Roberto Peltrini1, Simone Castiglioni2, Nicola Imperatore3, Monica Ortenzi4, Daniela Rega5, Valentina Romeo6, Valerio Caracino7, Edoardo Liberatore8, Massimo Basti7, Emanuele Santoro6, Umberto Bracale9, Paolo Delrio5, Felice Mucilli2, Mario Guerrieri4, Francesco Corcione9. 1. Department of Public Health, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. roberto.peltrini@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University G. D'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy. 3. Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, AORN Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy. 4. Department of General and Emergency Surgery, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy. 5. Colorectal Surgical Oncology, Department of Abdominal Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. 6. Department of Surgery, San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital Complex, Rome, Italy. 7. General and Emergency Surgery Unit, Santo Spirito Hospital, ASL Pescara, Pescara, Italy. 8. General Surgery Unit, "San Liberatore" Hospital, Atri, ASL Teramo, Teramo, Italy. 9. Department of Public Health, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers. METHODS: From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.
BACKGROUND: Although local excision (LE) after neoadjuvant treatment (NT) has achieved encouraging oncological outcomes in selected patients, radical surgery still remains the rule when unfavorable pathology occurs. However, there is a risk of undertreating patients not eligible for radical surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) in a multicentre cohort of patients undergoing LE after NT and to compare them with ypT0-is-1 rectal cancers. METHODS: From 2010 to 2019, all patients who underwent LE after NT for rectal cancer were identified from five institutional retrospective databases. After excluding 12 patients with ypT3 tumors, patients with ypT2 tumors were compared to patients with ypT0-is-1 tumors). The endpoints of the study were early postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients (132 males, 45 females, median age 70 [IQR 16] years) underwent LE following NT. There were 46 ypT2 patients (39 males, 7 females, median age 72 [IQR 18.25] years) and 119 ypT0-is-1 patients (83 males, 36 females, median age 69 [IQR 15] years). Patients with pathological incomplete response (ypT2) were frailer than the ypT0-is-1 patients (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.15 ± 2.43 vs. 5.29 ± 1.99; p = 0.02) and there was a significant difference in the type of NT used for the two groups (long- course radiotherapy: 100 (84%) vs. 23 (63%), p = 0.006; short-course radiotherapy: 19 (16%) vs. 17 (37%), p = 0.006). The postoperative rectal bleeding rate (13% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.008), readmission rate (10.9% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.008) and R1 resection rate (8.7% vs. 0; p = 0.008) was significantly higher in the ypT2 group. Recurrence rates were comparable between groups (5% vs. 13%; p = 0.15). Five-year overall survival was 91.3% and 94.9% in the ypT2 and ypT0-is-1 groups, respectively (p = 0.39), while 5-year cancer specific survival was 93.4% in the ypT2 group and 94.9% in the ypT0-is-1 group (p = 0.70). No difference was found in terms of 5-year local recurrence free-survival (p = 0.18) and 5-year distant recurrence free-survival (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ypT2 tumors after NT and LE have a higher risk of late-onset rectal bleeding and positive resection margins than patients with complete or near complete response. However, long-term recurrence rates and survival seem comparable.
Keywords:
Chemoradiotherapy; Local excision; Organ preservation; Rectal cancer; Transanal endoscopic microsurgery; Transanal minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Samantha K Hendren; Brenda I O'Connor; Maria Liu; Tracey Asano; Zane Cohen; Carol J Swallow; Helen M Macrae; Robert Gryfe; Robin S McLeod Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Willem van Gijn; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm J T Rutten; Lars Påhlman; Bengt Glimelius; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 41.316