Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Upfront radical surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by TME in clinical stage II/III patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Presenters

Ahrong Ham

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v198-v252. 10.1093/annonc/mdz246

Authors

A. Ham1, H.S. Kim1, J.S. Chang2, S.J. Shin1, S. beom1, W.S. Koom2, T. Kim3, H. Hur4, B.S. Min4, K.Y. Lee4, N.K. Kim4, J.S. Lim5, J. Ahn1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Division Of Medical Oncology, Department Of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University College of Medicine, 120-752 - Seoul/KR
  • 2 Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University College of Medicine, 120-752 - Seoul/KR
  • 3 Division Of Gastroenterology, Department Of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University College of Medicine, 120-752 - Seoul/KR
  • 4 Surgical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University College of Medicine, 120-752 - Seoul/KR
  • 5 Radiology, Yonsei Cancer Center Yonsei University College of Medicine, 120-752 - Seoul/KR
More

Resources

Abstract 2310

Background

Although the current standard preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) for stage II/III rectal cancer decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve overall survival and increase the likelihood of preoperative overtreatment, especially in patients without the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement.

Methods

Stage II/III rectal cancer without CRM involvement and lateral lymph node metastasis was radiologically defined by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who received either PCRT followed by TME (PCRT group) or upfront surgery with TME (US group) between 2011 and 2016 were analyzed. We derived cohorts of PCRT group versus US group using propensity-score matching using staging, age, and distance from anal verge). Three-year relapse-free survival rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between two groups.

Results

A total of 221 patients were analyzed after propensity score matching. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 75 months (range, 28-101). No difference in 3-year relapse-free survival rate was noted between PCRT and US groups (89% vs 92% with US; P = 0.657). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in DFS (7.7 years vs 8.0 years with US; P = 0.162) and OS (8.1 years vs 8.3 years with US; P = 0.431), respectively. The rates of locoregional recurrence (2.9% vs 0% with US, P = 0.301) and distant metastasis (7.4% vs 7.1%, P = 1.0) at 3-years were not significantly different between two groups. Interestingly, approximately half of patients had pathologic stage I cancer in both groups (56% with PCRT vs 45% with US; P = 0.167) and 69% of patients in US group had not received adjuvant treatment, suggesting that upfront surgery without neoadjuvant therapy can be considered in early stage patients with good prognosis.

Conclusions

PCRT may not be required for all stage II/III rectal cancer patients, especially for the MRI-based intermediate-risk group (cT1-2/N1, cT3N0) without CRM involvement and lateral lymph node metastasis. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings