impact on defecatory function and quality of life. However, the morbidity of complication of TEM excision after nCRT is relatively high and there is a risk of recurrence and metastasis. Therefore, it is still necessary to strictly select the indications of local excision.

Prognostic Factors and Treatment of Recurrence after Local Excision of Rectal Cancer.

PurposeIndications for local excision in patients with rectal cancer remain controversial. We reviewed factors affecting survival rate and treatment effectiveness in cancer recurrence after local excision among patients with rectal cancer.Materials and MethodsA total of 831 patients was enrolled. Of these, 391 patients were diagnosed with primary rectal cancer and underwent local excision. A retrospective observational study was performed on patients who underwent full-thickness local excision for rectal cancer.ResultsThe median duration of follow-up was 61 months. The overall recurrence rate was 11.5%. The rate of local recurrence was 5.1%. Five-year overall survival rate among recurrent patients was 66.8%; the rate among patients who underwent salvage operation due to recurrence was 84.7%, compared with 44.2% among patients treated with non-operative management (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis of disease-free survival identified distance from the anal verge (p=0.038) and histologic grade (p=0.047) as factors predicting poor prognosis. Multivariate analysis of overall survival showed that age (p<0.001), serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (p=0.001), and histologic grade (p=0.013) also affected poor prognosis. In subgroup analysis of patients with recurrence, 25 patients underwent reoperation, while 20 patients did not. For 5-year overall survival rate, there was a significant difference between 84.7% of the reoperation group and 44.2% of the non-operation group (p<0.001).ConclusionThe risk factors affecting overall survival rate after local excision were age 65 years or older, preoperative CEA level 5 or higher, and high histologic grade. In cases of recurrence after local excision of rectal cancer, salvage operation might improve overall survival.

Efficacy and safety of wait and see strategy versus radical surgery and local excision for rectal cancer with cCR response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis

BackgroundNeoadjuvant therapy can shrink tumors, increase anus preservation rate, and protect anal function. Radical surgery need cut off the diseased bowel, clean up the lymph nodes, and then restore bowel function. It could bring traumatic effect and poor postoperative quality of life to the patient. Local resection requires removal of the diseased bowel with circular negative margin. The surgical trauma is small, and the postoperative quality of life is good. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety between wait and see strategy (WS), radical surgery (RS), and local excision (LE) of rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wanfang databases to compare wait and see strategy with radical surgery and local excision for rectal cancer with cCR response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy up to March 2020. We collected the data of local recurrence, distant metastasis, cancer-related death, overall survival, and disease-free survival and used RevMan 5.0 to carry out the meta-analysis. Continuous data were evaluated by the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and dichotomous data were evaluated by relative risks (ORs or RRs) with 95% CIs. We aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the three groups.ResultsEleven English studies with 1131 patients were included. There were 412 patients in WS group, 678 patients in RS group, and 41 patients in LE group. WS group had a higher local recurrence rate than RS group (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.58 to 14.95, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other data between the three groups.ConclusionCompared with the RS group, the WS group had an increased risk of local recurrence. However, the WS group had a similar DFS and OS compared with the RS group and the local excision group. Hence, we speculated that the WS group would have similar results as the surgery group for patients with cCR status.

Organ preservation with chemoradiotherapy plus local excision for rectal cancer: 5-year results of the GRECCAR 2 randomised trial

