Dataset Information

The risk factors of local recurrence and distant metastasis on pT1/T2N0 mid-low rectal cancer after total mesorectal excision.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Radical resection is associated with good prognosis among patients with cT1/T2Nx rectal cancer. However, still some of the patients experienced cancer recurrence following radical resection. This study tried to identify the postoperative risk factors of local recurrence and distant metastasis separately.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center study comprised of 279 consecutive patients from Linkou branch of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2005-2016 with rectal adenocarcinoma, pT1/T2N0M0 at distance from anal verge ≤ 8cm, who received curative radical resection.

Results

The study included 279 patients with pT1/pT2N0 mid-low rectal cancer with median follow-up of 73.5 months. Nineteen (6.8%) patients had disease recurrence in total. Nine (3.2%) of them had local recurrence, and fourteen (5.0%) of them had distant metastasis. Distal resection margin < 0.9 (cm) (hazard ratio = 4.9, p = 0.050) was the risk factor of local recurrence. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ≥ 5 ng/mL (hazard ratio = 9.3, p = 0.0003), lymph node yield (LNY) < 14 (hazard ratio = 5.0, p = 0.006), and distal resection margin < 1.4cm (hazard ratio = 4.0, p = 0.035) were the risk factors of distant metastasis.

Conclusion

For patients with pT1/pT2N0 mid-low rectal cancer, current multidisciplinary treatment brings acceptable survival outcome. Insufficient distal resection margin attracted the awareness of risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis as a foundation for future research.

SUBMITTER: Lai IL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045195 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceProponents of novel transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) suggest the procedure overcomes the technical and oncologic challenges of conventional approaches for treating rectal cancer. Recently, however, there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of the procedure.ObjectiveTo assess the association of transanal TME with the incidence of local recurrence (LR) of cancer and the probability of remaining free of LR during follow-up.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study used data from 8 high-volume rectal cancer academic institutions from across Canada on all consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer treated by transanal TME at the participating centers. The study was conducted between January 2014 and December 2018, and data were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to September 15, 2020.ExposureTransanal TME.Main outcomes and measuresThe incidence of LR was reported as a direct measure of quality of resection. The cumulative probability of LR- and systemic recurrence (SR)-free survival at 36 months was estimated. Local recurrence and SR were defined as radiologic or endoscopic evidence of 1 or more new lesions in or outside the pelvis, respectively, documented during surveillance after the removal of the primary tumor.ResultsOf 608 total patients included in the analysis, 423 (69.6%) were male; the median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-70 years). Local recurrence was identified in 22 patients (3.6%) after a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR, 18-38 months). The median time to LR was 13 months (IQR, 9-19 months). Sixteen of the 22 patients with LR (72.7%) were male, 14 (63.6%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 12 (54.5%) had American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III disease. Of those with LR, 16 (72.7%) had a negative circumferential radial margin and 20 (90.9%) had a negative distal resection margin, 2 (9.1%) experienced conversion to open surgery, and 15 (68.2%) also developed SR. The probability of LR-free survival at 36 months was 96% (95% CI, 94%-98%). According to the Cox proportional hazards regression model, the hazard ratio of LR was estimated to be 4.2 (95% CI, 2.9-6.2) times higher among patients with a positive circumferential radial margin than among those with a negative circumferential radial margin.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, transanal TME performed by experienced surgeons was associated with an incidence of LR and SR that is in line with the published literature on open and laparoscopic TME, suggesting that transanal TME may be an acceptable approach for management of rectal cancer.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsThere 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).ConclusionThis 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 registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.