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

Poster Display session

121TiP - Comparison of postoperative anal function between parks and bacon techniques in lower rectal cancer: A multicenter, prospective, randomized control study

Date

07 Dec 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Zhimin Liu

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_4): S1432-S1449. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1687

Authors

K. Tao1, C. Xu2, F. Xiong3, Y. Zhao4, F. He5, F. Pei6, Q. Yao6, J. Huang6

Author affiliations

  • 1 Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology/ Cancer Center Union Hospital, 430022 - Wuhan/CN
  • 2 Coloproctology, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China, 300121 - Tianjin/CN
  • 3 Coloproctology, The Eighth hospital of WuHan, 430014 - Wuhan/CN
  • 4 Department Of Pathology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 510655 - Guangzhou/CN
  • 5 Radiotherapy, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 510655 - Guangzhou/CN
  • 6 Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 510655 - Guangzhou/CN

Resources

This content is available to ESMO members and event participants.

Abstract 121TiP

Background

Lower rectal cancer (LRC), defined as tumors located ≤ 3cm from the dentate line, poses challenges in selecting optimal surgical approaches for anal preservation while ensuring oncological outcomes. Previous studies have shown comparable disease-free and overall survival rates between Parks' and Bacon's operations. However, evidence from large-scale randomized controlled trials directly comparing their effects on postoperative anal function, quality of life, complications, and overall survival in LRC patients is lacking.

Trial design

This prospective, multicentric, randomized controlled trial conducted in China aims to address this gap in knowledge. LRC patients meeting inclusion criteria are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the Parks’ operation group or the Bacon’s operation group using a computerized randomization management system. Parks’ operation involves colon anal anastomosis, while Bacon’s operation involves colon anal pull-out anastomosis. Postoperative anal function is assessed using rectoanal manometry and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score at 3 months, 6 months, and 1year post-surgery. Quality of life scores and the incidence of postoperative anastomotic complications are also evaluated. Key inclusion criteria include pathological confirmation of LRC with ≤ 3cm distance from the tumor to the dentate line by MRI, suitability for anal preservation surgery discussed by a multidisciplinary team, and patient ability to provide informed consent. Main exclusion criteria encompass history of other malignancies, emergent complications requiring immediate surgery, unresectable tumor extension, high ASA grading, and/or elevated ECOG scores. The study plans to enroll 265 patients, with 8 patients enrolled as of May 5th, 2024. Registration with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05943444) has been completed.

Clinical trial identification

NCT05943444.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.