GRECCAR 2 was the first multicentre, randomised trial to compare local excision with total mesorectal excision in downstaged low rectal cancer. Encouraging oncological results were noted at 3 years' follow-up but needed to be corroborated with longer follow-up. In this study, we aimed to report the 5-year oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, metastatic disease, and survival. Patients age 18 years and older with T2T3 low rectal cancer, of maximum size 4 cm, who were clinically good responders after chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision. Randomisation was centralised and not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was performed if pathological tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary objective of this study was to assess the 5-year oncological outcomes of local recurrence, metastatic disease, disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific mortality, which were the secondary endpoints of GRECCAR 2. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox modelling to estimate and compare recurrence and survival in modified intention-to-treat and as-treated populations. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. Between March 1, 2007, and Sept 24, 2012, 148 patients who were good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three patients were excluded after randomisation (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, or withdrew consent), leaving 145 for analysis: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 58-60) in the local excision group and 60 months (57-60) in the total mesorectal excision group. 23 patients died and five were lost to follow-up. In the local excision group, 26 had a completion total mesorectal excision for ypT2-3 tumour. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between the local excision and total mesorectal excision groups in 5-year local recurrence (7% [95% CI 3-16] vs 7% [3-16]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·19-2·58]; p=0·60), metastatic disease (18% [CI 11-30] vs 19% [11-31]; 0·86 [0·36-2·06]; p=0·73), overall survival (84% [73-91] vs 82% [71-90]; 0·92 [0·38-2·22]; p=0·85), disease-free survival (70% [58-79] vs 72% [60-82]; 0·87 [0·44-1·72]; p=0·68), or cancer-specific mortality (7% [3-17] vs 10% [5-20]; 0·65 [0·17-2·49]; p=0·53). The 5-year results of this multicentre randomised trial corroborate the 3-year results, providing no evidence of difference in oncological outcomes between local excision and total mesorectal excision. Local excision can be proposed in selected patients having a small T2T3 low rectal cancer with a good clinical response after chemoradiotherapy. National Cancer Institute of France.

Salvage Surgery after Local Excision of Rectal Cancer by Transanal Endoscopic Surgery Can Be Successfully Performed

Background: Benign lesions as well as early stage rectal cancer can be treated adequately by local excision like a transanalendoscopic microsurgery (TEM) procedure. If the lesion appears >pT1 rectal cancer after resection with TEM, a complete total mesorectalexcision (TME ) is recommended, however, some patients are not willing to undergo further surgery if the lesion is radically removed and opt for an intensive follow-up instead.

Local excision followed by early radical surgery in rectal cancer: long-term outcome

BackgroundIn rectal cancers, radical surgery should follow local excisions, in cases of unexpected, unfavorable tumor characteristics. The oncological results of this completion surgery are inconsistent.This retrospective cohort study assessed the clinical and long-term oncological outcomes of patients that underwent completion surgery to clarify whether a local excision compromised the results of radical surgery.MethodsForty-six patients were included, and the reasons for completion surgery, intraoperative complications, residual tumors, local recurrences (LRs), distant metastases, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed. The results were compared to 583 patients that underwent primary surgery without adjuvant therapy, treated with a curative intention during the same time period.ResultsThe median follow-up was 14.6 years. The reasons for undergoing completion surgery were positive resection margins (24%), high-risk cancer (30%), or both (46%). Intraoperative perforations occurred in 10/46 (22%) cases. Residual tumor in the rectal wall or lymph node involvement occurred in 12/46 (26%) cases. The risk of intraoperative perforation and residual tumor increased with the pT category. Intraoperative perforations did not increase postoperative complications, but they increased the risk of LRs in cases of intramural residual tumors (p = 0.003). LRs occurred in 2.6% of pT1/2 and 29% of pT3 tumors. Both the 5- and 10-year CSS rates were 88.8% (95% CI 80.0–98.6). Moreover, the LRs of patients with pT1/2 cancers were lower in patients with completion surgery than in patients with primary surgery.ConclusionsRectal wall perforations at the local excision site and residual cancer were the main risks for poor oncological outcomes associated with completion surgery. Local excisions followed by early radical surgery did not appear to compromise outcomes compared to patients with primary surgery for pT1/2 rectal cancer. Improvements in clinical staging should allow more appropriate selection of patients that are eligible for a local excision of rectal cancer.

THE RESULTS OF 600 TRANSANAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERIES OF RECTAL ADENOMAS AND ADENOCARCINOMAS

AIM: transanal endomicrosurgery (TEM) is the method of choice for local excision of rectal cancer. The presented series of patients is collected prospectively and is the largest of the published in the Russian medical periodicals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: six-hundred patients [average age ±σ 59.8±9 (31-90) years old; 375/600 (62.5%) – women]with rectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas, who underwent TEM in 2011-2019. RESULTS: the mean size of the removed tumors was 3.4±1.5 cm (0.5-10.0). R0 resection was performed in 571/600 (95.2%) of the cases. The complication rate was 3.6% (22/600). Pathomorphological study of the removed specimens revealed adenoma in 450/600 (75.0%) patients, adenocarcinoma in 150/600 (25.0%) cases. The mean time of observation of patients with adenomas was 38.4±25.1 months, with adenocarcinomas – 33.4±23.8 months. The rate of local recurrence in adenomas was 4.5%. Loco-regional recurrence of adenocarcinoma pT1 after TEM was revealed in 6.8% of patients and 30% of pT2 patients without adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: TEM is an effective and safe method of treatment of rectal adenomas. With rectal cancer, a thorough selection of patients is required.

