Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Gao XH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7907590 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Gao Xian Hua XH Zhai Bai Zhi BZ Li Juan J Kabemba Jean Luc Tshibangu JLT Gong Hai Feng HF Bai Chen Guang CG Liu Ming Lu ML Zhang Shao Ting ST Shen Fu F Liu Lian Jie LJ Zhang Wei W

Frontiers in oncology 20210212

<h4>Background</h4>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 optima ...[more]

PMID: 33643920

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy is used as a standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), but there is no general consensus on either the efficacy of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery, or whether the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant chemotherapy provides survival benefits.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of data from the PubMed and Embase databases. We included patients with LARC who received neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy and curative surgery. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), toxicity, and compliance were analyzed in the oxaliplatin/fluorouracil- (OX/FU-) based group compared with the FU-based group, and in the chemotherapy group compared with the observation group.ResultsTwenty studies were included in the analysis. Our results indicated that adjuvant chemotherapy prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.67-0.91) in patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy and surgery compared with those in the observation group. Subgroup analysis showed the same results in both the ypStage II and ypStage III groups. Compared with those in the observation group, patients in the chemotherapy group also showed an increase in DFS (HR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.60-0.93). No significant increase was observed in OS (HR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.87-1.24) or DFS (HR = 0.98, 95%CI = 0.76-1.27) when oxaliplatin was added to FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy, as compared with the FU-based treatment, and subgroup analysis also indicated no survival benefits in the clinical stage II, clinical stage III, ypStage II, and ypStage III groups.ConclusionsFor patients with LARC who have already received neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy and curative surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy improves OS over that in the observation group. Adding oxaliplatin to FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not confer survival benefits beyond those from FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Project description:The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative and Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative call for the indiscriminate creation of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) without providing patient-specific criteria for vascular access selection. Although the U.S. AVF rate has increased dramatically, several reports have found that this singular focus on increasing AVFs has resulted in increased AVF nonmaturation/early failure and a high prevalence of catheter dependence. The objective of this study was to determine the appropriateness of vascular access procedures in clinical scenarios constructed with combinations of relevant factors potentially influencing outcomes.The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Accordingly, a comprehensive literature search was performed and a synthesis of results compiled. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to 2088 AVF and 1728 AVG clinical scenarios with varying patient characteristics. Eleven international vascular access experts rated the appropriateness of each scenario in two rounds. On the basis of the distribution of the panelists' scores, each scenario was determined to be appropriate, inappropriate, or indeterminate.Panelists achieved agreement in 2964 (77.7%) scenarios; 860 (41%) AVF and 588 (34%) AVG scenarios were scored appropriate, 686 (33%) AVF and 480 (28%) AVG scenarios were scored inappropriate, and 542 (26%) AVF and 660 (38%) AVG scenarios were indeterminate. Younger age, larger outflow vein diameter, normal or obese body mass index (vs morbidly obese), larger inflow artery diameter, and higher patient functional status were associated with appropriateness of AVF creation. Older age, dialysis dependence, and smaller vein size were associated with appropriateness of AVG creation. Gender, diabetes, and coronary artery disease were not associated with AVF or AVG appropriateness. Dialysis status was not associated with AVF appropriateness. Body mass index and functional status were not associated with AVG appropriateness. To simulate the surgeon's decision-making, scenarios were combined to create situations with the same patient characteristics and both AVF and AVG options for access. Of these 864 clinical situations, 311 (36%) were rated appropriate for AVG but inappropriate or indeterminate for AVF.The results of this study indicate that patient-specific situations exist wherein AVG is as appropriate as or more appropriate than AVF. These results provide patient-specific recommendations for clinicians to optimize vascular access selection criteria, to standardize care, and to inform payers and policy. Indeterminate scenarios will guide future research.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets