Local resection versus radical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a propensity-score matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to address the shortage of evidence regarding the safety of the local resection approach by comparing long-term oncological outcomes between patients managed by local resection and those who underwent radical resection. METHODS: This was a propensity-score matched cohort analysis study that included patients of all ages diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) at the Fujian Medical University Union Hospital and Fujian Medical University Affiliated Zhangzhou Hospital, China, between Jan 10, 2011, to Dec 28, 2021. Partial patients with a significant downstage of the tumor were offered management with the local resection approach, and most of the rest were offered radical resection if eligible. FINDINGS: One thousand six hundred ninety-three patients underwent radical resection after nCRT, and another 60 patients performed local resection. The median follow-up times were 44.0 months (interquartile range = 4-107 months). After propensity-core matching (PSM), in the Kaplan-Meier curves, local resection (n = 56) or radical resection (n = 211) was not significantly associated with 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence of overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.103, 95% CI: 0.372 ~ 3.266), disease-free survival (DFS) ((HR = 0.972, 95% CI: 0.401 ~ 2.359), local recurrence (HR = 1.044, 95% CI: 0.225 ~ 4.847), and distant metastasis (HR = 0.818, 95% CI: 0.280 ~ 2.387) (all log-rank P > 0.05). Similarly, multivariate Cox regression analysis indicates that local excision still was not an independent risk factor for OS (HR = 0.863, 95% CI: 0.267 ~ 2.785, P = 0.805) and DFS (HR = 0.885, 95% CI: 0.353 ~ 2.215, p = 0.794). CONCLUSION: Local resection can be a management option in selected patients with middle-low rectal cancer after nCRT for LARC and without loss of oncological safety at five years.

Development and validation of neoadjuvant rectal score-based signature nomograms to predict overall survival and disease-free survival in locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective, double center, cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic significance of the NAR score and develop nomograms for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treated after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) combined with total meso-rectal excision (TME) surgery to predict prognostic. METHODS: Retrospective collection among LARC patients treated at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (training cohort) and Fujian Medical University Affiliated Zhangzhou Hospital (external validation cohort) between Jan 10, 2011 and Dec 28, 2021. The NAR score was calculated by formula: [5pN-3(cT-pT) + 12]^2/9.61. NAR score low (< 8), intermediate (8-16), and high (> 16). RESULTS: 1665 patients in the training cohort and 256 patients in the external validation cohorts were enrolled. Lower NAR score was significantly associated with better cumulative incidence of OS, DFS, local recurrence (LR), and distant metastasis (DM) (all P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicates that NAR score, distance to the anal verge, no.253 LN metastasis, post-CRT carbohydrate antigen 19-9, tumor regression grade, and surgery method are independent predictors of OS and DFS (all P < 0.001). Among these independent factors, the NAR score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) and the nomograms to predict OS and DFS were generated. The AUCs for the accuracy of the prediction OS were 1 year = 0.742, 3 years = 0.749, 5 years = 0.713; prediction DFS were 1 year = 0.727, 3 years = 0.739, 5 years = 0.718, the models have good accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The NAR score can effectively classify patients with LARC into groups with varying outcomes of OS, DFS, LR, and DM. Moreover, the novel nomograms comprising the NAR score were developed and validated to help predict OS and DFS.

Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

Background: The cosmetic benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) are easily noticeable, but its principles of aseptic and tumor-free procedure have caused controversy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid and rectal cancer at our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. The study aimed to compare the general characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and five-year follow-up results between the two groups. Results: A total of 121 eligible patients were enrolled, with 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE and 69 underwent CLS. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), TNM stage, etc. (P > 0.05). However, the NOSE group exhibited significantly shorter total incision length and longer operation time compared to the CLS group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of positive rate of bacterial culture, incidence rates of intraabdominal infections or anastomotic leakage (P > 0.05). Furthermore, during follow-up period there was no statistically significant difference observed between these two groups concerning overall survival rate and disease-free survival outcomes (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The management of surgical complications in CLS is exemplary, with NOSE presenting a sole advantage in terms of incision length albeit at the cost of prolonged operative time. Therefore, NOSE may be deemed appropriate for patients who place high emphasis on postoperative cosmetic outcomes.