Article

T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum: transanal excision or radical surgery?

Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Annals of Surgery (Impact Factor: 7.19). 11/2005; 242(4):472-7; discussion 477-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent studies suggest local excision may be acceptable treatment of T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum, but there is little comparative data with radical surgery to assess outcomes and quantify risk. We performed a retrospective evaluation of patients with T1 rectal cancers treated by either transanal excision or radical resection at our institution to assess patient selection, cancer recurrence, and survival.
All patients who underwent surgery for T1 adenocarcinomas of the rectum (0-15 cm from anal verge) by either transanal excision (TAE) or radical resection (RAD) between January 1987 and January 2004 were identified from a prospective database. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test.
Three hundred nineteen consecutive patients with T1 lesions were treated by transanal excision (n = 151) or radical surgery (n = 168) over the 17-year period. RAD surgery was associated with higher tumor location in the rectum, slightly larger tumor size, a similar rate of adverse histology, and a lymph node metastasis rate of 18%. Despite these features, patients who underwent RAD surgery had fewer local recurrences, fewer distant recurrences, and significantly better recurrence-free survival (P = 0.0001). Overall and disease-specific survival was similar for RAD and TAE groups.
Despite a similar risk profile in the 2 surgical groups, patients with T1 rectal cancer treated by local excision were observed to have a 3- to 5-fold higher risk of tumor recurrence compared with patients treated by radical surgery. Local excision should be reserved for low-risk cancers in patients who will accept an increased risk of tumor recurrence, prolonged surveillance, and possible need for aggressive salvage surgery. Radical resection is the more definitive surgical treatment of T1 rectal cancers.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The optimal treatment of early (T1 and T2) rectal adenocarcinomas remains controversial. Local excision and radical resection with total mesorectal excision are the two surgical techniques for excising early rectal cancer. Each has their respective benefits, with local excision allowing for decreased operative morbidity and mortality while radical resection provides an oncologically complete treatment through lymphadenectomy. Local excision can be accomplished via transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal excision. There is no significant difference in the recurrence rates (21% vs. 33%) or overall survival (80% vs. 66%) between the two local excision modalities; however, transanal endoscopic microsurgery does allow for a higher rate of R0 resection. Current selection criteria for local excision include well to moderately differentiated tumors without high-risk features such as lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, or mucinous components. In addition, tumors should ideally be <3 cm in size, excised with a clear margin, occupy less than 1/3 of the circumference of the bowel and be mobile/nonfixed. Despite these stringent inclusion criteria, local excision continues to be plagued with a high recurrence rate in both T1 and T2 tumors due to a significant rate of occult locoregional metastases (20% to 33%). For both tumor groups, the recurrence rate in the local excision group is more than double compared to radical resection. However, the overall survival is not significantly different between those with and without metastases. With intense postoperative surveillance, these recurrences can be identified early while they are confined to the pelvis allowing for salvage surgical options. Recently, neoadjuvant therapy followed by local excision has shown favorable short and long-term oncological outcomes to radical resection in the treatment of T2 rectal cancer. Ultimately, the management of early rectal cancer must be individualized to each patient's expectations of quality and quantity of life. With informed consent, patients may be willing to accept a higher failure rate and an increased post-operative surveillance regimen to preserve a perceived increased quality of life.
    Journal of gastrointestinal oncology 10/2014; 5(5):345-352.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The last 30 years have witnessed a signifi-cant increase in the diagnosis of early-stage rectal cancer and the development of new strategies to reduce the treatment-related morbidity. Currently, there is no con-sensus on the definition of early rectal cancer (ERC), and the best management of ERC has not been yet defined. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery in collabo-ration with the European Society of Coloproctology developed this consensus conference to provide recom-mendations on ERC diagnosis, staging and treatment based on the available evidence. Methods A multidisciplinary group of experts selected on their clinical and scientific expertise was invited to critically review the literature and to formulate evidence-based recommendations by the Delphi method. Recommendations were discussed at the plenary session of the 14th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Paris, 26 June 2014, and then posted on the EAES website for open discussion. Results Tumour biopsy has a low accuracy. Digital rectal examination plays a key role in the pre-operative work-up. Magnification chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are complementary staging modalities. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are the two established approaches for local excision (LE) of selected ERC. The role of all organ-sparing approaches including neoadjuvant therapies followed by LE should be formally assessed by randomized controlled trials. Rectal resection and total mesorectal excision is indicated in the presence of unfa-vourable features at the pathological evaluation of the LE
    Surgical Endoscopy 01/2015; · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the present review we discuss the recent developments and future directions in the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, with respect to staging and re-staging modalities, to the current role of neoadjuvant chemo-radiation and to the conservative and more limited surgical approaches based on tumour response after neoadjuvant combined therapy. When initial tumor staging is considered a high accuracy has been reported for T pre-treatment staging, while preoperative lymph node mapping is still suboptimal. With respect to tumour re-staging, all the current available modalities still present a limited accuracy, in particular in defining a complete response. The role of short vs long-course radiotherapy regimens as well as the optimal time of surgery are still unclear and under investigation by means of ongoing randomized trials. Observational management or local excision following tumour complete response are promising alternatives to total mesorectal excision, but need further evaluation, and their use outside of a clinical trial is not recommended. The preoperative selection of patients who will benefit from neoadjuvant radiotherapy or not, as well as the proper identification of a clinical complete tumour response after combined treatment modalities,will influence the future directions in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2014; 20(32):11249-11261. · 2.43 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
1 Download
Available from
Jan 9, 2015