Non-Operative Management of TME Surgery: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Stijn Ketelaers
,

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue.

  • rectal cancer
  • non operative management
  • elderly patients

1. Introduction

Although total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery is the optimal approach for curation, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not always be able to undergo a surgical procedure [1][2][3]. In these patients, decision making is challenging, and no standardised treatment regimen or guideline is available [4][5][6]. Frequently, patients receive no treatment at all and doctors and patients wait out the natural course of the disease [1][7][8]. This often results in tumour progression and the onset of debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life. Palliative treatment may then be offered to alleviate symptoms, if possible [7][9].
However, improvements in chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic treatment modalities provide alternative non-operative treatment strategies for patients who are unable to undergo TME surgery [10][11]. These strategies may provide long-term local control of the primary tumour and avoid the early-onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. In some patients, curation might even be possible.
Various evidence-based and expert-based recommendations exist on how elderly and frail rectal cancer patients should be treated surgically. However, the optimal treatment approach for patients who are unable to undergo TME surgery is still unknown. The patient complexity, as well as the risk for undertreatment or overtreatment require a patient-centred approach to propose the most optimal treatment strategy, considering the patient’s level of frailty, personal preferences, and treatment goals.

2. Non-Operative Treatment Options

The non-operative management of rectal cancer in elderly and frail patients unable to undergo TME surgery should not be considered the same as palliative treatment. In palliative treatment, the natural course of the disease is often awaited and symptoms are treated when they arise, whereas the non-operative management is a more active approach with clear treatment goals to obtain local control of the primary tumour and prevent the onset of symptoms.
The advancements in chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic treatment modalities over the recent years have improved tumour responses [10][11][12][13]. Radiotherapy-based treatment strategies may result in adequate local control of the primary tumour. In fact, some patients can even be cured without the need for surgery. This has been supported by data from the International Watch and Wait Database. They reported 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates of 85% and 94%, respectively, among 880 patients with a clinical complete response [14]. A recent study by Haak et al. investigated the effectiveness of a watch-and-wait strategy among 43 elderly patients [15]. After a minimal follow-up of 2 years, the complete response was sustained in 88%, while the 3-year overall survival was 97% [15].
The beneficial outcomes have led to increased interest in the non-operative management of rectal cancer patients, which is especially relevant for elderly and frail patients who are not able to undergo TME surgery [5][6]. While curation would be the best possible outcome, the treatment of these patients mostly aims at achieving local control of the primary tumour. Improved tumour responses can be obtained by increased radiotherapeutic doses, which can be delivered endoluminally [5][10][13][16]. The addition of systemic chemotherapy may also improve tumour response, while local excision can be performed to treat small residual disease [17][18][19]. Multiple studies have explored the advantages and disadvantages of non-operative treatment modalities in selected groups of patients. Most of the performed studies reported on complete or near-complete response rates, rather than on local control. Nevertheless, the complete or near-complete response rates associated with a non-operative treatment modality may indicate its effect on the tumour response and the probability to obtain local control.
It has become clear that each modality may benefit each patient differently, supporting the need for a personalised treatment strategy [20]. Despite separate modalities as well as certain combinations having been explored, the optimal allocation in the elderly and frail is unknown. Centralisation of care to a dedicated centre with expertise on all non-operative treatment modalities in the elderly and frail seems warranted.

2.1. Systemic Chemotherapy

Adding systemic chemotherapy before or after (chemo)radiotherapy seems to improve local tumour response and may increase local control. Over recent years, the addition of systemic chemotherapy has been explored increasingly in studies on total neoadjuvant treatment [11][21]. Although some studies only reported small effects, promising response rates have been described in several randomised trials and cohort studies [22][23][24][25][26]. Calvo et al. reported significantly higher rates of tumour downstaging after adding systemic chemotherapy, which was also observed in a phase II study by Markovina et al. [27][28]. Meta-analyses by Petrelli et al. and Kasi et al. reported a pooled complete response rate of 22.4–29.9% in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in whom systemic chemotherapy was added to (chemo)radiotherapy [18][29]. In patients with lower stages of rectal cancer, the complete response rates seem even higher. A study by Cercek et al. reported a complete response in 53.5% of patients with stage II disease [23]. However, the benefits of the addition of systemic chemotherapy for achieving local control and survival are unclear, especially in the elderly and frail.
Systemic chemotherapy may induce toxicity, resulting in morbidity and decreased physical reserve capacity, particularly in the elderly and frail. The performed studies showed high compliance rates of 80–100% and similar toxicity rates when compared to chemoradiotherapy, but these studies were mostly conducted in relatively young and fit patients with a median age between 57 and 69 years [18][29]. Many studies investigated oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, which is, particularly in the elderly, known for its adverse effects [30]. Studies exploring the effectiveness, the toxicity, and compliance of adding systemic chemotherapy in the elderly and frail are lacking. While it may be beneficial in relatively fit patients who refuse surgery, the absence of data and the potential toxicity probably limits its use in the non-operative management of the elderly and frail.

