Amy L Halverson1, Arden M Morris2, Robert K Cleary3, George J Chang4. 1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. amy.halverson@nm.org. 2. Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate treatment for early-stage rectal cancers is controversial. The advantages of local excision regarding morbidity and function must be weighed against poorer oncologic efficacy. This study aimed to clarify further the role for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data addressing five key questions about outcomes of local versus radical resection of rectal cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: The 16 studies identified by this study were mostly retrospective, and none were randomized. Local excision was associated with fewer complications and better functional outcome than radical resection. Of 12 studies evaluating local recurrence, 6 showed a higher local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision. Two additional studies showed no increase in local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision of T1 lesions but a significantly higher local recurrence rate among those who underwent local excision of T2 lesions. High histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and depth within submucosa were features associated with a higher risk of local recurrence. In 7 of 15 studies, long-term survival was reduced compared with that of patients who underwent radical resection. CONCLUSIONS: Although local excision for early-stage rectal cancer is associated with increased local recurrence and decreased overall survival compared with radical resection, local excision may be appropriate for select individuals who have T1 tumors with no adverse pathologic features.
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate treatment for early-stage rectal cancers is controversial. The advantages of local excision regarding morbidity and function must be weighed against poorer oncologic efficacy. This study aimed to clarify further the role for local excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was conducted. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data addressing five key questions about outcomes of local versus radical resection of rectal cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: The 16 studies identified by this study were mostly retrospective, and none were randomized. Local excision was associated with fewer complications and better functional outcome than radical resection. Of 12 studies evaluating local recurrence, 6 showed a higher local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision. Two additional studies showed no increase in local recurrence rate among patients who underwent local excision of T1 lesions but a significantly higher local recurrence rate among those who underwent local excision of T2 lesions. High histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and depth within submucosa were features associated with a higher risk of local recurrence. In 7 of 15 studies, long-term survival was reduced compared with that of patients who underwent radical resection. CONCLUSIONS: Although local excision for early-stage rectal cancer is associated with increased local recurrence and decreased overall survival compared with radical resection, local excision may be appropriate for select individuals who have T1 tumors with no adverse pathologic features.
Authors: Praveen D Chatani; Dana A Dominguez; John G Aversa; Jeremy L Davis; Jonathan M Hernandez; Lily L Lai; Andrew M Blakely Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Sam Mason; Eftychios Manoli; Liam Poynter; James Alexander; Petra Paizs; Afeez Adebesin; Robert Goldin; Ara Darzi; Zoltan Takats; James Kinross Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Caroline D M Witjes; Abhilashaben S Patel; Aniruddh Shenoy; Stephen Boyce; James E East; Christopher Cunningham Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 4.584