Advances in surgical management for locally recurrent rectal cancer: How far have we come?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lee DJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5483491 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo summarize the recent literature on surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).BackgroundLRRC is a heterogeneous disease that requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment and prognosis depend on the site and type of recurrence. Radical resection remains the primary method for achieving long-term survival and improving symptom control. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy can reduce tumor volume and improve the R0 resection rate. Surgeons must clearly understand pelvic anatomy, develop a detailed preoperative plan, adopt a multidisciplinary approach for the surgical resection of the tumor as well as any invaded soft tissues, vessels, and bones, and ensure proper reconstruction. However, extended radical surgery often leads to a higher risk of postoperative complications and a low quality of life.MethodsWe searched English-language articles with keywords "locally recurrent rectal cancer", "surgery" and "multidisciplinary team" in PubMed published between January 2000 to October 2020.ConclusionsLRRC is a complex problem. Long-term survival is not impossible following multidisciplinary treatment in appropriately selected LRRC patients. The management of LRRC relies on a specialist team that determines the biological behavior of the tumor and evaluates treatment options through multidisciplinary discussions, thereby balancing the surgical costs and benefits, alleviating postoperative complications, and improving patients' quality of life.
| S-EPMC8267292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dramatic improvements in the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer have occurred over the past 30 years. Advances in surgical pathology, refinements in surgical techniques and instrumentation, new imaging modalities, and the widespread use of neoadjuvant therapy have all contributed to these improvements. Several questions emerge as we learn of the benefits or lack thereof for components of the current multimodality treatment in subgroups of patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). What is the optimal surgical technique for distal rectal cancers? Do all patients need postoperative chemotherapy? Do all patients need radiation? Do all patients need surgery, or is a nonoperative, organ-preserving approach warranted in selected patients? Answering these questions will lead to more precise treatment regimens, based on patient and tumor characteristics, that will improve outcomes while preserving quality of life. However, the idea of shifting the treatment paradigm (chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant therapy) currently applied to all patients with LARC to a more individually tailored approach is controversial. The paradigm shift toward organ preservation in highly selected patients whose tumors demonstrate clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment is also controversial. Herein, we highlight many of the advances and resultant controversies that are likely to dominate the research agenda for LARC in the modern era.
| S-EPMC4559608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Classification of pelvic local recurrence (LR) after surgery for primary rectal cancer is not currently standardized and optimal imaging is required to categorize anatomical site and plan treatment in patients with LR. The aim of this review was to evaluate the systems used to classify locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) and the relevant published outcomes. A systematic review of the literature prior to April 2020 was performed through electronic searches of the Science Citation Index Expanded, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcome was to review the classifications currently in use; the secondary outcome was the extraction of relevant information provided by these classification systems including prognosis, anatomy and prediction of R0 after surgery. A total of 21 out of 58 eligible studies, classifying LR in 2086 patients, were reviewed. Studies used at least one of the following eight classification systems proposed by institutions or institutional groups (Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan-Kettering - original and modified, Royal Marsden and Leeds) or authors (Yamada, Hruby and Kusters). Negative survival outcomes were associated with increased pelvic fixity, associated symptoms of LR, lateral compared with central LR and involvement of three or more pelvic compartments. A total of seven studies used MRI with specifically defined anatomical compartments to classify LR. This review highlights the various imaging systems in use to classify LRRC and some of the prognostic indicators for survival and oncological clearance based on these systems. Implementation of an agreed classification system to document pelvic LR consistently should provide more detailed information on anatomical site of recurrence, burden of disease and standards for comparative outcome assessment.