2.2. External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT)

EBRT is most commonly administered in two different schedules: long-course chemoradiotherapy (45–50.4 Gy in fractions of 1.8–2.0 Gy with concomitant capecitabine) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) (25 Gy in fractions of 5 Gy).
Both schedules are associated with beneficial tumour response rates and form a viable basis for combinations in the non-operative management of rectal cancer. When compared to chemoradiotherapy, SCRT seems to result in slightly lower response rates. After chemoradiotherapy, a complete response is reported in 15–27% of patients with cT3–T4 rectal cancer [31][32]. Two population-based studies on data from the NCR showed that SCRT combined with a waiting interval of 4–5 weeks resulted in fewer complete (6.4–9.3% vs. 16.2–17.5%) and good (yT0–1) (11.0–17.5% vs. 20.6–22.6%) responses than chemoradiotherapy [33][34]. The Stockholm III trial reported significantly increased tumour regression rates in patients with a delayed interval (median 6.4 weeks) until surgery after SCRT, with a complete response in 11.4% of patients [35]. Response evaluation at 4–5 weeks after SCRT may be too early to evaluate the tumour response adequately. Furthermore, tumour response rates seem correlated with the initial tumour stage. In a pooled analyses by Maas et al. that included 3105 patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy, complete responses were observed in 58% of cT1, 28% of cT2, and 16% of cT3 tumours [32]. Most studies were performed in locally advanced rectal cancer and the response rates of chemoradiotherapy and SCRT in early stage tumours (cT1–3bN0) are relatively unexplored. The currently ongoing STAR-TREC phase II/III study (NCT02945566) is investigating the effects of chemoradiotherapy and SCRT on early stage rectal cancer and may provide valuable insights on the non-operative management of rectal cancer patients [36].
Earlier studies have shown that elderly patients treated with chemoradiotherapy achieved comparable response rates, disease-free survival, and tolerability in relation to their younger counterparts [6]. Data from the ACCORD12/PRODIGE2 phase 3 trial by François et al. reported that elderly patients treated with chemoradiotherapy had increased rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity (25.6% vs. 15.8%) when compared to younger patients [37]. Still, 95.8% of the elderly successfully completed chemoradiotherapy [37]. While literature is controversial, SCRT seems associated with reduced toxicity. The preliminary results of the randomised NACRE study (NCT02551237) showed that all patients above 75 years old completed SCRT, while 14% did not complete chemoradiotherapy [38]. The number of serious adverse events (13 vs. 7 events) was also higher in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy [38]. A randomised trial by Bujko et al. reported less acute toxicity in patients treated with SCRT when compared to chemoradiotherapy (3.2% vs. 18.2%), while late toxicity was comparable (7.1% vs. 10.1%) [39]. Similar results were observed in a later meta-analysis [40].
When tolerated, chemoradiotherapy seems to be the most effective treatment for achieving local control in patients unable to undergo TME surgery [4][6]. SCRT has a shorter treatment duration and seems to result in lower toxicity, which may be preferable in frail or comorbid patients unfit for chemoradiotherapy or for whom treatment compliance might be a potential issue.
Outcomes of other EBRT schedules (e.g., 13 × 3 Gy) on local control rates are scarce and unexplored. In the Lyon R90-01 trial, 29% of patients with cT2–T3 rectal cancer who were treated with 13 × 3 Gy EBRT achieved a complete or near-complete response after a waiting interval of 6–8 weeks [41]. These alternative schedules are currently under investigation, mostly in combination with dose escalating endoluminal radiotherapeutic boosts [42][43].

2.3. Dose Escalation of Radiotherapy

Radiotherapeutic dose-response analyses have showed that tumour responses can be improved by increasing the radiotherapy dose [13]. An earlier analysis by Appelt et al. showed that 72 Gy was needed to achieve a major tumour response in 50% of cT3–T4 rectal tumours [13]. Increased radiotherapy doses can be delivered by endoluminal radiotherapeutic modalities, such as contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) or high-dose rate endorectal brachytherapy (HDR-BT). Endoluminal radiotherapy has the ability to deliver high doses of radiotherapy directly to the tumour with a rapid dose fall-off, thus sparing normal surrounding tissue. If technically eligible, definitive dose escalations of radiotherapy are an attractive modality in elderly and frail patients unable to undergo TME surgery to maximise local control. These endoluminal interventions are only available in selected centres and should be surveilled by dedicated multidisciplinary teams.

