Treatment Of Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery for early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis (in China).

Despite the global increase in the adoption of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (R-NOSES), its advantages over robotic transabdominal specimen extraction surgery (R-TSES) for treating early-stage rectal cancer remain debated. There is scant nationwide, multicenter studies comparing the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES for this condition. This retrospective cohort study was conducted nationally across multiple centers to compare the surgical quality and short-term outcomes between R-NOSES and R-TSES in early-stage rectal cancer. Multicenter retrospective cohort trial. Eight experienced surgeons from 8 high-volume Chinese colorectal cancer treatment centers. The study included 1086 patients who underwent R-NOSES or R-TSES from October 2015 to November 2023 at the 8 centers. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma; (2) robotic total mesorectal excision; (3) postoperative pathological staging of TisN0M0 or T1-2N0M0; (4) availability of complete surgical and postoperative follow-up data. Patients were matched 1:1 in the R-NOSES and R-TSES groups using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. After PSM, 318 matched pairs with well-balanced patient characteristics were identified. The operation time for the R-NOSES group was significantly longer than that for the R-TSES group [140min (125-170min) vs. 140min (120-160min), P = 0.032]. Conversely, the times to first flatus and initial oral intake in the R-NOSES group were significantly shorter than those in the R-TSES group [48h (41-56h) vs. 48h (44-62h), P = 0.049 and 77h (72-94h) vs. 82h (72-96h), P = 0.008], respectively. Additionally, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the R-NOSES group compared with the R-TSES group [7 day (7-9 day) vs. 8 day (7-9 day), P = 0.005]. The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.7% in the R-NOSES group vs. 11.9% in the R-TSES group, P = 0.617). However, the R-NOSES group had a lower incidence of wound complications compared to the R-TSES group (0.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.015). Regarding surgical stress response, the R-NOSES group showed superior outcomes. Additionally, patients in the R-NOSES group required fewer additional analgesics on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5 and reported lower pain scores compared to the R-TSES group. The body image scale (BIS) and cosmetic scale (CS) scores were also significantly higher in the R-NOSES group. Furthermore, the R-NOSES group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in functional dimensions such as physical, role, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, and in symptoms like fatigue and pain, when compared to the R-TSES group. It is imperative to ensure the safe and standardized implementation of R-NOSES through the establishment of a uniform training protocol. These results affirm that R-NOSES is a safe and effective treatment for early-stage rectal cancer when meticulously executed by skilled surgeons.

Low Anterior Resection Syndrome following Restorative Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: Can the Surgeon Have Any Meaningful Impact?

Postoperative bowel dysfunction following restorative proctectomy, commonly referred to as Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), is a common long term sequela of rectal cancer treatment. While many of the established risk factors for LARS are non-modifiable, others may be well within the surgeon's control. Several pre-, intra-, and postoperative decisions may have a significant impact on postoperative bowel function. Some of these factors include the extent of surgical resection, surgical approach, choice of anastomotic reconstruction, and use of fecal diversion. This review article summarizes the available evidence regarding how surgical decision-making can affect postoperative bowel function.

The contribution of household income to rectal cancer patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes from 2010 to 2020

BackgroundThere is a paucity of recent literature investigating the sole effect of income level on the treatment and survival of patients with rectal cancer. MethodsWe analyzed all cases of rectal cancer in the Rectal Cancer PUF of the NCDB from 2010 to 2020. We utilized the Median Income Quartiles 2016–2020 to define our income levels. The two lower quartiles were combined to create a lower income group, with the upper two quartiles creating the higher income group. The total cohort included 201,329 patients, with 116,843 and 84,486 in the higher and lower income groups, respectively. ResultsLower income patients were more often black (17 % vs 6 %), lived farther from the nearest hospital (33.5 miles vs 25.7 miles) despite being more likely to live in urban areas (25 % vs 7 %), and had lower levels of private insurance (36 % vs 49 %). They underwent more APRs (17 % vs 14 %) and had a 13 % higher chance of undergoing an open operation (OR 1.13, CI 1.09–1.17). Higher income patients had a 12 % reduction in 90-day (OR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.82–0.96) and overall mortality (OR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.86–0.89). ConclusionsClinicians should be aware that lower income patients are often faced with unique challenges that may impact care delivery.