Individual participant data pooled-analysis of risk factors for recurrence after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and transanal local excision of rectal cancer: the PARTTLE study.

An organ-preserving strategy may be a valid alternative in the treatment of selected patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Preoperative assessment of the risk for tumor recurrence is a key component of surgical planning. The aim of the present study was to increase the current knowledge on the risk factors for tumor recurrence. The present study included individual participant data of published studies on rectal cancer surgery. The literature was reviewed according to according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data checklist (PRISMA-IPD) guidelines. Series of patients, whose data were collected prospectively, having neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by transanal local excision for rectal cancer were reviewed. Three independent series of univariate/multivariate binary logistic regression models were estimated for the risk of local, systemic and overall recurrence, respectively. We identified 15 studies, and 7 centers provided individual data on 517 patients. The multivariate analysis showed higher local and overall recurrences for ypT3 stage (OR 4.79; 95% CI 2.25-10.16 and OR 6.43 95% CI 3.33-12.42), tumor size after radiotherapy > 10mm (OR 5.86 95% CI 2.33-14.74 and OR 3.14 95% CI 1.68-5.87), and lack of combined chemotherapy (OR 3.68 95% CI 1.78-7.62 and OR 2.09 95% CI 1.10-3.97), while ypT3 was the only factor correlated with systemic recurrence (OR 5.93). The analysis of survival curves shows that the overall survival is associated with ypT and not with cT. Local excision should be offered with caution after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to selected patients with rectal cancers, who achieved a good response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer

Background: Local excision is now accepted as a standard treatment option for certain patients with early rectal cancer. However, there is a higher risk of local recurrence than after radical surgery with total mesorectal excision. Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision may reduce this excess risk, and yet retain the benefits of local excision, with rectal preservation.Methods: A review of the literature pertaining to the use of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer and a discussion of current practice.Results: We first considered local excision as a treatment option for early rectal cancer, looking at technical developments and the risks and benefits of organ preservation, in particular, the advantages for quality of life and the risk of leaving residual disease which may result in local recurrence. We then looked at reported outcomes for studies using adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision. Few of the studies routinely used modern endoscopic methods of local excision and only the recent used chemoradiation. Local recurrence rates after adjuvant radiotherapy have improved over time, with rates of around 3.5% in the recent studies. Adverse effects of adjuvant radiotherapy are not commonly described, but generally, they are relatively mild when described. We then discussed current practice regarding adjuvant radiotherapy, including pathological criteria, discussion of local recurrence risk with the patient and the importance of a surveillance regime to detect any recurrence at an early stage.Conclusion: We conclude that the current state of knowledge regarding adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision suggests a potential role in decreasing the risk of local recurrence but further studies are required to better define this effect, clarify which patients will gain the most benefit from this pathway, and identify those who should avoid exposure to the risks of radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer may offer reduced local recurrence rates.

Early rectal cancer can be managed effectively with local excision, which is now the standard of care for many T1 lesions. However, the presence of unexpected adverse histopathological factors may indicate an increased risk of local recurrence, prompting consideration of completion radical surgery. Many patients are unfit or prefer to avoid radical surgery, relying instead on surveillance and early detection of recurrent disease. Recently, radiotherapy has shown promise as an adjuvant therapy in this group. This study assesses local recurrence rates after local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy at a single centre. This was a retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in a single institution. Data covering a 10-year period were analysed. Of 197 patients undergoing TEM for rectal cancer, 33 (17%) had adjuvant radiotherapy because of adverse histopathological features. At 3.2years' median follow-up, there were three instances of local recurrence (9.1%). Estimated local recurrence at 1 and 3years was 0% and 6.9%, compared to 16.8% and 21.2% in a propensity-score-matched group who were followed by surveillance alone. Local recurrence was diagnosed at a median of 23months post-TEM in the radiotherapy group, compared to 8months in the matched group. Radiotherapy after TEM is associated with a trend towards a reduced rate of local recurrence, even for high-risk disease. Radiotherapy would appear to offer a viable alternative to radical completion surgery in the presence of unforeseen adverse histopathological features, as long as a meticulous surveillance programme is in place.