2.3.1. Contact X-ray Brachytherapy

The use of CXB is mainly described as a beneficial dose-escalating modality in patients unable to undergo surgery. Sun Myint et al. and Gérard et al. have described the use of CXB in rectal cancer patients as monotherapy (in early and small tumours), as an additional boost to EBRT, or as adjuvant treatment after local excision [16][44][45][46].
CXB as an additional boost to EBRT has been explored in multiple studies. In the Lyon R96-02 trial, a significant improvement in clinical complete response rates (24% vs. 2%) and pathological complete and near-complete response rates (57% vs. 34%) were observed in patients treated with an additional CXB boost after EBRT (13 × 3 Gy) when compared to EBRT (13 × 3 Gy) alone [43]. A multicentre phase II study by Gérard et al. showed that EBRT combined with a CXB boost resulted in complete and near-complete response rates of 95% in cT2–T3 rectal cancer [47]. Another study by the same group described complete and near-complete response rates after CXB and EBRT of 33–88% [48]. In a cohort described by Sun Myint et al., patients unsuitable for or refusing surgery achieved a complete response in 64–72%, of which 86–87% were sustained after a median follow-up of 2.5–2.7 years [44][49]. An additional 21–23% of patients with a clinical incomplete response had pathological complete responses after resection [44][49]. A recent study by Custers et al. reported on local control rates in older and inoperable rectal cancer patients who were treated with CXB after different schedules of radiotherapy (79%) or local excision (21%) [50]. The research showed that local control was achieved in 13 out of 19 (68.4%) patients, while 9 out of 19 (47.4%) patients had a clinical complete response [50]. The 1-year local progression-free survival was 78%, while the overall 1-year survival was 100% [50]. The quality of life was only slightly impaired and successfully returned to baseline after 6 months [50]. These results suggest that, if technically possible, CXB is an effective option in the elderly and frail to improve local control. Most studies were not randomised and did not include locally advanced tumours. The currently ongoing randomised OPERA trial (NCT02505750) and the OPAXX study will likely give more insights in the value of CXB in more advanced rectal tumours [51].
The reported toxicity rates of CXB are relatively low [44][49][52]. In the Lyon R96-02 trial, early and late grade III toxicity involved 9% and 11% of patients, respectively [47]. According to other studies, toxicity mostly included rectal bleeding. Grade I-III rectal bleeding occurred in 24–40% of patients, while grade III bleeding was described in <5% [46][49]. Rectal ulceration was described in 30% of patients, which was most often asymptomatic and usually healed within 3–6 months [46][49]. Functional outcomes after CXB are reported to be relatively good, with 65% of patients having no LARS complaints [47][53].

2.3.2. High-Dose Rate Endorectal Brachytherapy

An alternative endoluminal dose-escalating modality to improve local control is HDR-BT [54]. Vuong et al. showed that a preoperative HDR-BT boost resulted in improved tumour response rates [55]. The research reported pT0N0-1 rates of 32%, while an additional 38% of patients only had small microscopic residual disease [55]. The beneficial effects of HDR-BT on the tumour response has been investigated in multiple other studies. In the phase I HERBERT study, 38 patients (median age of 83 years) were treated with 13 × 3 Gy EBRT followed by HDR-BT (3 fractions of 5–8 Gy) [42]. A clinical tumour response was observed in 29 out of 33 patients (87.9%), of which 20 patients achieved a complete response (60.6%) [42]. The 1-year local progression-free survival was 64% and the 1-year overall survival was 82% [42]. Overall grade 3/4 toxicity were observed in 33% and 4%, while acute and late grade 2/3 proctitis were observed in 81.6% and 88% of patients [42]. The researchers concluded that HDR-BT provided good tumour responses, but had a considerable risk for toxicity in the elderly and frail. In a study by Garant et al., elderly patients (median age of 82 years) with mainly cT2–T3 tumours achieved a clinical complete response in 86.2% after 40 Gy of EBRT (in 16 fractions) followed by HDR-BT (3 fractions of 10 Gy) [56]. The 2-year local control rate was 71.5% [56]. In a randomised study by Jakobsen et al., cT3–T4 rectal cancer patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy followed by HDR-BT (2 fractions of 5 Gy), which resulted in a complete or near-complete response rate of 44% [57]. Toxicity mostly included diarrhea, skin problems and proctitis, but was comparable to those treated with chemoradiotherapy alone [57]. Appelt et al. described that 40 out of 51 (78.4%) patients with cT1–3ab rectal cancer achieved a complete response after chemoradiotherapy followed by a 5 Gy boost of HDR-BT, with 2-year local control rates of 58% [58]. These patients had relatively good functional outcomes, as 69% of patients did not report faecal incontinence [58]. Based on these results, HDR-BT may be a useful modality to improve tumour response and optimise local control. Currently, the randomised HERBERT-II study (Netherlands Trial Register: NL7795) is investigating the additional effect of HDR-BT (3 × 7 Gy) after EBRT (13 × 3 Gy) in elderly and frail patients unable to undergo surgery.

