W A A Borstlap1, S E van Oostendorp2, C E L Klaver1, D Hahnloser3, C Cunningham4, E Rullier5, W A Bemelman1, J B Tuynman2, P J Tanis1. 1. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 5. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Haut-Lévèque Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high morbidity associated with radical resection for rectal cancer is an incentive for surgeons to adopt strategies aimed at organ preservation, particularly for early disease. There are a number of different approaches to achieve this. In this study we have collated current national and international guidelines to produce a synopsis to support this changing practice. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Embase, Trip database, national guideline clearinghouse, BMJ Best practice were interrogated. Guidelines published before 2010 were excluded. The AGREE-II tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: 24 guidelines were drawn from 2278 potential publications. A consensus exists for local excision for "low risk" T1 rectal cancer but there is no agreement how to stratify the risk of treatment failure. There is a low level of agreement for rectal preservation for more advanced disease but when mentioned is recommended for unfit patients or in th context of a clinical trial. Guidelines are inconsistent with respect to surveillance in node negative disease and after, complete response to chemoradiotherapy CONCLUSION: According to current guidelines and consensus statements organ preservation for rectal cancer beyond low risk T1, is still considered experimental and only indicated in patients unsuitable for radical surgery.. Follow up strategies and cN0 staging deserve attention and highlight the need for high quality clinical trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The high morbidity associated with radical resection for rectal cancer is an incentive for surgeons to adopt strategies aimed at organ preservation, particularly for early disease. There are a number of different approaches to achieve this. In this study we have collated current national and international guidelines to produce a synopsis to support this changing practice. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Embase, Trip database, national guideline clearinghouse, BMJ Best practice were interrogated. Guidelines published before 2010 were excluded. The AGREE-II tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: 24 guidelines were drawn from 2278 potential publications. A consensus exists for local excision for "low risk" T1 rectal cancer but there is no agreement how to stratify the risk of treatment failure. There is a low level of agreement for rectal preservation for more advanced disease but when mentioned is recommended for unfit patients or in th context of a clinical trial. Guidelines are inconsistent with respect to surveillance in node negative disease and after, complete response to chemoradiotherapy CONCLUSION: According to current guidelines and consensus statements organ preservation for rectal cancer beyond low risk T1, is still considered experimental and only indicated in patients unsuitable for radical surgery.. Follow up strategies and cN0 staging deserve attention and highlight the need for high quality clinical trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Authors: Evie Carchman; Daniel I Chu; Gregory D Kennedy; Melanie Morris; Marc Dakermandji; John R T Monson; Laura Melina Fernandez; Rodrigo Oliva Perez; Alessandro Fichera; Marco E Allaix; David Liska Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: J W A Leijtens; L J H Smits; T W A Koedam; R G Orsini; S M van Aalten; M Verseveld; P G Doornebosch; E J R de Graaf; J B Tuynman Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-08-27 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Lisanne J H Smits; Elisa Vink-Börger; Gesina van Lijnschoten; Isabelle Focke-Snieders; Rachel S van der Post; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Nicole C T van Grieken; Iris D Nagtegaal Journal: Histopathology Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 7.778
Authors: Maria A Gascon; Vicente Aguilella; Tomas Martinez; Luigi Antinolfi; Javier Valencia; Jose M Ramírez Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: S E van Oostendorp; L J H Smits; Y Vroom; R Detering; M W Heymans; L M G Moons; P J Tanis; E J R de Graaf; C Cunningham; Q Denost; M Kusters; J B Tuynman Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: R Detering; S E van Oostendorp; V M Meyer; S van Dieren; A C R K Bos; J W T Dekker; O Reerink; J H T M van Waesberghe; C A M Marijnen; L M G Moons; R G H Beets-Tan; R Hompes; H L van Westreenen; P J Tanis; J B Tuynman Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Louis J X Giesen; Wernard A A Borstlap; Willem A Bemelman; Pieter J Tanis; Cornelis Verhoef; Pim B Olthof Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 2.885