TY - JOUR
T1 - Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer
T2 - A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project
AU - Pellino, Gianluca
AU - Alós, Rafael
AU - Biondo, Sebastiano
AU - Codina-Cazador, Antonio
AU - Enríquez-Navascues, José María
AU - Espín-Basany, Eloy
AU - Roig-Vila, José Vicente
AU - Cervantes, Andrés
AU - García-Granero, Eduardo
AU - Carceller, Raúl Adell
AU - Ais Conde, Juan Guillermo
AU - Alonso, Evelio Alonso
AU - Cortijo, Antonio Amaya
AU - Sebastian, Antonio Arroyo
AU - Baños, Pedro Barra
AU - Solé, Ricard Batlle
AU - Bernal Sprekelsen, Juan C.
AU - Blanco Gonzalez, Francisco J.
AU - Blanco, Santiago
AU - Bollo, J.
AU - Alvarado, Nieves Cáceres
AU - Ausas, Ignasi Camps
AU - Cid, Ramon Cantero
AU - Carmona Saez, José Antonio
AU - Nuñez, Enrique Casal
AU - Capitán Morales, Luis Cristobal
AU - Villarreal, Guillermo Carreño
AU - Tebar, Jesús Cifuentes
AU - Ciga Lozano, Miguel
AU - Cazador, Antonio Codina
AU - de Dios Franco Osorio, Juan
AU - Olías, María de la Vega
AU - de Miguel Velasco, Mario
AU - Rodrigo del Valle, Sergio
AU - Díaz Mejías, José G.
AU - Díaz Pavón, José M.
AU - Trill, Javier Die
AU - Dominguez Tristancho, José L.
AU - Lindenbaum, Paula Dujovne
AU - Alustiza, José Errasti
AU - Macias, Alejandro Espí
AU - Espín-Basany, Eloy
AU - Estévan, Rafael Estévan
AU - Estevez Diz, Alfredo M.
AU - Flores, Luis
AU - Fraccalvieri, Domenico
AU - Garcea, Alessandro
AU - Casajuana, Félix Lluis
AU - Roman, Miguel Pera
AU - Pascual, Marta Piñol
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006–2009; II)2010–2013; III)2014–2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59–0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most.
AB - Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006–2009; II)2010–2013; III)2014–2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59–0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most.
KW - Chemotherapy
KW - Neoadjuvant treatment
KW - Prognosis
KW - Radiotherapy
KW - Rectal cancer
KW - Survival
KW - T stage
KW - TNM
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091197336&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.056
DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.04.056
M3 - Article
C2 - 32950316
AN - SCOPUS:85091197336
VL - 47
SP - 276
EP - 284
IS - 2
ER -