2.4. Local Excision

Early rectal cancer can be treated with local excision with relatively low risks for morbidity and mortality, and relatively good functional outcomes [4][59]. Over the years, the indication for local excision has been broadened. However, long-term results reported local recurrence rates after a primary local excision of pT2 tumours up to 37% [60]. In the CARTS-study, patients with cT1-3N0 rectal cancer underwent chemoradiotherapy followed by local excision in case of residual ycT0-2N0 disease [17]. The research reported successful organ-preservation in 64% of patients with residual ycT0-2N0 disease, and in 55% of all patients that started with chemoradiotherapy [17]. A meta-analysis that investigated chemoradiotherapy followed by local excision in cT2–T3 rectal cancer showed adequate local control rates, with no recurrences in patients with a pathological complete response, while the recurrence rates were 2%, 7%, and 12% in patients with ypT1, ypT2, and ypT3 disease, respectively [61]. Additionally, several other studies reported comparable local control rates after local excision in patients after chemoradiotherapy [61][62][63]. However, local excision preceded by neoadjuvant treatment seems to result in an increased risk for wound infections, wound dehiscence and severe functional bowel complaints [62][64][65]. In the long-term follow-up of the CARTS-study, major LARS was observed in 50% of patients [64]. Local excision may be reasonable to treat small residual disease after chemoradiotherapy or SCRT in the elderly and frail unable to undergo completion TME surgery [66]. Nevertheless, selecting the patients that benefit most seems challenging. The outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer are unknown. More insights will probably be gained by the currently ongoing OPAXX study, which randomises patients with more advanced rectal cancer and a near complete response between CXB and the extension of the waiting interval followed by a local excision [51].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/cancers14102368

