Search

Introduction: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard-of-care in early, clinical stage (cT2-3 N0 M0) rectal cancer. Local excision (LE) may be an alternative after adequate response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), with either long-course chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT), as a means of preserving the rectum and potentially obviating the morbidity of TME., Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines for studies that randomly assigned patients with cT2-3 N0 M0 rectal cancer to either NAT + LE or TME that reported radiologic, oncologic, surgical, and morbidity outcomes., Results: A total of 4 RCTs comprise 462 patients (232 patients receiving NAT + LE; nCRT n = 205; SCRT n = 27) and 230 undergoing TME, respectively. NAT compliance was 98.86%. The rate of early completion TME in the NAT + LE group was 22.3%, while the proportion of patients achieving durable organ preservation was 75.4% at mean follow-up of 5.6 years. There was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) (HR [hazard ratio] 1.19; 95% CI 0.95, 1.49; p = 0.13) or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.72, 1.23; p = 0.63]) according to the assigned treatment arm. The local recurrence rate (LRR) (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.5-3.02; p = 0.66) and distant metastases (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.45, 1.90; p = 0.82) were also comparable between the groups. There was a significant reduction in major (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21, 0.95; p = 0.04) and minor morbidity (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24, 0.85; p = 0.01) for patients undergoing NAT + LE. Overall stoma formation was decreased in the NAT + LE group (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.0, 0.23; p ≤ 0.00001)., Conclusion: NAT + LE reduces adverse effects of TME, without any compromise in oncological outcomes, and the potential for an organ preserving strategy should be discussed with patients with T2-3N0 rectal cancers prior to treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) remains controversial. An integrated analysis of data from high-quality studies may inform the long-term safety of NAC for this cohort. Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies to assess the oncological safety of NAC in patients with LACC., Methods: A systematic review was performed as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Survival was expressed as hazard ratios using time-to-effect generic inverse variance methodology, while surgical outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4., Results: Eight studies (4 RCTs and 4 retrospective studies) including 31,047 patients with LACC were included. Mean age was 61.0 years (range: 19-93 years) and mean follow-up was 47.6 months (range: 2-133 months). Of those receiving NAC, 4.6% achieved a pathological complete response and 90.6% achieved R0 resection (versus 85.9%, P < 0.001). At 3 years, patients receiving NAC had improved disease-free survival (DFS) (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.60, P = 0.030) and overall survival (OS) (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.10-2.81, P = 0.020). When using time-to-effect modelling, a non-significant difference was observed for DFS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.57-1.09, P = 0.150) while a significant difference in favour of NAC was observed for OS (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58-0.98, P = 0.030)., Conclusion: This study highlights the oncological safety of NAC for patients being treated with curative intent for LACC using RCT and propensity-matched studies only. These results refute current management guidelines which do not advocate for NAC to improve surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with LACC., Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) registration: CRD4202341723., (© 2023. The Author(s).)