Short-term outcomes of transanal completion total mesorectal excision (cTaTME) for rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis

BackgroundLocal excision of early rectal tumors as a rectal preserving treatment is gaining popularity, especially since bowel cancer screening programs result in a shift towards the diagnosis of early stage rectal cancers. However, unfavorable histological features predicting high risk for recurrence within the “big biopsy” may mandate completion total mesorectal excision (cTME). Completion surgery is associated with higher morbidity, poorer specimen quality, and less favorable oncological outcomes compared to primary TME. Transanal approach potentially improves outcome of completion surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare radical completion surgery after local excision for rectal cancer by the transanal approach (cTaTME) with conventional abdominal approach (cTME).MethodsAll consecutive patients who underwent cTaTME for rectal cancer between 2012 and 2017 were case-matched with cTME patients, according to gender, tumor height, preoperative radiotherapy, and tumor stage. Surgical, pathological, and short-term postoperative outcomes were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 25 patients underwent completion TaTME and were matched with 25 patients after cTME. Median time from local excision to completion surgery was 9 weeks in both groups. In the cTaTME and cTME groups, perforation of the rectum occurred in 4 and 28% of patients, respectively (p = 0.049), leading to poor specimen quality in these patients. Number of harvested lymph nodes was higher after cTaTME (median 15; range 7–47) than after cTME (median 10; range 0–17). No significant difference was found in end colostomy rate between the two groups. Major 30-day morbidity (Clavien–Dindo≥ III) was 20 and 32%, respectively (p = 0.321). Hospital stay was significantly longer after cTME.ConclusionTaTME after full-thickness excision is a promising technique with a significantly lower risk of perforation of the rectum and better specimen quality compared to conventional completion TME.

Evaluation of a Completion Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients After Local Excision of Rectal Cancer: A Word of Caution.

Background: According to Dutch guidelines, locally excised, low-risk, pT1 or ypT0-1 rectal cancer should not necessarily be followed by completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) in contrast to rectal cancers with higher T stages or unfavorable features. This study evaluated cTME after local excision at a national level with possible determinants for decision-making. Methods: All patients in the Dutch Colorectal Audit (DCRA) who underwent local excision of rectal cancer between 2012 and 2015 were included. Guideline adherence for performing cTME was determined with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors related to noncompliance. Results: According to the guidelines, of 530 included patients, cTME was indicated in 283 (53%), and among those, was performed in 82 (29%). Guideline adherence for performing cTME improved significantly (P<.001), from 10% in 2012 to 44% in 2015. Lower Charlson comorbidity index in patients with high-risk pT1 rectal cancer and younger patients (aged 61-70 years vs ≥80 years) with pT≥2 rectal cancer were associated with increased performance of cTME (odds ratio [OR], 13.50; 95% CI, 1.39-131.32, and OR, 6.25; 95% CI, 1.83-21.31, respectively). Conclusions: In this population-based study from the Netherlands, only a minority of patients underwent cTME after local excision of rectal cancer with pathologic features indicating the need for further treatment according to the guidelines. Although the percentage of patients undergoing cTME increased over time, the study indicated a tendency toward rectal-preserving treatment with potential oncologic risks.

Preoperative radiotherapy and local excision of rectal cancer: Long-term results of a randomised study

Background and purposeIt is uncertain whether local control is acceptable after preoperative radiotherapy and local excision (LE). An optimal preoperative dose/fractionation schedule has not yet been established. Material and methodsIn a phase III study, patients with cT1-2N0M0 or borderline cT2/T3N0M0 < 4 cm rectal adenocarcinomas were randomised to receive either 5 × 5 Gy plus 1 × 4 Gy boost or chemoradiation: 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions plus 3 × 1.8 Gy boost and 5-fluorouracil with leucovorin bolus. LE was performed 6–8 weeks later. Patients with ypT0–1R0 disease were observed. Completion total mesorectal excision (CTME) was recommended for poor responders, i.e. ypT1R1/ypT2-3. ResultsOf 61 randomised patients, 10 were excluded leaving 51 for analysis; 29 in the short-course group and 22 in the chemoradiation group. YpT0–1R0 was observed in 66% of patients in the short-course group and in 86% in the chemoradiation group, p = 0.11. CTME was performed only in 46% of patients with ypT1R1/ypT2-3. The median follow-up was 8.7 years. Local recurrence incidences and overall survival at 10 years were respectively for the short-course group vs. the chemoradiation group 35% vs. 5%, p = 0.036 and 47% vs. 86%, p = 0.009. In total, local recurrence at 10 years was 79% for ypT1R1/T2-3 without CTME. ConclusionsThis trial suggests that in the LE setting, both local recurrence and survival are worse after short-course radiotherapy than after chemoradiation. Because of the risk of bias, a confirmatory study is desirable. Lack of CTME is associated with an unacceptably high local recurrence rate.

