BACKGROUND: Controversial data exists in the current literature in regard to the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) in patients with clinical T3N0 (cT3N0) rectal cancers, specifically based on location and relation to peritoneal reflection. We aimed to analyze the impact of nCRT on oncologic outcomes among cT3N0 rectal cancers, depending on the tumor height from anal verge (AV). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with cT3N0 rectal cancers was included from a query of a prospectively maintained rectal cancer database from 1980 to 2016. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the tumor height: low (1-5 cm from AV), mid (6-10 cm from AV), and upper (11-15 cm from AV). Patients were stratified by use of nCRT. MAIN OUTCOMES: 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local recurrence (LR) using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-two patients were included. Overall, 364 (61.4%) patients received nCRT and 228 (38.6%) patients did not. There were 251 (43%) patients with low, 302 (51%) with mid, and 39 (7%) with upper rectal cancer. Patients with low and mid rectal cancers received nCRT more frequently than those with upper rectal cancers (68.5% and 61.2% vs 43.6%, p = 0.007). The 5-year OS was 78% and 63%, DFS-88% and 73%, LR-1% and 8% in nCRT followed by resection vs. surgery alone (p < 0.001). In regard to cancer location after nCRT compared with surgery alone, low and mid cancers had better OS, DFS, and CSS, compared with upper ones. CONCLUSION: nCRT prolongs survival among patients with rectal cancer below 10 cm from AV; however, it has no effect on 5-year oncologic survival of patients with upper rectal cancer located below peritoneal reflection.
BACKGROUND: Controversial data exists in the current literature in regard to the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) in patients with clinical T3N0 (cT3N0) rectal cancers, specifically based on location and relation to peritoneal reflection. We aimed to analyze the impact of nCRT on oncologic outcomes among cT3N0 rectal cancers, depending on the tumor height from anal verge (AV). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with cT3N0 rectal cancers was included from a query of a prospectively maintained rectal cancer database from 1980 to 2016. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the tumor height: low (1-5 cm from AV), mid (6-10 cm from AV), and upper (11-15 cm from AV). Patients were stratified by use of nCRT. MAIN OUTCOMES: 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local recurrence (LR) using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-two patients were included. Overall, 364 (61.4%) patients received nCRT and 228 (38.6%) patients did not. There were 251 (43%) patients with low, 302 (51%) with mid, and 39 (7%) with upper rectal cancer. Patients with low and mid rectal cancers received nCRT more frequently than those with upper rectal cancers (68.5% and 61.2% vs 43.6%, p = 0.007). The 5-year OS was 78% and 63%, DFS-88% and 73%, LR-1% and 8% in nCRT followed by resection vs. surgery alone (p < 0.001). In regard to cancer location after nCRT compared with surgery alone, low and mid cancers had better OS, DFS, and CSS, compared with upper ones. CONCLUSION: nCRT prolongs survival among patients with rectal cancer below 10 cm from AV; however, it has no effect on 5-year oncologic survival of patients with upper rectal cancer located below peritoneal reflection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical T3N0; Neoadjuvant therapy; Rectal cancer
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Gietelink; M W J M Wouters; C A M Marijnen; J van Groningen; N van Leersum; R G H Beets-Tan; R A E M Tollenaar; P J Tanis Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Muhammad Amir Saeed Khan; Chin W Ang; Abdul Rahman Hakeem; Nigel Scott; Rick Nigel Saunders; Ian Botterill Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Seok-Byung Lim; Chang Sik Yu; Yong Sang Hong; Tae Won Kim; Jong Hoon Kim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Mi Ri Hwang; Ji Won Park; Dae Yong Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Yong Sang Hong; Sun Young Kim; Hyo Seong Choi; Seung-Yong Jeong; Jae Hwan Oh Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Luke C Peng; Jeffrey Milsom; Kelly Garrett; Govind Nandakumar; Shana Coplowitz; Bhupesh Parashar; Dattatreyudu Nori; K S Clifford Chao; A G Wernicke Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: J R Bergquist; C A Thiels; C R Shubert; E B Habermann; A V Hayman; M D Zielinski; K L Mathis Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Knut M Augestad; Deborah S Keller; Paul M Bakaki; Johnie Rose; Siran M Koroukian; Tom Øresland; Conor P Delaney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-04 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Mario Morino; Mauro Risio; Simon Bach; Regina Beets-Tan; Krzysztof Bujko; Yves Panis; Philip Quirke; Bjorn Rembacken; Eric Rullier; Yutaka Saito; Tonia Young-Fadok; Marco Ettore Allaix Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.584
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