| S-EPMC8105621 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7436568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported outcomes of locoregionally recurrent colon cancer (LRCC) are poor, but the literature about LRCC is scarce and aged. Recent population-based studies to provide current insight into LRCC are warranted. This study aimed to provide an overview of the incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of patients with LRCC after curative resection of stage I-III primary colon cancer.MethodsData on disease recurrence were collected for all patients with a diagnosis of non-metastasized primary colon cancer in the Netherlands during the first 6 months of 2015. Patients who underwent surgical resection (N = 3544) were included in this study. The 3-year cumulative incidence, risk factors, treatment, and OS for patients with LRCC were determined.ResultsThe 3-year cumulative incidence of LRCC was 3.8%. Synchronous distant metastases (LRCC-M1) were diagnosed in 62.7% of the patients. The risk factors for LRCC were age of 70 years or older, pT4, pN1-2, and R1-2. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of LRCC for high-risk stage II and stage III patients [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.93]. The median OS for the patients with LRCC was 13.1 months (95% CI 9.1-18.3 months). Curative-intent treatment was given to 22.4% of the LRCC patients, and the subsequent 3 years OS was 71% (95% CI 58-87%). The patients treated with palliative treatment and best supportive care showed 3-year OS rates of 15% (95% CI 7.0-31%) and 3.7% (95% CI 1.0-14%), respectively.ConclusionsThe cumulative incidence of LRCC was low, and adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk for LRCC among targeted patients. Curative-intent treatment was given to nearly 1 in 4 LRCC patients, and the OS for this group was high.
| S-EPMC9908679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among patients with rectal cancer, 5-10% have a primary rectal cancer beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (PRC-bTME) and 10% recur locally following primary surgery (LRRC). In both cases, patients 'care remains challenging with a significant worldwide variation in practice regarding overall management and criteria for operative intervention. These variations in practice can be explained by structural and organizational differences, as well as cultural dissimilarities. However, surgical resection of PRC-bTME and LRRC provides the best chance of long-term survival after complete resection (R0). With regards to the organization of the healthcare system and the operative criteria for these patients, France and Australia seem to be highly different. A benchmarking-type analysis between French and Australian clinical practice, with regards to the care and management of PRC-bTME and LRRC, would allow understanding of patients' care and management structures as well as individual and collective mechanisms of operative decision-making in order to ensure equitable practice and improve survival for these patients.The current study is an international Benchmarking trial comparing two cohorts of 120 consecutive patients with non-metastatic PRC-bTME and LRRC. Patients with curative and palliative treatment intent are included. The study design has three main parts: (1) French and Australian cohorts including clinical, radiological and surgical data, quality of life (MOS SF36, FACT-C) and distress level (Distress thermometer) at the inclusion, 6 and 12 months; (2) experimental analyses consisting of a blinded inter-country reading of pelvic MRI to assess operatory decisions; (3) qualitative analyses based on MDT meeting observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups of health professional attendees and conducted by a research psychologist in both countries using the same guides. The primary endpoint will be the clinical resection rate. Secondary end points will be concordance rate between French and Australian operative decisions based on the inter-country reading MRI, post-operative mortality and morbidity rates, oncological outcomes based on resection status and one-year overall and disease-free survival, patients' quality of life and distress level. Qualitative analysis will compare obstacles and facilitators of operative decision-making between both countries.Benchmarking can be defined as a comparison and learning process which will allow, in the context of PRC-bTME and LRRC, to understand and to share the whole process management of these patientsbetween Farnce and Australia.NCT02551471 . (date of registration: 09/14/2015).
| S-EPMC4820920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures.MethodsPubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist.ResultsThirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC.ConclusionsNone of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.