References

  1. van der Vlies, E.; Vernooij, L.M.; van Erning, F.N.; Vink, G.R.; Bos, W.J.W.; Portielje, J.E.A.; Noordzij, P.G.; Los, M. Survival of Surgical and Non-Surgical Older Patients with Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study in the Netherlands. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 47, 3144–3150.
  2. Benitez Majano, S.; Di Girolamo, C.; Rachet, B.; Maringe, C.; Guren, M.G.; Glimelius, B.; Iversen, L.H.; Schnell, E.A.; Lundqvist, K.; Christensen, J.; et al. Surgical Treatment and Survival from Colorectal Cancer in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden: A Population-Based Study. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 74–87.
  3. Schiphorst, A.; Verweij, N.M.; Pronk, A.; Hamaker, M.E. Age-Related Guideline Adherence and Outcome in Low Rectal Cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 2014, 57, 967–975.
  4. Montroni, I.; Ugolini, G.; Saur, N.M.; Spinelli, A.; Rostoft, S.; Millan, M.; Wolthuis, A.; Daniels, I.R.; Hompes, R.; Penna, M.; et al. Personalized Management of Elderly Patients with Rectal Cancer: Expert Recommendations of the European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Society of Coloproctology, International Society of Geriatric Oncology, and American College of Surgeons Commissi. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 1685–1702.
  5. Bujko, K.; Glynne-Jones, R.; Papamichael, D.; Rutten, H.J.T. Optimal Management of Localized Rectal Cancer in Older Patients. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2018, 9, 696–704.
  6. Wang, S.J.; Hathout, L.; Malhotra, U.; Maloney-Patel, N.; Kilic, S.; Poplin, E.; Jabbour, S.K. Decision-Making Strategy for Rectal Cancer Management Using Radiation Therapy for Elderly or Comorbid Patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 100, 926–944.
  7. Bethune, R.; Sbaih, M.; Brosnan, C.; Arulampalam, T. What Happens When We Do Not Operate? Survival Following Conservative Bowel Cancer Management. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2016, 98, 409–412.
  8. Abdel-Halim, M.; Wu, H.; Poustie, M.; Beveridge, A.; Scott, N.; Mitchell, P.J. Survival after Non-Resection of Colorectal Cancer: The Argument for Including Non-Operatives in Consultant Outcome Reporting in the UK. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2019, 101, 126–132.
  9. Ronnekleiv-Kelly, S.M.; Kennedy, G.D. Management of Stage IV Rectal Cancer: Palliative Options. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 835–847.
  10. Marijnen, C.A.M. Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: Have All Questions Been Answered? Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, e13–e22.
  11. Roeder, F.; Meldolesi, E.; Gerum, S.; Valentini, V.; Rödel, C. Recent Advances in (Chemo-)Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 15, 262.
  12. Dossa, F.; Chesney, T.; Acuna, S.A.; Baxter, N.N. A Watch-and-Wait Approach for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer after a Clinical Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 2, 501–513.
  13. Appelt, A.L.; Pløen, J.; Vogelius, I.R.; Bentzen, S.M.; Jakobsen, A. Radiation Dose-Response Model for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiation Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013, 85, 74–80.
  14. van der Valk, M.J.M.; Hilling, D.E.; Bastiaannet, E.; Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, E.; Beets, G.L.; Figueiredo, N.L.; Habr-Gama, A.; Perez, R.O.; Renehan, A.G.; van de Velde, C.J.H.; et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Clinical Complete Responders after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): An International Multicentre Registry Study. Lancet 2018, 391, 2537–2545.
  15. Haak, H.E.; Maas, M.; Lambregts, D.M.J.; Beets-Tan, R.G.H.; Beets, G.L.; Melenhorst, J.; van der Sande, M.E.; van Westreenen, H.L.; Talsma, A.K.; Breukink, S.O.; et al. Is Watch and Wait a Safe and Effective Way to Treat Rectal Cancer in Older Patients? Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 46, 358–362.
  16. Myint, A.S.; Gérard, J.P. Role of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer in Older Patients. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 46, 349–357.
  17. Verseveld, M.; de Graaf, E.J.R.; Verhoef, C.; van Meerten, E.; Punt, C.J.A.; de Hingh, I.H.J.T.; Nagtegaal, I.D.; Nuyttens, J.J.M.E.; Marijnen, C.A.M.; de Wilt, J.H.W. Chemoradiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer in the Distal Rectum Followed by Organ-Sparing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (CARTS Study). Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 853–860.
  18. Petrelli, F.; Trevisan, F.; Cabiddu, M.; Sgroi, G.; Bruschieri, L.; Rausa, E.; Ghidini, M.; Turati, L. Total Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes. Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 440–448.
