Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Locally Advanced Distal Rectal Cancer Patients with Complete Clinical Response: Total Mesorectal Excision versus Nonoperative Management

Author:

Kulle Cemil B.1,Keskin Metin1,Selçukbiricik Fatih2,Karabulut Senem3,Sezen Duygu4,Karaman Şule5,Gürses Bengi6,Acunaş Bülent7,Kapran Yersu8,Büyük Melek9,Nunoo-Mensah Joseph William10,Buğra Dursun11,Balık Emre11,Bulut Mehmet T.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of General Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

2. Department of Medical Oncology, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

3. Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

6. Department of Radiology, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

7. Department of Radiology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

8. Department of Pathology, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

9. Department of Pathology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

10. King’s College Hospital, London, UK and Cleveland Clinic London, London, UK

11. Department of General Surgery, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Abstract Background: Over the past few decades, nonoperative management (NOM) has become increasingly prevalent as an effort to preserve organs and improve functional outcomes compared to surgery. Objectives: This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with locally advanced distal rectal cancer (LADRC) following neoadjuvant treatment with either total mesorectal excision (TME) or NOM. Design: The study was conducted retrospectively. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted at two comprehensive cancer centers between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2019. The study included all LADRC patients with clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant treatment, and who agreed to NOM or had a pathology report concluding that they had achieved pathologic complete response (pCR) following TME. Main Outcomes and Measurements: We evaluated patients for the presence of local regrowth or recurrence (LR), distant metastases (DM), and survival. Sample Size: A total of 462 individuals were identified from the database of the centers. Among them, 137 (31.8%) were confirmed to have achieved cCR. Results: Out of 137 patients with cCR, 67 patients were treated with NOM and 70 patients underwent TME, with 69 of them achieving pCR. In terms of baseline characteristics and tumor location, the patients in the NOM group (n = 67) did not differ from those in the pCR group (n = 69) (P > 0.05). Surveillance of the 67 patients in the NOM group revealed that 10 (15%) developed local regrowth and required salvage surgery. As a result of salvage surgery, 65 patients (97%) maintained pelvic control. Although there was no evidence of pelvic recurrence in the pCR group, three patients (4.3%) underwent metastasectomy for DM. In the NOM group, DM was observed in two (20%) out of ten patients after salvage surgery for local regrowth, whereas no DM was detected in NOM patients without local regrowth. In the NOM group, DM was significantly associated with local regrowth compared to those who did not develop pelvic regrowth (20% vs. 0%; P < 0.05). It was observed that the pCR group had improved disease-free survival rates (95.7% vs. 85.1%, P = 0.034); however, there was no difference in the overall survival rates (100% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.248). Conclusion: Compared with the traditional trimodal treatment strategy, NOM is a safe and promising treatment option for selected LADRC patients with an acceptable rate of pelvic control and overall survival. Consequently, close endoscopic and radiologic monitoring is essential to maximize the likelihood of an early detection of recurrence and a successful salvage surgery. Limitations: Due to its retrospective nature, this study has limitations primarily related to data collection from patients’ records and databases after the completion of follow-up. Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Publisher

Medknow

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3