Optimal fractionation of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer (Stockholm III): a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in rectal cancer. However, the optimal radiotherapy fractionation and interval between radiotherapy and surgery is still under debate. We aimed to study recurrence in patients randomised between three different radiotherapy regimens with respect to fractionation and time to surgery. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial (Stockholm III), all patients with a biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum, without signs of non-resectability or distant metastases, without severe cardiovascular comorbidity, and planned for an abdominal resection from 18 Swedish hospitals were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned with permuted blocks, stratified by participating centre, to receive either 5 × 5 Gy radiation dose with surgery within 1 week (short-course radiotherapy) or after 4-8 weeks (short-course radiotherapy with delay) or 25 × 2 Gy radiation dose with surgery after 4-8 weeks (long-course radiotherapy with delay). After a protocol amendment, randomisation could include all three treatments or just the two short-course radiotherapy treatments, per hospital preference. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence calculated from the date of randomisation to the date of local recurrence. Comparisons between treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a double-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1·7. Patients were analysed according to intention to treat for all endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00904813. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 1998, and Jan 31, 2013, 840 patients were recruited and randomised; 385 patients in the three-arm randomisation, of whom 129 patients were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy, 128 to short-course radiotherapy with delay, and 128 to long-course radiotherapy with delay, and 455 patients in the two-arm randomisation, of whom 228 were randomly assigned to short-course radiotherapy and 227 to short-course radiotherapy with delay. In patients with any local recurrence, median time from date of randomisation to local recurrence in the pooled short-course radiotherapy comparison was 33·4 months (range 18·2-62·2) in the short-course radiotherapy group and 19·3 months (8·5-39·5) in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group. Median time to local recurrence in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group was 33·3 months (range 17·8-114·3). Cumulative incidence of local recurrence in the whole trial was eight of 357 patients who received short-course radiotherapy, ten of 355 who received short-course radiotherapy with delay, and seven of 128 who received long-course radiotherapy (HR vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 1·44 [95% CI 0·41-5·11]; long-course radiotherapy with delay 2·24 [0·71-7·10]; p=0·48; both deemed non-inferior). Acute radiation-induced toxicity was recorded in one patient (<1%) of 357 after short-course radiotherapy, 23 (7%) of 355 after short-course radiotherapy with delay, and six (5%) of 128 patients after long-course radiotherapy with delay. Frequency of postoperative complications was similar between all arms when the three-arm randomisation was analysed (65 [50%] of 129 patients in the short-course radiotherapy group; 48 [38%] of 128 patients in the short-course radiotherapy with delay group; 50 [39%] of 128 patients in the long-course radiotherapy with delay group; odds ratio [OR] vs short-course radiotherapy: short-course radiotherapy with delay 0·59 [95% CI 0·36-0·97], long-course radiotherapy with delay 0·63 [0·38-1·04], p=0·075). However, in a pooled analysis of the two short-course radiotherapy regimens, the risk of postoperative complications was significantly lower after short-course radiotherapy with delay than after short-course radiotherapy (144 [53%] of 355 vs 188 [41%] of 357; OR 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83] p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Delaying surgery after short-course radiotherapy gives similar oncological results compared with short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery. Long-course radiotherapy with delay is similar to both short-course radiotherapy regimens, but prolongs the treatment time substantially. Although radiation-induced toxicity was seen after short-course radiotherapy with delay, postoperative complications were significantly reduced compared with short-course radiotherapy. Based on these findings, we suggest that short-course radiotherapy with delay to surgery is a useful alternative to conventional short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery. FUNDING: Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Stockholm Cancer Society, and the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research in Stockholm.

Acute primary testicular failure due to radiotherapy increases risk of severe postoperative adverse events in rectal cancer patients.

AIM: The aim of this study is to analyze postoperative adverse events (AE) in relation to acute primary testicular failure after radiotherapy (RT) for rectal cancer. METHOD: This relation was assessed in 104 men, included in a previous prospective cohort study of men treated with surgical resection of the rectum for rectal cancer stage I-III. Postoperative AE were graded according to Clavien-Dindo (2004). Grade 3 or more was set as cut-off for severe postoperative AE. The impact of primary testicular failure on postoperative AE was related to the cumulative mean testicular dose (TD) and the change in Testosterone (T) and Luteinizing hormone (LH) sampled at baseline and after RT. RESULTS: Twenty-six study participants (25%) had severe postoperative AE. Baseline characteristics and endocrine testicular function did not differ significantly between groups with (AE+) and without severe postoperative AE (AE-). After RT, the LH/T-ratio was higher in AE+, 0.603 (0.2-2.5) vs 0.452 (0.127-5.926) (p = 0.035). The longitudinal regression analysis showed that preoperative change in T (OR 0.844, 95% CI 0.720-0.990, p = 0.034), LH/T-ratio (OR 2.020, 95% CI 1.010-4.039, p = 0.047) and low T (<8 nmol/L, OR 2.605, 95 CI 0.951-7.139, p = 0.063) were related to severe postoperative AE. CONCLUSION: Preoperative decline in T due to primary testicular failure induced by preoperative RT could be a risk factor regarding short-term outcome of surgery in men with rectal cancer.

