The incorporation of ICT in neoadjuvant regimens for locally recurrent rectal cancer is a promising strategy.

published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

Background The optimal treatment for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate different treatment strategies in two leading tertiary referral hospitals in Europe. Methods All patients who underwent curative surgery for LRRC between January 2003 and December 2017 in Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (CHE), or Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (KAR), were studied retrospectively. Available MRIs were reviewed to obtain a uniform staging for optimal comparison of both cohorts. The main outcomes studied were overall survival (OS), local re-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). Results In total, 377 patients were included, of whom 126 and 251 patients came from KAR and CHE respectively. At 5 years, the LRFS rate was 62.3 per cent in KAR versus 42.3 per cent in CHE (P = 0.017), whereas OS and MFS were similar. A clear surgical resection margin (R0) was the strongest prognostic factor for survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.23 (95 per cent c.i. 1.74 to 2.86; P < 0.001), 3.96 (2.87 to 5.47; P < 0.001), and 2.00 (1.48 to 2.69; P < 0.001) for OS, LRFS, and MFS respectively. KAR performed more extensive operations, resulting in more R0 resections than in CHE (76.2 versus 61.4 per cent; P = 0.004), whereas CHE relied more on neoadjuvant treatment and intraoperative radiotherapy, to reduce the morbidity of multivisceral resections (P < 0.001). Conclusion In radiotherapy-naive patients, neoadjuvant full-course chemoradiation confers the best oncological outcome. However, neoadjuvant therapy does not diminish the need for extended radical surgery to increase R0 resection rates.

LatLRs impose a major surgical challenge and result in high LRR and low OS. More R0 resections can possibly be achieved with ICT, which is the only factor that can improve LRR and OS.

Background This study aimed to investigate the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Also, the reproducibility of mrTRG was investigated. Methods All patients with LRRC who underwent a resection between 2010 and 2018 after treatment with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation in whom a restaging MRI was available were retrospectively selected. All MRI scans were reassessed by two independent radiologists using the mrTRG, and the pTRG was reassessed by an independent pathologist. The interobserver agreement between the radiologists as well as between the radiologists and the pathologist was assessed with the weighted kappa test. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the interval between imaging and surgery. Results Out of 313 patients with LRRC treated during the study interval, 124 patients were selected. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was fair (k = 0.28) using a two-tier grading system (mrTRG 1–2 versus mrTRG 3–5). For the lead radiologist, agreement with pTRG was moderate (k = 0.52; 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.68) when comparing good (mrTRG 1–2 and Mandard 1–2) and intermediate/poor responders (mrTRG 3–5 and Mandard 3–5), and the agreement was fair between the other abdominal radiologist and pTRG (k = 0.39; 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.56). A shorter interval (less than 7 weeks) between MRI and surgery resulted in an improved agreement (k = 0.69), compared with an interval more than 7 weeks (k = 0.340). For the lead radiologist, the positive predictive value for predicting good responders was 95 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 71 per cent to 99 per cent), whereas this was 56 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 44 per cent to 66 per cent) for the other radiologist. Conclusion This study showed that, in LRRC, the reproducibility of mrTRG among radiologists is limited and the agreement of mrTRG with pTRG is low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery seems to improve this agreement and, if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders.