Search

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR., Methods: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR., Results: Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR., Conclusion: This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team., Materials and Methods: Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed., Results: Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients., Conclusion: This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), delivered by intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) or high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy (HDR-IORT), may reduce the local recurrence rate in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes between both IORT modalities in patients with LARC or LRRC who underwent a microscopic irradical (R1) resection., Methods: All consecutive patients who received IORT because of an R1 resection of LARC or LRRC between 2000 and 2016 in two tertiary referral centers were included. In LARC, a resection margin of ≤2 mm was considered R1. A resection margin of 0 mm was considered R1 in LRRC., Results: In total, 215 patients with LARC were included, of whom 151 (70%) received IOERT and 64 (30%) received HDR-IORT; in addition, 158 patients with LRRC were included, of whom 112 (71%) received IOERT and 46 (29%) received HDR-IORT. After multivariable analyses, the overall survival was not significantly different between the two IORT modalities. The local recurrence-free survival was significantly longer in patients treated with HDR-IORT, both in LARC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.496; 95% CI, 0.253-0.973; P = .041) and LRRC (HR, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.349-0.920; P = .021). In patients with LARC, major postoperative complications were similar for both IORT modalities (IOERT, 30%; HDR-IORT, 27%), whereas in patients with LRRC, the incidence of major postoperative complications was higher after HDR-IORT (IOERT, 26%; HDR-IORT, 46%)., Conclusions: This study showed a significantly better local recurrence-free survival in favor of HDR-IORT in patients with an R1 resection for LARC or LRRC. Optimization of the IOERT technique seems warranted., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)