Radical versus Local Surgical Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: El-Nakeep S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11008054 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo date, several studies have compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of local excision (LE) and radical excision (RE) for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), but some have limited numbers of small series. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review and meta-analysis that will compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs.MethodsThis protocol is presented in accordance with the PRISMA-P guideline. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang database will be systematically searched. Furthermore, reference lists of all included articles will be screened manually to add other eligible studies. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) in this study. The primary outcomes evaluated will be R0 resection rate and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes will contain overall survival, length of stay, tumor rupture rate and complications. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, extract data from the included studies, and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Preplanned subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses are detailed within this protocol. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using GRADE.DiscussionThis review and meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence concerning the application of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs. The findings from this review will serve as a foundation for future research and emphasize the implications for clinical practice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42017078338), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=387409, PROSPERO CRD42017078338.
| S-EPMC10514207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients.Methods/study designIn this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients.DiscussionThe results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery.Trial registrationNCT02371304 , registration date: February 2015.
| S-EPMC4955121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary rectal lymphoma is an uncommon and heterogeneous malignancy. Because of its rarity, few data exist to guide treatment or counsel patients. We present the largest series to date of patients undergoing nonpalliative surgery for rectal lymphoma. We hypothesize that there will be no difference in overall survival between patients undergoing local resection (LR) or radical resection (RR).Materials and methodsThe National Cancer Data Base was queried for all cases of resected primary rectal lymphoma between years 2004 and 2014. Exclusion criteria included patients with stage IV disease and those operated on for palliation. Patients were categorized by resection approach-LR or RR. Approach along with demographic, histologic, and hospital-level factors were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazard analysis.ResultsA total of 233 patients were identified. Mean age was 63 y (interquartile range 53-73), and 57% of the population was female. The most common histologic subtypes were marginal (44%), diffuse large B-cell (20%), and follicular lymphoma (17%). Eighty-seven percent underwent LR. There was no significant difference in R0 resection (LR: 38% versus RR: 58%; P = 0.07), adjuvant chemotherapy (LR: 18% versus RR: 29%; P = 0.22), or adjuvant radiation (LR: 21% versus RR: 16%; P = 0.63) between the groups. Five-year overall survival was 79%, and there was no significant difference in approach (LR: 81% versus RR: 56%, P = 0.06). Multivariable analysis did not identify an association between approach and overall survival.ConclusionsSurgical resection of rectal lymphoma is rare. Our data support consideration of LR when possible, given the lack of convincing survival benefit of radical surgery or R0 resection.
| S-EPMC6815698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Total mesorectal excision (TME) performed for the first time by Held through an open approach, it has become the standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME. Material and methods In this meta-analysis, we included all comparative studies, prospective and retrospective, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer, a comparison between TaTME and LaTME. A search was performed through MEDLINE and Cochrane Database. 846 records were identified. Results Eight relevant studies have been included in this meta-analysis. The studies were from France, Russia, USA, Netherlands, Taiwan, Egypt. The eight studies including 471 patients with middle or low rectal cancer. Conclusion The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for low and middle rectal cancer. TaTME can lead to a high quality of rectal cancer resection specimen. Highlights • The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME.• We included all comparative studies, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer.• Eight relevant studies have been included.• The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8802044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between LaTME and TaTME of mid and low rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of LaTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.MethodsArticles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380067).ResultsThere are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.
| S-EPMC10817019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Local Excision (LE) or Watch and Wait (WW) for patients with complete clinical response or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) were proposed to avoid morbidity and impairment of quality of life after rectal resection. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature, and to compare rectal-sparing approaches, in terms of rectum-preservation rate, local control, and distant recurrences. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of studies published until July 2022 (PROSPERO, registration CRD42022341480), and the quality of evidence was assessed using a GRADE approach. Seven retrospective studies and one prospective trial were included. In six studies, patients were treated with standard long-course nCRT, and in two with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT). Overall, there were 213 and 188 patients in WW and LE group, respectively, and no difference was found between WW and LE when considering rectum-preservation rate (OR 0.80 95%CI 0.31-2.01, p = 0.63), local disease (OR 1.60 95%CI 0.75-3.42, p = 0.22), locoregional failure (OR 0.85 95%CI 0.20-3.66, p = 0.83) and distant recurrence (OR 0.76 95%CI 0.37-1.55, p = 0.45). Studies directly comparing WW and LE are still lacking, even though no differences between WW and LE in terms of rectum-preservation, local control, and distant recurrences have been found.
