Literature DB >> 33643920

Which Definition of Upper Rectal Cancer Is Optimal in Selecting Stage II or III Rectal Cancer Patients to Avoid Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation?

Xian Hua Gao1,2, Bai Zhi Zhai1,3, Juan Li4, Jean Luc Tshibangu Kabemba1,5, Hai Feng Gong1,2, Chen Guang Bai6, Ming Lu Liu7, Shao Ting Zhang7, Fu Shen7, Lian Jie Liu1, Wei Zhang1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In most guidelines, upper rectal cancers (URC) are not recommended to take neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation. However, the definitions of URC vary greatly. Five definitions had been commonly used to define URC: 1) >10 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 2) >12 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 3) >10 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 4) >12 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 5) above the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR). We hypothesized that the fifth definition is optimal to identify patients with rectal cancer to avoid adjuvant radiation.
METHODS: The data of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The height of the APR was measured, and compared with the tumor height measured by digital rectal examination (DRE), MRI and colonoscopy. The five definitions were compared in terms of prediction of local recurrence, survival, and percentages of patients requiring radiation.
RESULTS: A total of 576 patients were included, with the intraoperative location of 222 and 354 tumors being above and straddle/below the APR, respectively. The median distance of the APR from anal verge (height of APR) as measured by MRI was 8.7 (range: 4.5-14.3) cm. The height of APR positively correlated with body height (r=0.862, P<0.001). The accuracy of the MRI in determining the tumor location with respect to the APR was 92.1%. Rectal cancer above the APR had a significantly lower incidence of local recurrence than those straddle/below the APR (P=0.042). For those above the APR, there was no significant difference in local recurrence between the radiation and no-radiation group. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor location regarding APR was an independent risk factor for LRFS. Tumor height as measured by DRE, MRI and colonoscopy were not related with survival outcomes. Fewer rectal cancer patients required adjuvant radiation using the definition by the APR, compared with other four definitions based on a numerical tumor height measured by MRI and colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: The definition of URC as rectal tumor above the APR, might be the optimal definition to select patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to avoid postoperative adjuvant radiation.
Copyright © 2021 Gao, Zhai, Li, Kabemba, Gong, Bai, Liu, Zhang, Shen, Liu and Zhang.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; anterior peritoneal reflection; intraoperative finding; radiotherapy; upper rectal cancer

Year:  2021        PMID: 33643920      PMCID: PMC7907590          DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.625459

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Oncol        ISSN: 2234-943X            Impact factor:   6.244


  24 in total

1.  The significance of the level of the peritoneal reflection in the surgery of rectal cancer.

Authors:  M R EWING
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1952-05       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Determination of the peritoneal reflection using intraoperative proctoscopy.

Authors:  Melissa M Najarian; G Eric Belzer; Thomas H Cogbill; Michelle A Mathiason
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Analysis of clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with surgery: intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

Authors:  E Benzoni; G Terrosu; V Bresadola; F Cerato; A Cojutti; E Milan; G Dado; F Bresadola
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.520

4.  Selective approach for upper rectal cancer treatment: total mesorectal excision and preoperative chemoradiation are seldom necessary.

Authors:  Franco G Marinello; Matteo Frasson; Gloria Baguena; Blas Flor-Lorente; Andres Cervantes; Susana Roselló; Alejandro Espí; Eduardo García-Granero
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Endoscopic versus radiology-based location of rectal cancer.

Authors:  D Meylemans; F Penninckx; D Vanbeckevoort; A M Wolthuis; S Fieuws; A D'Hoore
Journal:  Acta Chir Belg       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.090

6.  Adjuvant radiation therapy for rectal carcinoma: predictors of outcome.

Authors:  R J Myerson; J M Michalski; M L King; E Birnbaum; J Fleshman; R Fry; I Kodner; D Lacey; M A Lockett
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1995-04-30       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Rigid sigmoidoscopy and MRI are not interchangeable in determining the position of rectal cancers.

Authors:  G Baatrup; M Bolstad; J H Mortensen
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 4.424

8.  Oncologic Outcomes of Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Stage II and III Upper Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Ji Eun Yoon; Soo Young Lee; Han Duk Kwak; Seung Seop Yeom; Chang Hyun Kim; Jae Kyun Joo; Hyeong Rok Kim; Young Jin Kim
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2019-06-30

9.  Intra-operative measurement of surgical lengths of the rectum and the peritoneal reflection in Korean.

Authors:  Hae Ran Yun; Ho-Kyung Chun; Won Suk Lee; Yong Beom Cho; Seong Hyeon Yun; Woo Yong Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  Adjuvant treatment may benefit patients with high-risk upper rectal cancer: A nomogram and recursive partitioning analysis of 547 patients.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Jing Jin; Yong Yang; Wen-Yang Liu; Hua Ren; Yan-Ru Feng; Qin Xiao; Ning Li; Lei Deng; Hui Fang; Hao Jing; Ning-Ning Lu; Yu Tang; Jian-Yang Wang; Shu-Lian Wang; Wei-Hu Wang; Yong-Wen Song; Yue-Ping Liu; Ye-Xiong Li
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.