Functional outcomes and quality of life following open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients’ functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.ResultsNineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] –0 .15 [− 0.24 to − 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Mild hyperthermia with magnetic resonance- guided high intensity focused ultrasound combined with salvage chemoradiation for recurrent rectal cancer

Introduction Pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer present a challenging clinical scenario. Hyperthermia represents an innovative treatment option in combination with concurrent chemoradiation to enhance therapeutic effect. We provide the initial results of a prospective single center feasibility study (NCT02528175) for patients undergoing rectal cancer retreatment using concurrent chemoradiation and mild hyperthermia with MR-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU). Methods All patients were deemed ineligible for salvage surgery and were evaluated in a multidisciplinary fashion with a surgical oncologist, radiation oncologist and medical oncologist. Radiation was delivered to a dose of 30.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction with concurrent capecitabine. MR-HIFU was delivered on days 1, 8 and 15 of concurrent chemoradiation. Our primary objective was feasibility and toxicity. Results Six patients (total 11 screened) were treated with concurrent chemoradiation and mild hyperthermia with MR-HIFU. Tumor size varied between 3.1-16.6 cm. Patients spent an average of 228 min in the MRI suite and sonication with the external transducer lasted an average of 35 min. There were no complications on the day of the MR-HIFU procedure and all acute toxicities (no grade >/=3 toxicities) resolved after completion of treatment. There were no late grade >/=3 toxicities. Conclusion Mild hyperthermia with MR-HIFU, in combination with concurrent chemoradiation for appropriately selected patients, is safe for localized pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer. The potential for MR-HIFU to be applied in the recurrent setting in rectal cancer treatment requires further technical development and prospective evaluation.

Exploring patients' needs and expectations for information on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: A qualitative study.

Sexual dysfunction is an important, and often overlooked, sequela of rectal cancer treatment with significant implications for patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to explore patients' information needs regarding sexual health after rectal cancer treatment and their experiences accessing information on sexual dysfunction throughout the cancer care continuum. The secondary aim was to explore surgeons' perspectives on patients' information needs and gain insight into their experiences providing information on sexual health following rectal cancer surgery. A qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews with 10 rectal cancer survivors and six colorectal surgeons from a Canadian tertiary care institution. Transcribed interviews were coded independently by two researchers and thematic analysis was performed. Analysis of patient interviews revealed that patients had limited knowledge of sexual dysfunction symptoms following rectal cancer treatment and received inadequate information on sexual dysfunction from their treating medical team. Patients expressed the desire to receive information on sexual dysfunction in different formats, especially before the start of treatment. The surgeon interviews revealed that colorectal surgeons faced challenges when informing patients about sexual dysfunction. Surgeons did not routinely provide information on sexual dysfunction to all patients; however, they felt that patients should receive high-quality information on sexual dysfunction, both before and after treatment. Patients' information needs related to sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment were inadequately met. High-quality informational resources are needed to facilitate communication between patients and physicians and improve patients' understanding of sexual dysfunction.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with Rectal Cancer.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions have resulted in delayed diagnoses across various tumor entities, including rectal cancer. Our hypothesis was based on the expectation of a reduced number of primary operations due to higher tumor stages compared to the control group. Methods: In a single-center retrospective study conducted from 1 March 2018 to 1 March 2022, we analyzed 120 patients with an initial diagnosis of rectal cancer. Among them, 65 patients were part of the control group (pre-COVID-19), while 55 patients were included in the study group (during the COVID-19 pandemic). We compared tumor stages, treatment methods, and complications, presenting data as absolute numbers or mean values. Results: Fewer primary tumor resections during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.010), as well as a significantly lower overall number of tumor resections (p = 0.025) were seen compared to the control group. Twenty percent of patients in the COVID-19 group received their diagnosis during lockdown periods. These patients presented significantly higher tumor stages (T4b: 27.3% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.025) compared to the control group prior to the pandemic. In addition, more patients with angiolymphatic invasion (ALI) were identified in the COVID-19 group following neoadjuvant treatment compared to the control group (p = 0.027). No differences were noted between the groups regarding complications, stoma placement, or conversion rates. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during lockdown, appears to have contributed to delayed diagnoses, resulting in higher tumor stages and a decreased number of surgeries. The quality of rectal cancer treatment can be maintained under pandemic conditions.

Comparison of outcomes of abdominoperineal resection vs low anterior resection in very-low rectal cancer

BackgroundThe management of very-low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by general and colorectal surgeons. Many feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal resection (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR) to optimize oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to determine differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. MethodsThe United States Rectal Cancer Consortium (2010–2016) was queried for adults who underwent either APR or LAR for stage I-III rectal cancers < 5 cm from anorectal junction and met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, length of stay, complications, recurrence location, and perioperative factors. ResultsA total of 431 patients with very-low rectal cancer who underwent APR or LAR were identified; 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. The median follow-up was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for demographics and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease-free survival between operative types (APR-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53–1.52, P = .70). Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including overall survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71–2.32, P = .39), complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.94–2.50, P = .12), or length of stay (estimate: 0.04, SE = 0.25, P = .54). ConclusionWe observed no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very-low rectal cancer. This analysis supports the treatment of very-low rectal cancer, without sphincter involvement, by either APR or LAR.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Surgery for Rectal Cancer in a Modern, Nationwide Population-Based Cohort

BackgroundThe success of modern multimodal treatment in rectal cancer is dependent on risk prediction. Better knowledge of the risk of locoregional and distant recurrence, in relation to preoperative treatment, pathological stage, and commonly used risk factors, is needed when deciding on adjuvant therapy and surveillance.MethodsThe Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2018. Readily available variables, including patient, tumor, and treatment factors were exposures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify important risk factors for recurrence and calculate recurrence risks.ResultsA total of 9428 curatively resected patients were included and followed for a median of 72 months. Eighteen percent had distal recurrence and 3% had locoregional recurrence at 5 years. Risk factors with major impact on distal recurrence were pT4a (hazard ratio [HR] 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3–8.0), pN2b (HR 3.4, 95% CI 2.7–4.2), tumor deposit (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5–1.9), lymph node yield (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.8), and tumor level 0–5 cm (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.8). Pathologic stage and number of risk factors identified groups with markedly different recurrence risks in all neoadjuvant treatment groups.ConclusionsReadily available risk factors, as a complement to stage, are still valid and robust in all neoadjuvant treatment groups. Tumor deposit is important, while circumferential resection margin might no longer be important with improved oncological treatments and high-quality TME surgery. Tailored surveillance is possible in selected groups using risk stratification based on stage and risk factors.

Feasibility of endoscopic techniques in assessing the radicality of chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

Introduction. The standard of treatment of rectal cancer is a combined or complex technique in the form of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery or observation, with proven radicalization of CRT. Currently, the most adequate methods of evaluating the results of CRT are endoscopic diagnostics. The most reliable visual criteria for endoscopic examination of absence or presence of residual tumor are: complete response (flat white scar, telangiectasia), partially complete response (uneven mucosa, small nodules on mucosa, superficial ulceration, slight persistent erythema of scar) and incomplete response (visible tumor).Aim. The study is to assess sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic method in assessment of radicality of neoadjuvant CRT in patients with rectal cancer.Materials and methods. A retrospective study of 75 patients with verified rectal cancer after CRT was carried out. Inclusion criteria: histologically verified rectal cancer (adenocarcinoma); endoscopic picture of clinical response of rectal cancer to CRT; absence of established distant metastases at the moment of examination. Exclusion criteria: morphological types of tumors other than adenocarcinoma of the colorectal type; patients with primary-multiple diseases.Results. A retrospective study was conducted in 75 patients with a verified diagnosis of rectal cancer who underwent CRT at the first stage of treatment. All patients underwent endoscopic examination with evaluation of the degree of tumor regression, taking material for cytological and histological examination. In 57 (76,4 %) out of 75 patients on the basis of visual endoscopic picture the absence of residual tumor was stated, in 18 patients visual endoscopic signs were considered as presence of residual tumor. The results of morphological study in the first group of patients confirmed the absence of tumor in 51 cases (92.7 %). In the second group, in the presence of visual signs of residual tumor, morphological confirmation was obtained in 14 out of 18 patients (77.8 %). Morphological verification of residual tumor was obtained in 26.6 % of patients in the total group.Conclusion. Endoscopic and histologic data can be decisive in the evaluation of the degree of radicality of neoadjuvant CRT.

Impact of lymph node retrieval on prognosis in elderly and non-elderly patients with T3-4/N+ rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: a retrospective cohort study

PurposeThe optimal number of lymph nodes to be resected in patients with rectal cancer who undergo radical surgery after neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial. This study evaluated the prognostic variances between elderly and non-elderly patients and determined the ideal number of lymph nodes to be removed in these patients.MethodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) datasets were used to gather information on 7894 patients diagnosed with stage T3-4/N+ rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy from 2010 to 2019. Of these patients, 2787 were elderly and 5107 were non-elderly. A total of 152 patients from the Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University were used for external validation. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated to determine the optimal quantity of lymph nodes for surgical resection.ResultsThe study found significant differences in OS and CSS between elderly and non-elderly patients, both before and after adjustment for confounders (P < 0.001). The removal of 14 lymph nodes may be considered a benchmark for patients with stage T3-4/N+ rectal cancer who undergo radical surgery following neoadjuvant therapy, as this number provides a more accurate foundation for the personalized treatment of rectal cancer. External data validated the differences in OS and CSS and supported the 14 lymph nodes as a new benchmark in these patients.ConclusionFor patients with T3-4/N+ stage rectal cancer who undergo radical surgery following neoadjuvant therapy, the removal of 14 lymph nodes serves as a cutoff point that distinctly separates patients with a favorable prognosis from those with an unfavorable one.