  19. Perez, R.O.; Habr-Gama, A.; São Julião, G.P.; Proscurshim, I.; Fernandez, L.M.; de Azevedo, R.U.; Vailati, B.B.; Fernandes, F.A.; Gama-Rodrigues, J. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes of Salvage Resection for Local Recurrence. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 1143–1148.
  20. Jiménez-Rodríguez, R.; García-Aguilar, J. Non Surgical Treatment in Patients With Advanced Rectal Cancer. Cir. Esp. 2021, 99, 401–403.
  21. Hardiman, K.M.; Antunez, A.G.; Kanters, A.; Schuman, A.D.; Regenbogen, S.E. Clinical and Pathological Outcomes of Induction Chemotherapy before Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy in Locally-Advanced Rectal Cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 120, 308–315.
  22. Masi, G.; Vivaldi, C.; Fornaro, L.; Lonardi, S.; Buccianti, P.; Sainato, A.; Marcucci, L.; Martignetti, A.; Luca Urso, E.D.; Castagna, M.; et al. Total Neoadjuvant Approach with FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab Followed by Chemoradiotherapy plus Bevacizumab in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The TRUST Trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 110, 32–41.
  23. Cercek, A.; Roxburgh, C.S.D.; Strombom, P.; Smith, J.J.; Temple, L.K.F.; Nash, G.M.; Guillem, J.G.; Paty, P.B.; Yaeger, R.; Stadler, Z.K.; et al. Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, e180071.
  24. Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Chow, O.S.; Smith, D.D.; Marcet, J.E.; Cataldo, P.A.; Varma, M.G.; Kumar, A.S.; Oommen, S.; Coutsoftides, T.; Hunt, S.R.; et al. Effect of Adding MFOLFOX6 after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicentre, Phase 2 Trial. Lancet. Oncol. 2015, 16, 957–966.
  25. Golo, D.; But-Hadzic, J.; Anderluh, F.; Brecelj, E.; Edhemovic, I.; Jeromen, A.; Omejc, M.; Oblak, I.; Secerov-Ermenc, A.; Velenik, V. Induction Chemotherapy, Chemoradiotherapy and Consolidation Chemotherapy in Preoperative Treatment of Rectal Cancer—Long-Term Results of Phase II OIGIT-01 Trial. Radiol. Oncol. 2018, 52, 267–274.
  26. Maréchal, R.; Vos, B.; Polus, M.; Delaunoit, T.; Peeters, M.; Demetter, P.; Hendlisz, A.; Demols, A.; Franchimont, D.; Verset, G.; et al. Short Course Chemotherapy Followed by Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Multicentric Phase II Study. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2012, 23, 1525–1530.
  27. Calvo, F.A.; Serrano, F.J.; Diaz-González, J.A.; Gomez-Espi, M.; Lozano, E.; Garcia, R.; de la Mata, D.; Arranz, J.A.; García-Alfonso, P.; Pérez-Manga, G.; et al. Improved Incidence of PT0 Downstaged Surgical Specimens in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC) Treated with Induction Oxaliplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil and Preoperative Chemoradiation. Ann. Oncol. 2006, 17, 1103–1110.
  28. Markovina, S.; Youssef, F.; Roy, A.; Aggarwal, S.; Khwaja, S.; DeWees, T.; Tan, B.; Hunt, S.; Myerson, R.J.; Chang, D.T.; et al. Improved Metastasis- and Disease-Free Survival With Preoperative Sequential Short-Course Radiation Therapy and FOLFOX Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer Compared With Neoadjuvant Long-Course Chemoradiotherapy: Results of a Matched Pair Analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 99, 417–426.
  29. Kasi, A.; Abbasi, S.; Handa, S.; Al-Rajabi, R.; Saeed, A.; Baranda, J.; Sun, W. Total Neoadjuvant Therapy vs Standard Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e2030097.
  30. Goldberg, R.M.; Tabah-Fisch, I.; Bleiberg, H.; De Gramont, A.; Tournigand, C.; Andre, T.; Rothenberg, M.L.; Green, E.; Sargent, D.J. Pooled Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Oxaliplatin plus Fluorouracil/Leucovorin Administered Bimonthly in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 4085–4091.
  31. Dattani, M.; Heald, R.J.; Goussous, G.; Broadhurst, J.; São Julião, G.P.; Habr-Gama, A.; Oliva Perez, R.; Moran, B.J. Oncological and Survival Outcomes in Watch and Wait Patients with a Clinical Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer a Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis. Ann. Surg. 2018, 268, 955–967.
  32. Maas, M.; Nelemans, P.J.; Valentini, V.; Das, P.; Rödel, C.; Kuo, L.J.; Calvo, F.A.; García-Aguilar, J.; Glynne-Jones, R.; Haustermans, K.; et al. Long-Term Outcome in Patients with a Pathological Complete Response after Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 835–844.
  33. Hoendervangers, S.; Couwenberg, A.M.; Intven, M.P.W.; van Grevenstein, W.M.U.; Verkooijen, H.M. Comparison of Pathological Complete Response Rates after Neoadjuvant Short-Course Radiotherapy or Chemoradiation Followed by Delayed Surgery in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 1013–1017.
  34. Rombouts, A.J.M.; Hugen, N.; Verhoeven, R.H.A.; Elferink, M.A.G.; Poortmans, P.M.P.; Nagtegaal, I.D.; de Wilt, J.H.W. Tumor Response after Long Interval Comparing 5x5Gy Radiation Therapy with Chemoradiation Therapy in Rectal Cancer Patients. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 1018–1024.
  35. Pettersson, D.; Lörinc, E.; Holm, T.; Iversen, H.; Cedermark, B.; Glimelius, B.; Martling, A. Tumour Regression in the Randomized Stockholm III Trial of Radiotherapy Regimens for Rectal Cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 972–978.