Reliability of the reported size of removed colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND: The size of colorectal polyps is important in the clinical management of these lesions. AIM: To audit the accuracy in calculating the size of "polyps" by various specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen pathologists and four surgeons measured, with a conventional millimetre ruler, the largest diameter of 12 polyp phantoms. The results of two independent measurements (two weeks apart) were compared with the gold standard-size assessed at The Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (83/264-trial 1) and 33% (88/264-trial 2) of the measurements underestimated or overestimated the gold standard size by >1 mm. Of the 22 experienced participants, 95% (21/22-trial 1) and 91% (20/22-trial 2) misjudged by >1 mm the size of one or more polyps. Values given by 13 participants (4.9%) in trial 1 and by 15 participants (5.7%) in trial 2, differed by > or = +/-4 mm from the gold standard size. In addition, a big difference between the highest and the lowest values was recorded in some polyps (up to 11.4 mm). Those disparate values were regarded as a human error in reading the scale on the ruler. CONCLUSION: Using a conventional ruler (the tool of pathologists worldwide) unacceptably high intra-observer and inter-observer variations in assessing the size of polyp-phantoms was found. The volume and the shape of devices, as well as human error in reading the scale of the ruler were confounding factors in size assessment. In praxis, the size is crucial in the management of colorectal polyps. Considering the clinical implications of the results obtained, the possibility of developing a method that will allow assessment of the true size of removed clinical polyps is being explored.

Functional and physiologic assessment of the colonic reservoir or side-to-end anastomosis after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a two-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: Functional disturbances are common after anterior resection for rectal cancer. This study was designed to compare functional and physiologic outcome after low anterior resection and total mesorectal excision with a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis. METHODS: Functional and physiologic variables were analyzed in patients randomized to a J-pouch (n = 36) or side-to-end anastomosis (n = 35). Postoperative functional outcome was investigated with questionnaires. Anorectal manometry was performed preoperatively and at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in functional outcome between groups at two years. Maximum neorectal volume increased in both groups but was approximately 40 percent greater at two years in pouches compared with the side-to-end anastomosis. Anal sphincter pressures volumes were halved postoperatively and did not recover during follow-up of two years. Male gender, low anastomotic level, pelvic sepsis, and the postoperative decrease of sphincter pressures were independent factors for more incontinence symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic J-pouch and side-to-end anastomosis gives comparable functional results two years after low anterior resection. Neorectal volume had no detectable influence on function. There was a pronounced and sustained postoperative decrease in sphincter pressures.

Similar outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis after low-anterior resection for rectal cancer with regard to functional and surgical outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A complication after restorative rectal surgery with a straight anastomosis is low-anterior resection syndrome with a postoperatively deteriorated anorectal function. The colonic J-reservoir is sometimes used with the purpose of reducing these symptoms. An alternative method is to use a simple side-to-end anastomosis. METHODS: One-hundred patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision and colo-anal anastomosis were randomized to receive either a colonic pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis using the descending colon. Surgical results and complications were recorded. Patients were followed with a functional evaluation at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized to each group. Patient characteristics in both groups were very similar regarding age, gender, tumor level, and Dukes' stages. A large proportion of the patients received short-term preoperative radiotherapy (78%). There was no significant difference in surgical outcome between the 2 techniques with respect to anastomotic height (4 cm), perioperative blood loss (500 ml), hospital stay (11 days), postoperative complications, reoperations or pelvic sepsis rates. Comparing functional results in the 2 study groups, only the ability to evacuate the bowel in <15 minutes at 6 months reached a significant difference in favor of the pouch procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this study show that either a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis performed on the descending colon in low-anterior resection with total mesorectal excision are methods that can be used with similar expected functional and surgical results.

Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with colonic pouch for rectal cancer: a comparison between two hospitals with a different policy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcome, after low anterior resection for rectal cancer with colonic J-pouch, at two departments with a different policy regarding the use of a routine diverting stoma. METHODS: A total of 161 consecutive patients with invasive rectal carcinomas operated on between 1990 and 1997 with a total mesorectal excision and a colonic J-pouch were included in the study. Eighty patients were operated on in a surgical unit using routine defunctioning stomas (96 percent), whereas 81 were operated on in a department in which diversion was rarely used (5 percent). Recorded data with respect to surgical outcome were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two centers in postoperative mortality in connection with the primary resection and subsequent stoma reversal (3.7 vs. 3.8 percent). No significant difference could be found in the number of patients with pelvic sepsis (anastomotic leaks; 9 vs.12 percent). Surgical outcome in patients with pelvic sepsis was also similar. The frequency of reoperations associated with the anterior resection and subsequent stoma reversal was identical (14 percent). The total hospital stay (primary operation and stoma reversal) was significantly longer with than without a routine stoma (17 (range, 2-59) vs. 12 (range, 5-55) days, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the routine use of diversion does not protect the patient from anastomotic complications or pelvic sepsis and its use requires a second admission for closure.