Resectable Rectal Cancer: Which Patient Does Not Need Preoperative Radiotherapy?

Kulu, Yakup; Ulrich, Alexis; Büchler, Markus W.

doi:10.1159/000342040

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multimodal treatment presents the golden standard in the management of patients with low rectal cancer stage II and III. The aims of multimodal approach (radiochemotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision) are the improvement of local control, the improvement in overall outcome, and increased sphincter preservation rates …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study)

Ihnát

Slívová

Tulinský

et al. 2017

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study)

Ihnát

Slívová

Tulinský

et al. 2017

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of neoadjuvant treatment to increase the rate of sphincter preservation and to improve local control is absolutely certain. 35,36 However, it remains controversial whether all patients with low rectal cancer benefit from neoadjuvant treatment, due to the risk of the side effects of radiotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Peng

et al. 2020

Surg Innov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been the standard surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer for a century. In recent years, intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been increasingly used to avoid the permanent colostomy. Up to now, there is no relevant meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy of ISR and APR. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 procedures. Methods. A comprehensive search of online databases was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to obtain comparative studies of ISR and APR. Then the data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Results. A total of 12 studies covering 2438 patients were included. No significant differences were found between ISR and APR in gender, body mass index, distance from tumor to anal edge, operative time, and blood loss. In addition, hospital stay (weighted mean differences = −2.98 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −3.54 to −2.43; P < .00001) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.99; P = .04) were significantly lower in ISR group compared with APR group. However, patients who underwent ISR showed lower pathological T-stage (T3T4%, OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.86; P = .01) and lymph node metastasis rate (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06) compared with those who underwent APR. Moreover, oncological outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion. ISR may provide a safe alternative to APR, with shorter hospital stays, lower postoperative morbidity, and similar oncological outcomes. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

show abstract

“…Considering the absence of preoperative chemotherapy in our study and the absence of a consensus regarding the ideal protocol for preoperative and postoperative oncologic treatment, no pertinent opinion regarding these treatments can be expressed based on the present study findings. 22 , 27 – 29 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study was performed to evaluate the 1-year survival rate and functional outcomes of 20 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer.MethodsTwenty patients who underwent ISR for low rectal cancer were followed up for 1 year. Complications, functional outcomes objectified by the Wexner score, and oncological outcomes were assessed.ResultsThe short-term survival rate was 100%. The median Wexner score was ≤10 in all patients at 12 months after surgery. Signs of local recurrence were absent, and antigen levels remained within the reference ranges 1 year postoperatively.ConclusionsISR is a feasible alternative in highly selected patients who primarily refuse a colostomy bag and present with type II or III tumors. In the present study, patient-reported continence was satisfactory, and the absence of a colostomy bag increased patients’ quality of life. The oncological outcomes were satisfactory at 1 year postoperatively.

show abstract

Resectable Rectal Cancer: Which Patient Does Not Need Preoperative Radiotherapy?

Cited by 16 publications

References 72 publications

Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study)

Anorectal dysfunction after laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with and without radiotherapy (manometry study)

Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About