  36. Rombouts, A.J.M.; Al-Najami, I.; Abbott, N.L.; Appelt, A.; Baatrup, G.; Bach, S.; Bhangu, A.; Garm Spindler, K.L.; Gray, R.; Handley, K.; et al. Can We Save the Rectum by Watchful Waiting or Trans Anal Microsurgery Following (Chemo) Radiotherapy versus Total Mesorectal Excision for Early REctal Cancer (STAR-TREC Study)?: Protocol for a Multicentre, Randomised Feasibility Study. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e019474.
  37. François, E.; Azria, D.; Gourgou-Bourgade, S.; Jarlier, M.; Martel-Laffay, I.; Hennequin, C.; Etienne, P.L.; Vendrely, V.; Seitz, J.F.; Conroy, T.; et al. Results in the Elderly with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer from the ACCORD12/PRODIGE 2 Phase III Trial: Tolerance and Efficacy. Radiother. Oncol. 2014, 110, 144–149.
  38. François, E.; Pernot, M.; Ronchin, P.; Nouhaud, E.; Martel Lafay, I.; Pascal, A.; Clavere, P.; Vendrely, V.; Boige, V.; Thamphya, B.; et al. NACRE: A Randomized Study Comparing Short Course Radiotherapy with Radiochemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers in the Elderly—Preliminary Results. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 4.
  39. Bujko, K.; Nowacki, M.P.; Nasierowska-Guttmejer, A.; Michalski, W.; Bebenek, M.; Kryj, M. Long-Term Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Preoperative Short-Course Radiotherapy with Preoperative Conventionally Fractionated Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2006, 93, 1215–1223.
  40. Chen, C.; Sun, P.; Rong, J.; Weng, H.W.; Dai, Q.S.; Ye, S. Short Course Radiation in the Treatment of Localized Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10953.
  41. Francois, Y.; Nemoz, C.J.; Baulieux, J.; Vignal, J.; Grandjean, J.P.; Partensky, C.; Souquet, J.C.; Adeleine, P.; Gerard, J.P. Influence of the Interval between Preoperative Radiation Therapy and Surgery on Downstaging and on the Rate of Sphincter-Sparing Surgery for Rectal Cancer: The Lyon R90-01 Randomized Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999, 17, 2396.
  42. Rijkmans, E.C.; Cats, A.; Nout, R.A.; van den Bongard, D.H.J.G.; Ketelaars, M.; Buijsen, J.; Rozema, T.; Franssen, J.H.; Velema, L.A.; van Triest, B.; et al. Endorectal Brachytherapy Boost After External Beam Radiation Therapy in Elderly or Medically Inoperable Patients With Rectal Cancer: Primary Outcomes of the Phase 1 HERBERT Study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2017, 98, 908–917.
  43. Gerard, J.-P.; Chapet, O.; Nemoz, C.; Hartweig, J.; Romestaing, P.; Coquard, R.; Barbet, N.; Maingon, P.; Mahe, M.; Baulieux, J.; et al. Improved Sphincter Preservation in Low Rectal Cancer With High-Dose Preoperative Radiotherapy: The Lyon R96-02 Randomized Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 2404–2409.
  44. Sun Myint, A.; Smith, F.M.; Gollins, S.W.; Wong, H.; Rao, C.; Whitmarsh, K.; Sripadam, R.; Rooney, P.; Hershman, M.J.; Fekete, Z.; et al. Dose Escalation Using Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (Papillon) for Rectal Cancer: Does It Improve the Chance of Organ Preservation? Br. J. Radiol. 2017, 90, 20170175.
  45. Sun Myint, A.; Stewart, A.; Mills, J.; Sripadam, R.; Whitmarsh, K.; Roy, R.; Franklin, A.; Dhadda, A. Treatment: The Role of Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (Papillon) in the Management of Early Rectal Cancer. Color. Dis. 2019, 21 (Suppl. S1), 45–52.
  46. Stewart, A.J.; Van Limbergen, E.J.; Gerard, J.P.; Appelt, A.L.; Verhaegen, F.; Berbee, M.; Vuong, T.; Brooker, C.; Rockall, T.; Sun Myint, A. GEC ESTRO ACROP consensus recommendations for contact brachytherapy for rectal cancer. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 33, 15–22.
  47. Gérard, J.-P.; Barbet, N.; Gal, J.; Dejean, C.; Evesque, L.; Doyen, J.; Coquard, R.; Gugenheim, J.; Benizri, E.; Schiappa, R.; et al. Planned Organ Preservation for Early T2-3 Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A French, Multicentre Study. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 108, 1–16.
  48. Benezery, K.; Montagne, L.; Evesque, L.; Schiappa, R.; Hannoun-Levi, J.-M.; Francois, E.; Thamphya, B.; Gerard, J.-P. Clinical Response Assessment after Contact X-ray Brachytherapy and Chemoradiotherapy for Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer T2-T3 M0: The Time/Dose Factor Influence. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 24, 92–98.
  49. Sun Myint, A.; Smith, F.M.; Gollins, S.; Wong, H.; Rao, C.; Whitmarsh, K.; Sripadam, R.; Rooney, P.; Hershman, M.; Pritchard, D.M. Dose Escalation Using Contact X-ray Brachytherapy After External Beam Radiotherapy as Nonsurgical Treatment Option for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes From a Single-Center Experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 100, 565–573.
  50. Custers, P.; Geubels, B.; IL, H.; FP, P.; Engelhardt, E.; Beets, G.; Marijnen, C.; van Leerdam, M.; van Triest, B. Contact X-ray Brachytherapy for Older or Inoperable Rectal Cancer Patients: Short-Term Oncological and Functional Follow-Up. Cancers 2021, 13, 6333.