Tailoring rectal cancer surgery: Surgical approaches and anatomical insights during deep pelvic dissection for optimal outcomes in low-lying rectal cancer.

This review article explores advanced surgical approaches and anatomical insights for tailoring rectal cancer surgery, particularly focusing on low-lying rectal cancer. With the evolution of imaging technologies, precise preoperative planning has become possible, enhancing the visualization of anatomy surrounding the rectum and enabling more accurate assessments of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The article emphasizes the dynamic nature of rectal cancer treatment, advocating for individualized surgical planning based on comprehensive preoperative imaging and intraoperative assessment. This approach aims to optimize patient care by integrating recent advancements and anatomical insights into clinical practice for the management of low-lying rectal cancer. Particularly, the article discusses the importance of customizing the excision of Denonvilliers' fascia (DVF) based on tumor characteristics for optimal oncologic and functional outcomes, especially for anteriorly located tumors. It highlights the need for precise dissection techniques to ensure a negative CRM while preserving critical anatomical structures. Additionally, the review addresses the surgical management of tumors at the anorectal ring and introduces the Gate Approach for deep anterolateral pelvic dissection. Special attention is given to tumors impacting the membranous and prostate urethra, emphasizing tailored surgical approaches to balance complete tumor resection with the preservation of urogenital functions.

Three-year disease-free survival after transanal vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer (TaLaR): A randomized clinical trial.

3516 Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has gained significant traction as an effective approach for treating rectal cancer. Many previous studies reported positive relevant short-term results, histopathological results and associated complications of taTME compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME). Nonetheless, long-term oncological outcomes of taTME remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the 3-year DFS of taTME with laTME. Methods: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial to compare the survival outcomes of taTME versus laTME in patients with rectal cancer located below the peritoneal reflection. This trial encompassed 16 hospitals across 10 provinces in China, with a total enrollment of 1,115 patients. We set the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoints for analysis. The analysis of the 3-year DFS was conducted following a predefined modified intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02966483. Results: The taTME group exhibited a 3-year DFS rate of 83.42%, and the laTME group achieved a 3-year DFS rate of 82.86%. The marginal difference of 0.56% between the DFS rates of the two groups (97.5% CI, −4.83 to 5.95, P &lt; 0.0001 for noninferiority) suggests comparable outcomes. Moreover, the rates of local recurrence were 3.90% in the taTME group and 3.62% in the laTME group, indicating similar degrees of localized tumor control. Regarding overall survival, the taTME group demonstrated a rate of 94.50% compared to 92.01% in the laTME group. In the taTME group, patients who are male or underwent neoadjuvant showed a higher 3-year OS than that in the laTME group. Conclusions: In patients with mid-low rectal cancer, the 3-year DFS of taTME is not inferior to that of laTME. This study provides evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of taTME in the treatment of rectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02966483 .

Contact x-ray brachytherapy for the treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

