RESUMO
Background: The impact of body composition and sarcopenia in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is still unclear, even several studies have been published on this issue. Our study aims to analyze the impact of sarcopenia on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) tolerance and survival outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective, monocentric study where LARC patients treated between 2010 and 2020 were enrolled. A single slice, from the pre-therapy simulation computed tomography (CT) scan, was used to perform the body composition analysis with dedicated software. The primary endpoint was the impact of body composition on radiotherapy (RT) interruption secondarily on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local control (LC). Results: The study included 628 LARC patients (40.9 % female, mean age 63.4 years): 24 % had low skeletal muscle index (SMI), 30 % had low muscle density (MD) and 17 (10.3 % of obese) were sarcopenic obese. Higher BMI (OR 2.38, 95 % CI 1.36-4.01) and lower SMI (0.73, 95 % CI 0.55-0.94) resulted as independent predictors of RT interruption. Sarcopenic obesity (HR 2.83, 95 % CI 1.24-6.45) was related to worse OS, while MD (0.96, 95 % CI 0.93-0.98), and higher SMI (0.97, 95 % CI 0.95-0.99) were related to better OS; a lower MD remained also associated even in adjusted multivariable analysis (0.96, 95 % CI0.93-0.98). Moreover, higher visceral adipose tissue (VAT) resulted associated with worse DFS (1.02, 95 % CI 1.01-1.03), while higher SMI was related to better Local Control (0.96, 95 % CI 0.93-0.99). Conclusions: Body composition analysis, particularly of muscle and fat masses, may be a useful tool for better management of LARC patients undergoing RT. Increased collaboration between radiation oncologists and clinical nutritionists is advisable, to enable early nutritional support of LARC.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer; however, their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at 3 years. RESULTS: Of the 178 patients enrolled in 16 centers, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95% CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95% CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95% CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95% CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95% CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.2). CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromising the outcomes.