Sidedness is not a prognostic factor in an unselected cohort of patients with colon cancer but prognosis for caecal carcinoma is worse - A multivariate analysis of a large single institution database.

PURPOSE: Sidedness has emerged as a prognostic factor for metastatic colorectal cancer treated with modern systemic therapies. This study investigates whether it is also relevant for an unselected patient cohort including all stages. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted with colon cancer between 1995 and 2018 were retrieved from an institution-held database. Patients were divided into two cohorts. The first cohort included patients without distant metastases who were able to undergo curative resection. The second cohort presented with distant metastases (stage IV). Potentially prognostic factors were subjected to multivariate Cox Regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 1,606 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An R0-resection was achieved in 1,222 patients without distant metastases. Five-year cause-specific survival rate was 89.3% for this group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided cancers (88.2% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.220). However, prognosis of caecal carcinoma was significantly worse than that of all other sites combined (83.5% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, pT-category, pN-category, grading, vascular invasion, emergency operation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and caecal carcinoma remained as independent prognostic factors. In the 384 patients with stage IV-disease, 3-year overall survival for right- vs. left-sided cancers differed only in univariate analysis (17.7% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In non-metastatic colon cancer, location in the caecum is an independent prognostic factor. In unselected patients with stage IV colon cancer, sidedness was not found to be a prognostic factor. Differentiation into right- and left-sided tumors may be simplistic, and further studies on the biological behavior of different colonic sites are warranted.

Significant decrease of the pathological stage I rectal carcinoma in the era of neoadjuvant therapy-A matter of concern.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment (nTx) for rectal cancer is commonly reserved for UICC stages II/III. Patients with stage I tumours (T1-2N0M0) are not candidates for nTx. The accuracy of treatment allocation depends on the precision of clinical staging, which is liable to understaging and overstaging. The study aimed at exploring changes in the proportion of stage pI patients with the introduction of nTx over a 26-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with histologically proven rectal cancer excluding carcinoma in situ were retrieved from a prospective database of our colorectal unit. Time periods were defined as per the use of nTx: baseline phase 1994-1997; implementation phase 1998-2005 and guideline phase 2006-2019. Trends over time regarding proportion of applied nTx and stage pI tumours were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 1468 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no major differences in patients' characteristics, especially proportion of synchronous metastases (stage IV) over time. nTx was applied to 1.2% of patients without metastases in the baseline phase, to 29.6% in the implementation phase, and to 59.6% in the guideline phase (p < 0.001). Corresponding proportions for patients with stage pI were 31.0%, 26.3% and 14.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: With a stable proportion of stage IV carcinomas indicating no major changes in the patient cohorts, we could document a significant decrease of stage pI patients with increasing use of nTx. This trend clearly signals overtreatment caused by clinical T- and N-staging. More precise criteria are needed to better select patients with rectal cancer for nTx.

Correction to: Long-term results achieved by guideline-based stage-dependent management of anal cancer in a non-HIV population.

The authors of the article mentioned above found out errors on the Table 4 concerning the number and survival rates of patients with incomplete radiotherapy.

Long-term results achieved by guideline-based stage-dependent management of anal cancer in a non-HIV population.

PURPOSE: Therapy of anal cancer follows national and international guidelines that are mainly derived from randomized trials. This study aimed to analyze long-term results of stage-dependent treatment of anal cancer in a non-selected patient cohort. PATIENTS AND METHOD: All consecutive patients treated for anal cancer between 2000 and 2015 were retrieved from a prospective database. Risk-dependent screening for human immunodeficiency virus showed no infection. Main outcome measure was overall survival with respect to tumor site and treatment. Secondary endpoints were cause-specific survival, stoma free survival, and the rate of salvage operations. RESULTS: In total, 106 patients were treated for anal cancer. Of those, 69 (65.1%) suffered from anal canal cancer and 37 (34.9%) from anal margin cancer. Three patients with synchronous distant metastases were excluded from analysis. The majority of patients (n = 79, 76.7%) were treated by chemoradiotherapy in curative intention. Twenty-two patients underwent local surgery. Five-year overall survival was 73.1% and cause-specific survival at 5 years was 87.4%. Overall, 14 patients (13.6%) needed salvage surgery. Their 5-year cause-specific survival was 57.7%. A permanent ostomy was avoided in 77.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of anal cancer results in low rates of salvage surgery and permanent ostomies, when therapy was determined by a multidisciplinary team following national and international guidelines.

Long-term outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was introduced to improve outcomes for low-lying locally advanced rectal cancers (LARC) not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures. This study investigates prospectively outcomes of patients operated on with ELAPE compared with a similar cohort of patients operated on with conventional APE. METHODS: After the exclusion of patients without neoadjuvant therapy, in-hospital mortality, and incomplete metastatectomy, we identified 72 consecutive patients who had undergone either conventional APE (n = 36) or ELAPE (n = 36) for LARC ≤6 cm from the anal verge. The primary outcome measure was local recurrence at 5 years, and secondary outcome measures were cause-specific and overall survival. RESULTS: Median distance from the anal verge was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (2 vs. 4 cm, p = 0.029). Inadvertent bowel perforation could be completely avoided in the ELAPE group, but amounted to 16.7 % in the conventional APE group (p = 0.025). Cumulative local recurrence rate at 5 years was 18.2 % in the APE group compared to 5.9 % in the ELAPE group (p = 0.153). Local recurrence without distant metastases occurred in 15.5 % in the APE group but was not observed in the ELAPE group (p = 0.039). We did not detect significant differences in cause-specific nor in overall survival. CONCLUSION: ELAPE results in lower local recurrence rates as compared with conventional APE. We conclude that the extralevator approach should be the procedure of choice for advanced low rectal cancer not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures.

Outcome for stage II and III rectal and colon cancer equally good after treatment improvement over three decades.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the outcome for stage II and III rectal cancer patients compared to stage II and III colonic cancer patients with regard to 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival, and local and combined recurrence rates over time. METHODS: This prospective cohort study identified 3,355 consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum and treated in our colorectal unit between 1981 and 2011, for investigation. The study was restricted to International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stages II and III. Postoperative mortality and histological incomplete resection were excluded, which left 995 patients with colonic cancer and 726 patients with rectal cancer for further analysis. RESULTS: Five-year CSS rates improved for colonic cancer from 65.0% for patients treated between 1981 and 1986 to 88.1% for patients treated between 2007 and 2011. For rectal cancer patients, the respective 5-year CSS rates improved from 53.4% in the first observation period to 89.8% in the second one. The local recurrence rate for rectal cancer dropped from 34.2% in the years 1981-1986 to 2.1% in the years 2007-2011. In the last decade of observation, prognosis for rectal cancer was equal to that for colon cancer (CSS 88.6 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.409). CONCLUSION: Survival of patients with colon and rectal cancer has continued to improve over the last three decades. After major changes in treatment strategy including introduction of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy, prognosis for stage II and III rectal cancer is at least as good as for stage II and III colonic cancer.