e15628 Background: Rectal cancer is a highly prevalent disease, particularly among the elderly and frail populations. While surgical resection has traditionally been the primary management approach, it carries inherent risks, including operative mortality, morbidity, and poor long-term functional outcomes. These risks are particularly pronounced in older, co-morbid individuals. Evidence presented in the 2023 phase III OPERA randomised trial suggests that Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (CXB) is a viable organ-preserving alternative to radical surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical effectiveness of CXB in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods: This systematic review was prospectively registered (CRD42021284969) and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane CENTRAL Libraries were interrogated using the search terms “Rectal cancer”, “Contact Brachytherapy”, and synonym terms. Literature search and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers, with recourse to a senior author for resolution of conflicts. Clinical complete response (cCR) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include local regrowth, regional recurrence, salvage surgery rates, long-term disease control post-salvage surgery and survival outcomes. Proportional meta-analyses were conducted and presented as forest plots with summary proportions and 95% confidence intervals. The Higgins I2 statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. The random effects model was employed in studies reporting substantial heterogeneity (I2&gt; 50%). Results: The literature search identified 973 studies, of which 48 studies encompassing 5,447 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of outcomes were as follows: cCR rate = 80% (95% CI 76-88%), local regrowth = 15% (95% CI 12-18%), regional failure rate = 3% (95% CI 2-4%), salvage surgery rate = 14% (95% CI 11-18%), long-term disease control post-salvage surgery rate = 88% (95% CI 78-96%) and organ preservation 82% (95% CI 75-88%). A subgroup analysis was conducted and stratified by concomitant therapy (CXB alone, CXB &amp; EBRT, CXB &amp; EBCRT). CXB, in conjunction with EBCRT, leads to a statistically significant reduction in both local regrowth and regional failure. The local regrowth rates were 16% (95% CI 11-21%), 17% (95% CI 11-23%), and 10% (95% CI 8-13%) respectively, with a p-value of 0.05. The regional failure rates were 4% (95% CI 2-8%), 4% (95% CI 2-5%), and 1% (95% CI 0-2%), p = 0.02. Conclusions: CXB, combined with EBCRT, in the appropriately selected patient can achieve long-term disease control whilst avoiding major surgery. Salvage surgery is a viable option for patients who experience disease regrowth, with excellent long-term disease control. CXB may be considered a safe alternative to surgery in the appropriately selected patient.

Resilience in Rectal Cancer Treatment: Lessons from the COVID-19 Era in Czech Republic.

The management of patients with COVID-19 infection has placed great pressure on the healthcare systems around the world. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment outcomes of patients with rectal cancer by comparing them to those of patients with the same diagnosis in the pre-pandemic period. Retrospective data analysis of patients undergoing multimodal treatment for rectal cancer at the four university hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) and the 2-year pre-pandemic period (2018-2019). A total of 693 patients (319 in the pre-pandemic period and 374 in the pandemic period) with rectal cancer were included in the study. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients in both study periods were comparable, as was the spectrum of surgical procedures. Palliative surgery was more common in the pandemic period (18% vs 13%, p=0.084). The proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic (p=0.025). There were no statistically significant differences between the study periods in the incidence/severity of post-operative complications, 30-day mortality and length of hospital stay. The number of positive resection margins was similar (5% vs 5%). Based on these results, COVID-19 had no effect on the postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer. Neoadjuvant treatment was more common in the pre-pandemic period (50% vs 45%). Long-course RT was predominantly offered in the pre-pandemic period, short-course RT during the pandemic. Significantly shorter "diagnosis-surgery" intervals were observed during the pandemic (23 days vs 33 days, p=0.0002). The "surgery-adjuvant therapy" interval was similar in both analysed study periods (p=0.219). Our study showed, that despite concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, multimodal treatment of rectal cancer was associated with unchanged postoperative morbidity rates, increased frequency of short-course neoadjuvant RT administration and shorter "diagnosis-surgery" intervals.

Laparoscopic-assisted vs open surgery for low rectal cancer: 5-year outcomes of the LASRE randomized clinical trial.

e15630 Background: The long-term efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgery for low rectal cancer has not yet been established. The primary outcome of 3-year disease free survival (DFS) have been published (Chi et al., ASCO GI 2024). Here, we presented the data of 5-year outcomes, including DFS and overall survival (OS) and locoregional recurrence. Methods: This is a multicenter, noninferiority trial. A total of 1070 patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery from November 2013 to June 2018. All analyses were performed on an modified intention-to-treat (mITT) basis. Results: The final analysis included 1039 patients (median age: 57 years, 620 men; 685 and 354 in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively). Clinical TNM stage was II/III in 659 patients, and I in the remaining 380 patients. The 5-year DFS rate was 76.4% in the laparoscopic group versus 75.6% in the open group (log-rank P = 0.766). The 5-year OS rate was 84.6% in the laparoscopic group versus 86.6% in the open group (log-rank P = 0.405). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 5.5% and 3.1%, respectively (log-rank P = 0.079). Conclusions: The findings of the LASRE trial demonstrate that the noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery for low rectal cancer, as evidenced by the 3-year outcomes, is sustained over a 5-year period when conducted by skilled surgeons. These results affirm laparoscopic surgery as a secure and minimally invasive option for the treatment of low rectal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01899547 .

