Locally recurrent rectal cancer: oncological outcomes with different treatment strategies in two tertiary referral units

  • Stefi Nordkamp*
  • , Eva L K Voogt
  • , Desley M G I van Zoggel
  • , Anna Martling
  • , Torbjörn Holm
  • , Gabriella Jansson Palmer
  • , Chikako Suzuki
  • , Joost Nederend
  • , Miranda Kusters
  • , Jacobus W A Burger
  • , Harm J T Rutten
  • , Henrik Iversen
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

94 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

No standard of care has yet been defined in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer, owing to the heterogeneous nature of the disease, its low incidence, and the wide variety of treatment options. Data from two large tertiary hospitals in Sweden and the Netherlands were compared in this study. It was found that aiming for wide resection margins increased the R0 resection rate and local re-recurrence-free survival. Addition of neoadjuvant full-course chemoradiotherapy improved survival, whereas no benefit of reirradiation was found.

Background The optimal treatment for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate different treatment strategies in two leading tertiary referral hospitals in Europe. Methods All patients who underwent curative surgery for LRRC between January 2003 and December 2017 in Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (CHE), or Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (KAR), were studied retrospectively. Available MRIs were reviewed to obtain a uniform staging for optimal comparison of both cohorts. The main outcomes studied were overall survival (OS), local re-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). Results In total, 377 patients were included, of whom 126 and 251 patients came from KAR and CHE respectively. At 5 years, the LRFS rate was 62.3 per cent in KAR versus 42.3 per cent in CHE (P = 0.017), whereas OS and MFS were similar. A clear surgical resection margin (R0) was the strongest prognostic factor for survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.23 (95 per cent c.i. 1.74 to 2.86; P < 0.001), 3.96 (2.87 to 5.47; P < 0.001), and 2.00 (1.48 to 2.69; P < 0.001) for OS, LRFS, and MFS respectively. KAR performed more extensive operations, resulting in more R0 resections than in CHE (76.2 versus 61.4 per cent; P = 0.004), whereas CHE relied more on neoadjuvant treatment and intraoperative radiotherapy, to reduce the morbidity of multivisceral resections (P < 0.001). Conclusion In radiotherapy-naive patients, neoadjuvant full-course chemoradiation confers the best oncological outcome. However, neoadjuvant therapy does not diminish the need for extended radical surgery to increase R0 resection rates.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)623-631
Number of pages9
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume109
Issue number7
Early online date13 Apr 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jun 2022

Keywords

  • CHEMORADIOTHERAPY
  • CHEMOTHERAPY
  • EXCISION
  • MANAGEMENT
  • PREOPERATIVE RADIOTHERAPY
  • REIRRADIATION
  • SURGERY

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Locally recurrent rectal cancer: oncological outcomes with different treatment strategies in two tertiary referral units'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this