| S-EPMC10250265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo prospectively analyze feasibility and pathological complete response (pCR) rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (RHT) in patients with locally advanced (LARC) or recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer.Methodsbetween 2012 and 2018, 111 patients with UICC stage IIB-IV or any locally recurrent rectal cancer were included (HyRec-Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01716949). Patients received radiotherapy with concurrent 5-Fluororuracil (5-FU)/Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin, and RHT. Stage 1 feasibility analysis evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) after 19 patients, stage 2 after 59 evaluable patients. Analysis of the pCR rate was based on histopathological reports.Resultsthe feasibility rates for stages 1 and 2 were 90% (17/19) and 73% (43/59), respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the pCR rate was 19% (20/105; 90% confidence interval (CI) 13.0-26.5). In the per-protocol-analysis, complete tumor regression was seen in 28% (18/64) and 38% (3/8) of the patients with LARC and LRRC, respectively. Complete resection rates (R0) among patients with LARC and LRRC who received surgery were 99% (78/84) and 67% (8/12).Conclusionsthe intensified neoadjuvant and multimodality treatment schedule was feasible and led to comparable early toxicity rates as described by other trials that used the similar chemoradiation protocol. The presented treatment regimen resulted in a very high pCR rate and appears as a promising option for patients with LRRC.
| S-EPMC8001688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic option for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) but contemporaneous clinical data are limited. We aimed to evaluate the local control, toxicity, and survival outcomes in a cohort of patients previously treated with neoadjuvant pelvic radiation therapy for nonmetastatic locally recurrent rectal cancer, now treated with SBRT.Methods and materialsInoperable rectal cancer patients with ≤3 sites of pelvic recurrence and >6 months since prior pelvic radiation therapy were identified from a prospective registry over 4 years. SBRT dose was 30 Gy in 5 fractions, daily or alternate days, using cumulative organ at risk dose constraints. Primary outcome was local control (LC). Secondary outcomes were progression free survival, overall survival, toxicity, and patient reported quality of life scores using the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) tool.ResultsThirty patients (35 targets) were included. Median gross tumor volume size was 14.3 cm3. In addition, 27 of 30 (90%) previously received 45 to 50.4 Gy in 25 of 28 fractions, with 10% receiving an alternative prescription. All patients received the planned reirradiation SBRT dose. The median follow-up was 24.5 months (interquartile range, 17.8-28.8). The 1-year LC was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.6-99) and a 2-year LC was 69% (95% CI, 51.8-91.9). The median progression free survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.6-17.66), and median overall survival was 28.3 months (95% CI, 17.88-39.5 months). No patient experienced >G2 acute toxicity and only 1 patient experienced late G3 toxicity. Patient-reported QoL outcomes were improved at 3 months after SBRT (Δ EQ-VAS, +10 points, Wilcoxon signed-rank, P = .009).ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that, for small volume pelvic disease relapses from rectal cancer, reirradiation with 30 Gy in 5 fractions is well tolerated and achieves an excellent balance between high local control rates with limited toxicity.
| S-EPMC7718547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA first pilot study showed that an image-guided navigation system could improve resection margin rates in locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. Incremental surgical innovation is often implemented without reimbursement consequences, health economic aspects should however also be taken into account. This study evaluates the early cost-effectiveness of navigated surgery compared to standard surgery in LARC and LRRC.MethodsA Markov decision model was constructed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes for navigated and standard surgery. The input parameters were based on pilot data from a prospective (navigation cohort n = 33) and retrospective (control group n = 142) data. Utility values were measured in a comparable group (n = 63) through the EQ5D-5L. Additionally, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed.ResultsBased on this early evaluation, navigated surgery showed incremental costs of €3141 and €2896 in LARC and LRRC. In LARC, navigated surgery resulted in 2.05 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) vs 2.02 QALYs for standard surgery. For LRRC, we found 1.73 vs 1.67 QALYs respectively. This showed an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of €136.604 for LARC and €52.510 for LRRC per QALY gained. In scenario analyses, optimal utilization rates of the navigation technology lowered the ICER to €61.817 and €21.334 for LARC and LRRC. The ICERs of both indications were most sensitive to uncertainty surrounding the risk of progression in the first year after surgery, the risk of having a positive surgical margin, and the costs of the navigation system.ConclusionAdding navigation system use is expected to be cost-effective in LRRC and has the potential to become cost-effective in LARC. To increase the probability of being cost-effective, it is crucial to optimize efficient use of both the hybrid OR and the navigation system and identify subgroups where navigation is expected to show higher effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9074374 | biostudies-literature