Search

Aim: Patients requiring a beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) will probably benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, implementation of ERAS protocols in such groups of patients is considered challenging. The aims of this study were to evaluate ERAS-related outcomes of patients with LARC or LRRC undergoing bTME and to investigate the possibility of designing a tailored ERAS protocol., Method: This study was divided into four phases. Phase one consisted of a literature study to compare functional recovery and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. In phase two, outcomes on ERAS care elements in bTME were retrospectively evaluated. In phase three, differences in ERAS-related outcomes and compliance of the colorectal ERAS protocol in patients who had undergone bTME were studied. In phase four, multidisciplinary team meetings were held to develop an ERAS protocol for bTME patients., Results: Seven studies reported on ERAS-related outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. Median length of hospital stay was 9-19 days, median stay in the intensive care unit was 2-4 days and 30-day postoperative major complication rates were 22.6%-61.3%. Seventy-five bTME patients were included for retrospective analysis. In these patients, length of stay was 9.0 days and major postoperative complications were observed in 40.0%. The overall ERAS compliance was 44.4%. Compared with the colorectal ERAS protocol, the largest differences in management were observed in the use of epidural anaesthesia, the postoperative use of urethral catheters, oral intake and mobilization., Conclusion: Patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC are substantially different from patients treated with the colorectal ERAS protocol, regarding ERAS-related outcomes. A tailored, multimodal ERAS protocol with specific modifications was developed by an expert multidisciplinary team for patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC., (© 2024 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

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.)

Purpose: The benefit of intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) or locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) lie in its ability to provide high-dose of radiation to limited at-risk volume, thereby eliminating microscopic disease and decreasing toxicity. A comparative study between high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, named intra-operative brachytherapy (IOBT), and intra-operative electron radiotherapy (IOERT) was performed showing favorable LRFS after IOBT, possibly due to a higher surface dose that is inherent in IOBT technique. The IOERT technique in Catharina Hospital Eindhoven was adapted to increase the surface dose, aiming to improve local control. Post-operative complications due to an increased radiation dose remain the matter of concern. This retrospective study was performed to compare complication rates before and after adapted IOERT dose., Material and Methods: All patients undergoing surgery with IOERT for LARC or LRRC from September 2019 until July 2023, were considered. Patients selected until August 31, 2021 were included in control cohort ( n = 108), and those chosen from September 1, 2021 onwards were included in intervention cohort ( n = 92). Perioperative and (major) post-operative complications were classified retrospectively, during admission, at 30 days, and at 90 days., Results: In LARC patients, a decrease in post-operative complications was observed ( p = 0.009). 19% of LARC patients experienced major post-operative surgical complications, i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade 3b-5, regardless of treatment group. No difference in major 90-day complications was noted ( p = 0.142). In LRRC patients, the use of induction chemotherapy decreased from 78% to 29% ( p < 0.001), which complicated comparison. However, no difference in major post-operative complications was observed at 30 days ( p = 0.222) or 90 days ( p = 0.977) after surgery., Conclusions: Increased surface dose of IOERT does not seem to lead to an increase in post-operative complications. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of dose adaptation in IOERT to improve local oncological control rates. Routine evaluation of CTCAE scores in follow-up will help uncover possible long-term radiation-induced toxicity., Competing Interests: This study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee United (MEC-U) in the Netherlands (Approval No. nWMO-2022.130). The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Termedia.)

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.)