BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancer is conventionally managed with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by radical surgery (RS). In patients who refuse a stoma or are unfit for RS, an alternative approach may be the use of pre-op CRT and local excision (LE) where tumours are responsive. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether differences exist in local recurrence (LR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival between patients treated with CRT + LE and CRT + RS. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed/Ovid databases and Google Scholar between 1946 and 2013. Studies comparing outcome following LE and RS post-CRT were included. A pooled analysis was carried out using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical (random effects) model to identify differences in LR, OS and DFS between CRT + LE and CRT + RS. RESULTS: Eight studies were suitable for pooled analyses of LR whereas five and four studies were analysed for OS and DFS, respectively. When RS was used as the reference group, LR rate was higher in the LE group. However, this was non-significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.29, confidence interval (CI) 0.72-2.31, p = 0.40). Similarly, no difference was observed in 10-year OS (OR 0.96, CI 0.38-2.43, p = 0.93) or 5-year DFS (OR 1.04, CI 0.61-1.76, p = 0.89). There was evidence of publication bias in studies used for DFS. Subgroup analysis of above outcomes in T3/any N stage cancers showed no difference in LE versus RS. CONCLUSION: In the current evidence synthesis, there was no statistical difference in the LR, OS and DFS rates observed between patients treated with LE and RS for rectal cancer post-CRT. LE post-CRT may represent a viable alternative to RS for some patients wishing to avoid RS. However, further randomised studies are required to confirm these results.
BACKGROUND:Low rectal cancer is conventionally managed with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by radical surgery (RS). In patients who refuse a stoma or are unfit for RS, an alternative approach may be the use of pre-op CRT and local excision (LE) where tumours are responsive. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether differences exist in local recurrence (LR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival between patients treated with CRT + LE and CRT + RS. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed/Ovid databases and Google Scholar between 1946 and 2013. Studies comparing outcome following LE and RS post-CRT were included. A pooled analysis was carried out using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical (random effects) model to identify differences in LR, OS and DFS between CRT + LE and CRT + RS. RESULTS: Eight studies were suitable for pooled analyses of LR whereas five and four studies were analysed for OS and DFS, respectively. When RS was used as the reference group, LR rate was higher in the LE group. However, this was non-significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.29, confidence interval (CI) 0.72-2.31, p = 0.40). Similarly, no difference was observed in 10-year OS (OR 0.96, CI 0.38-2.43, p = 0.93) or 5-year DFS (OR 1.04, CI 0.61-1.76, p = 0.89). There was evidence of publication bias in studies used for DFS. Subgroup analysis of above outcomes in T3/any N stage cancers showed no difference in LE versus RS. CONCLUSION: In the current evidence synthesis, there was no statistical difference in the LR, OS and DFS rates observed between patients treated with LE and RS for rectal cancer post-CRT. LE post-CRT may represent a viable alternative to RS for some patients wishing to avoid RS. However, further randomised studies are required to confirm these results.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aras Emre Canda; Cem Terzi; Ilknur B Gorken; Ilhan Oztop; Selman Sokmen; Mehmet Fuzun Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Alexandre Jin Bok Audi Chang; Caio Sergio Rizkallah Nahas; Sergio E Alonso Araujo; Sergio C Nahas; Carlos F Sparapan Marques; Desiderio Roberto Kiss; Ivan Cecconello Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: In Ja Park; Y Nancy You; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Barry Feig; Sa Nguyen; Chung-Yuan Hu; George J Chang Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469