Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer Patients after beyond Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery: A Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has been deemed unfeasible until now because of the heterogeneity of this disease and low caseloads. Since evidence and experience with ERAS principles in colorectal cancer care are increasing, a modified ERAS protocol for this specific group has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a tailored ERAS protocol for patients with LARC or LRRC, requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent a bTME for LARC or LRRC between October 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively studied. All patients were treated in accordance with the ERAS LARRC protocol, which consisted of 39 ERAS care elements specifically developed for patients with LARC and LRRC. One of the most important adaptations of this protocol was the anaesthesia procedure, which involved the use of total intravenous anaesthesia with intravenous (iv) lidocaine, iv methadone, and iv ketamine instead of epidural anaesthesia. The outcomes showed compliance with ERAS care elements, complications, length of stay, and functional recovery. A follow-up was performed at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were selected, all of whom underwent bTME for either LARC (54.2%) or LRRC (45.8%). Total compliance with the adjusted ERAS protocol was 73.6%. Major complications were present in 12 patients (16.7%), and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR 6.0-14.0). Patients who received multimodal anaesthesia (75.0%) stayed in the hospital for a median of 7.0 days (IQR 6.8-15.5). These patients received fewer opioids on the first three postoperative days than patients who received epidural analgesia (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the ERAS LARRC protocol seemed successful according to its compliance rate of >70%. Its complication rate was substantially reduced in comparison with the literature. Multimodal anaesthesia is feasible in beyond TME surgery with promising effects on recovery after surgery.