| S-EPMC9856629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThe purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the long-term efficacy of transanal local excision (TLE) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.MethodThe Web of Science, Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for correlational research. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality of cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Statistically analyzed using RevMan5.4.ResultA total of 13 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 cohort studies (CSs), involving 1402 patients, were included in the analysis. Of these, 570 patients (40.66%) underwent TLE, while 832 patients (59.34%) underwent TME. In the meta-analysis of CSs, no significant difference was observed between the TLE group and TME group regarding 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (P > 0.05). However, the TLE group had a higher rates of local recurrence (LR) [risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95%CI (1.18, 3.14), P = 0.008] and a lower rates of 5-years local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.79, 95%CI (1.04, 7.50), P = 0.04] compared to the TME group. In the meta-analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference observed between the TLE group and TME group in terms of LR, 5-year OS, 5-year DFS, and 5-year disease-specific survival (P > 0.05).ConclusionAfter undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, TLE may provide comparable 5-year OS and DFS to TME for rectal cancer. However, neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may has a higher LR and lower 5-year LRFS compared to neoadjuvant therapy followed by TME, so patients should be carefully selected. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by TLE may be a suitable option for patients who prioritize postoperative quality of life. However, the effectiveness of this approach requires further research to draw a definitive conclusion.
| S-EPMC10659211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer. Methods We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141). Results There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I2=84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I2=48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I2=0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I2=25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I2=31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I2=16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2=7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I2=1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I2=0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I2=0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I2=0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I2=39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I2=0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I2=0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I2=0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2=19.0%, P<0.0001). Conclusion This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.
| S-EPMC10291686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant therapy can shrink tumors, increase anus preservation rate, and protect anal function. Radical surgery need cut off the diseased bowel, clean up the lymph nodes, and then restore bowel function. It could bring traumatic effect and poor postoperative quality of life to the patient. Local resection requires removal of the diseased bowel with circular negative margin. The surgical trauma is small, and the postoperative quality of life is good. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety between wait and see strategy (WS), radical surgery (RS), and local excision (LE) of rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wanfang databases to compare wait and see strategy with radical surgery and local excision for rectal cancer with cCR response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy up to March 2020. We collected the data of local recurrence, distant metastasis, cancer-related death, overall survival, and disease-free survival and used RevMan 5.0 to carry out the meta-analysis. Continuous data were evaluated by the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and dichotomous data were evaluated by relative risks (ORs or RRs) with 95% CIs. We aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the three groups.ResultsEleven English studies with 1131 patients were included. There were 412 patients in WS group, 678 patients in RS group, and 41 patients in LE group. WS group had a higher local recurrence rate than RS group (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.58 to 14.95, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other data between the three groups.ConclusionCompared with the RS group, the WS group had an increased risk of local recurrence. However, the WS group had a similar DFS and OS compared with the RS group and the local excision group. Hence, we speculated that the WS group would have similar results as the surgery group for patients with cCR status.
| S-EPMC7457353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become a popular procedure for low rectal cancer as compared with abdominoperineal excision (APE). No definitive answer has been achieved whether one is superior to the other. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELAPE for low rectal cancer with meta-analysis. METHODS:The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before September 2019 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of ELAPE and APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of the perioperative variables, surgical complications, and oncological variables were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) from each trial were pooled using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary. RESULTS:This meta-analysis included 17 studies with 4049 patients, of whom 2248 (55.5%) underwent ELAPE and 1801 (44.5%) underwent APE. There were no statistical differences regarding the circumferential resection margin positivity (13.0% vs. 16.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.42-1.14, P = 0.15) and post-operative perineal wound complication rate (28.9% vs. 24.1%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.75-1.94, P = 0.43). The ELAPE was associated with lower rate of intraoperative perforation (6.6% vs. 11.3%, OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39-0.64, P < 0.001) and local recurrence (8.8% vs. 20.5%, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001) when compared with APE. CONCLUSIONS:The ELAPE was associated with a reduction in the rate of intra-operative perforation and local recurrence, without any increase in the circumferential resection margin positivity and post-operative perineal wound complication rate when compared with APE in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC6831059 | biostudies-literature