Jun Gon Kim1, Kyoung Doo Song2, Dong Ik Cha1, Hee Cheol Kim3, Jeong Il Yu4. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. kd3893.song@samsung.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the treatment outcome between surgery-first and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT)-first strategies in patients with indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. Among 1910 patients who underwent rectal MRI between 2008 and 2012, 79 patients (mean age, 59.4 years, 49 men and 30 women) who had indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI were included. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared between the two groups. Treatment-related complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 79 patients, 51 were treated by surgery first and 28 were treated by nCRT first. In comparison of survival of the surgery- and nCRT-first groups at 5 years, the LRFS rate was 95.6 and 96.3%, RFS rate was 91.0 and 92.4%, OS rate was 93.7 and 92.6%, and DSS rate was 98.0 and 92.6%, respectively. LRFS, RFS, OS, and DSS showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.862, 0.677, 0.953, and 0.479). The complication rate was not significantly different between the groups (20.0% for surgery-first group vs. 10.7% for nCRT-first group, p = 0.357). CONCLUSION: Treatment outcomes were not significantly different between surgery-first and nCRT-first strategies for indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI.
PURPOSE: We compared the treatment outcome between surgery-first and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT)-first strategies in patients with indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. Among 1910 patients who underwent rectal MRI between 2008 and 2012, 79 patients (mean age, 59.4 years, 49 men and 30 women) who had indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI were included. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared between the two groups. Treatment-related complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 79 patients, 51 were treated by surgery first and 28 were treated by nCRT first. In comparison of survival of the surgery- and nCRT-first groups at 5 years, the LRFS rate was 95.6 and 96.3%, RFS rate was 91.0 and 92.4%, OS rate was 93.7 and 92.6%, and DSS rate was 98.0 and 92.6%, respectively. LRFS, RFS, OS, and DSS showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.862, 0.677, 0.953, and 0.479). The complication rate was not significantly different between the groups (20.0% for surgery-first group vs. 10.7% for nCRT-first group, p = 0.357). CONCLUSION: Treatment outcomes were not significantly different between surgery-first and nCRT-first strategies for indistinguishable T2/T3-N0 rectal cancer on rectal MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Indistinguishable T2/T3; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy; Rectal cancer; Surgery
Authors: Paul F Engstrom; Juan Pablo Arnoletti; Al B Benson; Yi-Jen Chen; Michael A Choti; Harry S Cooper; Anne Covey; Raza A Dilawari; Dayna S Early; Peter C Enzinger; Marwan G Fakih; James Fleshman; Charles Fuchs; Jean L Grem; Krystyna Kiel; James A Knol; Lucille A Leong; Edward Lin; Mary F Mulcahy; Sujata Rao; David P Ryan; Leonard Saltz; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos Sofocleous; James Thomas; Alan P Venook; Christopher Willett Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Martin R Weiser; Ron G Landmann; W Douglas Wong; Jinru Shia; José G Guillem; Larissa K Temple; Bruce D Minsky; Alfred M Cohen; Philip B Paty Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Shandra Bipat; Brunella Barbaro; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Helen M Fenlon; Marc J Gollub; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Steve Halligan; Christine Hoeffel; Seung Ho Kim; Andrea Laghi; Andrea Maier; Søren R Rafaelsen; Jaap Stoker; Stuart A Taylor; Michael R Torkzad; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C S Wong; B J Cummings; J D Brierley; C N Catton; M McLean; P Catton; Y Hao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gina Brown; Catherine J Richards; Michael W Bourne; Robert G Newcombe; Andrew G Radcliffe; Nicholas S Dallimore; Geraint T Williams Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Gustavo A Rubio; Roger D Hurst; Konstantin Umanskiy; Benjamin D Shogan; Neil Hyman; Kinga Skowron Olortegui Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452