Disease response of neoadjuvant chemoradiation guiding local excision approach in localized rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective data.

e15639 Background: Total Mesorectal Excision (with or without chemoradiation) has been the established standard of care for the treatment of localized rectal cancer. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by Local Excision (LE) has been proven as a safe alternative approach for selected patients. This study aims to review the current evidence of this strategy, guided by the disease response from the nCRT. Methods: database research was performed through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective studies evaluating the use of nCRT followed by LE in localized rectal cancer patients. Our primary outcomes were Local Recurrence Rates (LRR) correlated to patients’ pathological response status. We pooled the proportions of binary outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals. I² analysis was used to assess heterogeneity. We performed statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model. Our analysis was prospectively registered with the number CRD42024499095 (PROSPERO). Results: A pool of 760 citations was initially screened, and 5 prospective trials assessing nCRT following LE in at least one of the arms were selected with a pooled analysis of 438 patients (including CRT-LE single arm, or randomization with CRT followed by total mesorectal excision and short course radiation alone). Neoadjuvant treatment was performed with a radiation dose ranging between 45 - 54Gy and concomitant fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or Capecitabine) isolated or in combination with Oxaliplatin. The extracted data was subgrouped into favorable responders (FR) (complete or near-complete pathological response) or unfavorable responders (UR). Looking specifically at the nCRT+LE arm, 284 patients were identified, from which 168 were classified as FR (59.1%). The pooled LRR was 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.06; I² = 27%) for this group. A total of 116 patients were classified as UR, with a polled LRR of 0.09 (95% CI 0.05-0.16; I² = 0%). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrate that nCRT + LE is a safe strategy, with data from 5 prospective trials demonstrating very low local recurrence rate, especially in the group of patients who achieved a good response to the neoadjuvant approach. Treatment intensification protocols aiming to achieve a higher response rate can potentially reduce the local recurrence in those patients.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI plus lateral lymph nodes dissection for the treatment of resectable rectal cancer with lateral lymph node metastasis: A single-arm, investigator-initiated, phase II trial.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI plus lateral lymph nodes dissection for the treatment of resectable rectal cancer with lateral lymph node metastasis: A single-arm, investigator-initiated, phase II trial.

MIRACLE1: Phase II study of radiotherapy followed by CapeOx and tirelizumab as first-line treatment in MSS rectal cancer with synchronous resectable liver/lung metastases.

MIRACLE1: Phase II study of radiotherapy followed by CapeOx and tirelizumab as first-line treatment in MSS rectal cancer with synchronous resectable liver/lung metastases.

The impact of treatment approach on survival among patients with clinical stage T2N0 and T3N0 rectal cancer.

e15637 Background: Treatment of early stage rectal cancer requires a multi-disciplinary approach and is often treated with curative intent surgery with use of total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in select cases pre-operatively. In this study, we determine the various clinicopathologic factors associated with the use of these different approaches (Surgery upfront vs nCRT vs TNT) and their effect on patient survival. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with clinical T2N0M0 and T3N0M0 rectal cancer between 2004-2019. Results: 36,869 patients were identified, of which about half had nCRT only while &lt; 15% had received TNT. Patients who underwent nCRT had the highest median OS compared to those who underwent surgery only (106.8 vs 126.5 months, p &lt; 0.001). The surgery upfront cohort had the highest proportion of patients who were seen at a facility with high/very high case volume per year quartiles (surgery: 52.5%, nCRT: 47.3%, and TNT: 48.3%, p &lt; 0.001). The highest median age was among the surgery cohort at 69 years followed by the nCRT cohort at 64 years and TNT cohort at 61 years (p &lt; 0.001). Amongst patients with a Charlson-Deyo co-morbidity score of 2 or more, the surgery upfront cohort had the highest proportion while the TNT cohort had the lowest (p &lt; 0.001). Low anterior resection (LAR) was the most common procedure among all three cohorts. A multivariate logistic regression model revealed that when compared to surgery only, the nCRT (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.51, p &lt; 0.001) and TNT (AOR = 1.62, p &lt; 0.001) were both associated with an increased likelihood of 5-year long-term survival (LTS), with TNT having a stronger association. Among the various pre-operative characteristics, patients 70 years and older, patient with normal CEA and presence of LVI were less likely to have LTS with TNT as compared to surgery upfront. On the other hand, patients with clinical T3 stage who received TNT were much more likely to have improved LTS as compared to T2 stage (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR) 16.19, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Results of our study show that patients with early stage T2N0 and T3N0 rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment had an improved median OS compared to patients who received surgery upfront. Both nCRT and TNT were associated with an increased likelihood of long-term survival, with TNT having a stronger association particularly in the T3N0 cohort.