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... Show moreBackground: 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. Show less
Amelung, F.J.; Borstlap, W.A.A.; Consten, E.C.J.; Veld, J.V.; Halsema, E.E. van; Bemelman, W.A.; ... ; Dutch Snapshot Res Grp 2019
Background: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is... Show moreBackground: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS.Methods: Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1: 2 propensity score matching.Results: Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7.7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11-4 and 13.6 per cent (P= 0-457), disease-free survival rates were 58-8 and 52.6 per cent (P= 0-175), and overall survival rates were 74-0 and 68-3 per cent (P= 0.231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23.9 versus 45.3 per cent; P < 0-001), especially in elderly patients (29.0 versus 57.9 per cent; P < 0-001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11.0 per cent (P= 0.432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59.6 per cent (P= 0-717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75.1 per cent (P= 0.529), respectively.Conclusion: Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients. Show less
