TY - JOUR
T1 - Locally recurrent rectal cancer
T2 - oncological outcomes with different treatment strategies in two tertiary referral units
AU - Nordkamp, Stefi
AU - Voogt, Eva L. K.
AU - van Zoggel, Desley M. G. I.
AU - Martling, Anna
AU - Holm, Torbjörn
AU - Jansson Palmer, Gabriella
AU - Suzuki, Chikako
AU - Nederend, Joost
AU - Kusters, Miranda
AU - Burger, Jacobus W. A.
AU - Rutten, Harm J. T.
AU - Iversen, Henrik
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/7/1
Y1 - 2022/7/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132049827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac083
DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac083
M3 - Article
C2 - 35416250
SN - 0007-1323
VL - 109
SP - 623
EP - 631
JO - The British journal of surgery
JF - The British journal of surgery
IS - 7
ER -