  51. Grotenhuis, B.A.; van Triest, B.; Beets, G.L.; Marijnen, C.A.M.; Peters, F.P.; Burger, J.W.A.; Rutten, H.J.T.; Cnossen, J.S. Organ Preservation in Patients with a Good Clinical Response after Neoadjuvant (Chemo)Radiation for Rectal Cancer: Optimization of Treatment Strategies and Defining the Role of Additional Contact X-ray Brachytherapy versus Extending the Waiting Interval A. Available online: https://opaxx.nl/.cm4all/uproc.php/0/C1.OnderzoeksprotocolOPAXXversie2.0dd19-05-2021M20PAX.pdf?cdp=a&_=17b7322f520 (accessed on 9 April 2022).
  52. Verrijssen, A.S.; Opbroek, T.; Bellezzo, M.; Fonseca, G.P.; Verhaegen, F.; Gerard, J.P.; Sun Myint, A.; Van Limbergen, E.J.; Berbee, M. A Systematic Review Comparing Radiation Toxicity after Various Endorectal Techniques. Brachytherapy 2019, 18, 71–86.e5.
  53. Dhadda, A.S.; Martin, A.; Killeen, S.; Hunter, I.A. Organ Preservation Using Contact Radiotherapy for Early Rectal Cancer: Outcomes of Patients Treated at a Single Centre in the UK. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 29, 198–204.
  54. Vuong, T.; Richard, C.; Niazi, T.; Liberman, S.; Letellier, F.; Morin, N.; Hu, K.; Anderson, D.; Devic, S. High Dose Rate Endorectal Brachytherapy for Patients with Curable Rectal Cancer. Semin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2010, 21, 115–119.
  55. Vuong, T.; Belliveau, P.J.; Michel, R.P.; Moftah, B.A.; Parent, J.; Trudel, J.L.; Reinhold, C.; Souhami, L.; Påhlman, L.; Vuong, T.; et al. Conformal Preoperative Endorectal Brachytherapy Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Early Results of a Phase I/II Study. Dis. Colon Rectum 2002, 45, 1486–1493.
  56. Garant, A.; Magnan, S.; Devic, S.; Martin, A.G.; Boutros, M.; Vasilevsky, C.A.; Ferland, S.; Bujold, A.; DesGroseilliers, S.; Sebajang, H.; et al. Image Guided Adaptive Endorectal Brachytherapy in the Nonoperative Management of Patients With Rectal Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 105, 1005–1011.
  57. Jakobsen, A.; Ploen, J.; Vuong, T.; Appelt, A.; Lindebjerg, J.; Rafaelsen, S.R. Dose-Effect Relationship in Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial Comparing Two Radiation Doses. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 949–954.
  58. Appelt, A.L.; Pløen, J.; Harling, H.; Jensen, F.S.; Jensen, L.H.; Jørgensen, J.C.R.; Lindebjerg, J.; Rafaelsen, S.R.; Jakobsen, A. High-Dose Chemoradiotherapy and Watchful Waiting for Distal Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 919–927.
  59. Federation of Medical Specialists. Dutch National Guidelines Colorectal Cancer. 2020. Available online: https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/colorectaal_carcinoom_crc/startpagina_-_crc.html (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  60. Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Mellgren, A.; Sirivongs, P.; Buie, D.; Madoff, R.D.; Rothenberger, D.A. Local Excision of Rectal Cancer without Adjuvant Therapy: A Word of Caution. Ann. Surg. 2000, 231, 345–351.
  61. Borschitz, T.; Wachtlin, D.; Möhler, M.; Schmidberger, H.; Junginger, T. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Local Excision for T2-3 Rectal Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 712–720.
  62. Pucciarelli, S.; De Paoli, A.; Guerrieri, M.; La Torre, G.; Maretto, I.; De Marchi, F.; Mantello, G.; Gambacorta, M.A.; Canzonieri, V.; Nitti, D.; et al. Local Excision after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial. Dis. Colon Rectum 2013, 56, 1349–1356.
  63. Lezoche, E.; Baldarelli, M.; Lezoche, G.; Paganini, A.M.; Gesuita, R.; Guerrieri, M. Randomized Clinical Trial of Endoluminal Locoregional Resection versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Therapy. Br. J. Surg. 2012, 99, 1211–1218.
  64. Stijns, R.C.H.; De Graaf, E.J.R.; Punt, C.J.A.; Nagtegaal, I.D.; Nuyttens, J.J.M.E.; Van Meerten, E.; Tanis, P.J.; De Hingh, I.H.J.T.; Van Der Schelling, G.P.; Acherman, Y.; et al. Long-Term Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Organ-Sparing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Distal Rectal Cancer: The CARTS Study. JAMA Surg. 2019, 154, 47–54.
  65. Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Shi, Q.; Thomas, C.R.; Chan, E.; Cataldo, P.; Marcet, J.; Medich, D.; Pigazzi, A.; Oommen, S.; Posner, M.C. A Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Local Excision for T2N0 Rectal Cancer: Preliminary Results of the ACOSOG Z6041 Trial. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 384–391.
  66. Borstlap, W.A.A.; Coeymans, T.J.; Tanis, P.J.; Marijnen, C.A.M.; Cunningham, C.; Bemelman, W.A.; Tuynman, J.B. Meta-Analysis of Oncological Outcomes after Local Excision of PT1-2 Rectal Cancer Requiring Adjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy or Completion Surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2016, 103, 1105–1116.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback