Kwang-Seop Song1, Sung Chan Park1, Dae Kyung Sohn1, Jae Hwan Oh1, Min Jung Kim2, Ji Won Park2, Seung-Bum Ryoo2, Seung-Yong Jeong2, Kyu Joo Park2, Heung-Kwon Oh3, Duck-Woo Kim3, Sung-Bum Kang4. 1. Center for Colorectal Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. kangsb@snubh.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectal preservation against medical advice after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer may increase oncologic uncertainty. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing rectal preservation as intended by the surgeon, and the outcomes of patients refusing rectal resection against medical advice. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in whom the rectum was preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for clinical stage I-III mid or low rectal cancer between May 2003 and August 2017 (n = 2883); these patients were divided into those in whom rectal preservation was intended by their surgeon (intended rectal preservation, group A, n = 41) and those in whom the rectum was not resected against medical advice (unintended rectal preservation, group B, n = 101), defined as non-operative management or local excision. RESULTS: The tumor distance, age, and performance status of patients were not significantly different between the groups, while the clinical T stage before chemoradiotherapy was lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.001). During the median follow-up period of 34 months (interquartile range 18.0-72.0 months), the 3-year overall survival in group B (59.7%) was worse than that in group A (90.1%; P < 0.001), and 80.2% of group B patients had residual or unknown disease status. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that unintended rectal preservation increases oncologic risk after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer regardless of short-term follow-up. Therefore, these findings could be shared with rectal cancer patients who choose to ignore medical advice after chemoradiotherapy to preserve their rectum.
BACKGROUND: Rectal preservation against medical advice after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer may increase oncologic uncertainty. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing rectal preservation as intended by the surgeon, and the outcomes of patients refusing rectal resection against medical advice. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients in whom the rectum was preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for clinical stage I-III mid or low rectal cancer between May 2003 and August 2017 (n = 2883); these patients were divided into those in whom rectal preservation was intended by their surgeon (intended rectal preservation, group A, n = 41) and those in whom the rectum was not resected against medical advice (unintended rectal preservation, group B, n = 101), defined as non-operative management or local excision. RESULTS: The tumor distance, age, and performance status of patients were not significantly different between the groups, while the clinical T stage before chemoradiotherapy was lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.001). During the median follow-up period of 34 months (interquartile range 18.0-72.0 months), the 3-year overall survival in group B (59.7%) was worse than that in group A (90.1%; P < 0.001), and 80.2% of group B patients had residual or unknown disease status. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that unintended rectal preservation increases oncologic risk after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer regardless of short-term follow-up. Therefore, these findings could be shared with rectal cancerpatients who choose to ignore medical advice after chemoradiotherapy to preserve their rectum.
Authors: Mary Beth Landrum; Nancy L Keating; Elizabeth B Lamont; Samuel R Bozeman; Barbara J McNeil Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric J Silberfein; Kiran M Kattepogu; Chung-Yuan Hu; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Barry Feig; Prajnan Das; Sunil Krishnan; Christopher Crane; Scott Kopetz; Cathy Eng; George J Chang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mitchell L Margolis; Jason D Christie; Gerard A Silvestri; Larry Kaiser; Silverio Santiago; John Hansen-Flaschen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R O Perez; A Habr-Gama; G V Pereira; P B Lynn; P A Alves; I Proscurshim; V Rawet; J Gama-Rodrigues Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Kyung Su Han; Dae Kyung Sohn; Dae Yong Kim; Byung Chang Kim; Chang Won Hong; Hee Jin Chang; Sun Young Kim; Ji Yeon Baek; Sung Chan Park; Min Ju Kim; Jae Hwan Oh Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Lindsay A Renfro; Oliver S Chow; Qian Shi; Xiomara W Carrero; Patricio B Lynn; Charles R Thomas; Emily Chan; Peter A Cataldo; Jorge E Marcet; David S Medich; Craig S Johnson; Samuel C Oommen; Bruce G Wolff; Alessio Pigazzi; Shane M McNevin; Roger K Pons; Ronald Bleday Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 41.316