Local excision for rectal cancer: a minimally invasive option.

Transanal excision (TAE) with conventional retractors and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are two well established minimally invasive surgical options for the treatment of selected rectal cancers. TEM is nowadays considered the standard of care for the transanal excision of rectal tumors, since it is associated with significantly better quality of excision and lower rates of recurrence than TAE. When compared with rectal resection and total mesorectal excision, TEM has lower postoperative morbidity and better functional outcomes, with similar long-term survival rates in selected early rectal cancers. More recently, transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has been developed as an alternative to TEM. Possible benefits of TAMIS are under evaluation.

PO-0795: Preoperative radiotherapy and local excision of rectal cancer: Results of a prospective study

PO-0795: Preoperative radiotherapy and local excision of rectal cancer: Results of a prospective study

Local Excision Techniques for Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: What Are We Doing?

Recent evidence shows that the majority of rectal cancers demonstrate occult tumor scatter after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy that can extend for several centimeters under adjacent normal-appearing mucosa beside the residual mucosal abnormality or scar. This systematic review aimed to determine all of the published selection criteria and technical descriptions for local excision to date with regard to this phenomenon. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched using the following key words: rectal cancer, local excision, radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant. Studies that assessed local excision of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. Duplicate series were excluded from final analysis. All of the data points were tabulated and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Criteria for patient selection, surgical technique, clinical restaging, pathologic assessment, and indications for completion surgery were analyzed. After exclusions, data from 25 studies that in total evaluated local excision in 1001 patients were included. Compared with the single accepted technique of total mesorectal excision, described techniques for local excision after neoadjuvant therapy demonstrate significant variability in many critical technical issues, such as marking/tattooing original tumor margins before neoadjuvant therapy, using pretreatment tumor size/stage as exclusion criteria, and specifically stating lateral excision margins. Where detailed, the majority of local recurrences occurred in patients with clear pathological margins, yet significant variation existed for pathological assessment and reporting, with few studies detailing R status and some not reporting margin status at all. Significant variability also existed for adverse tumor features that mandated completion surgery, and, importantly, many series describe patients refusing completion surgery where indicated. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because studies lacked sufficient methodologic homogeneity to synthesize. The observations from this study prompt additional study, standardization of technique, and cautious use of local excision of rectal cancer in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Local excision of early rectal cancers by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)

Background Local excision of rectal cancers by Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) has become accepted as a valid treatment modality for T1 rectal carcinomas. Its singular use in carcinomas of stage T2 and above remains controversial due to higher rates of local recurrence. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the efficacy of TEM combined with radiotherapy as an alternative to radical rectal resection in T2 rectal carcinomas. Methods The records of twelve patients who underwent TEM for T2 rectal carcinoma at the Royal Preston Hospital were reviewed. Their treatments and outcomes were recorded. Results Out of the twelve patients, six received radiotherapy and six did not because they either elected for subsequent radical surgery (three patients) or were unfit for further treatment and underwent follow-up (three patients). Median follow-up was 20 months. In the no-radiotherapy group, one patient who underwent subsequent radical surgery had involved mesorectal lymph nodes, and one patient undergoing follow-up without radical surgery developed mesorectal nodal recurrence. In the radiotherapy group, all six patients underwent follow-up with no recurrences to date. There was no 90-day surgical mortality. Conclusion Whilst the numbers in the study were not sufficient for valid statistical comparison, the lack of tumour recurrences in the group receiving radiotherapy does support the use of TEM with radiotherapy as a promising alternative treatment modality for stage T2 rectal carcinoma, particularly in patients who are at high risk for radical surgery, have a near complete response to pre-op radiotherapy or are keen to avoid a permanent stoma.