Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy?

Purpose To evaluate what features on restaging MRI and endoscopy led to a false clinical diagnosis of residual tumour in patients with a pathological complete response after rectal cancer surgery. Methods Patients with an unrecognized complete response after (chemo)radiotherapy were selected in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment. An unrecognized complete response was defined as a clinical incomplete response at MRI and/or endoscopy with a pathological complete response of the primary tumour after surgery. The morphology of the tumour bed and the lymph nodes were evaluated on post-CRT T2-weighted MRI (T2-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). Post-CRT endoscopy images were evaluated for residual mucosal abnormalities. MRI and endoscopy features were correlated with histopathology. Results Thirty-six patients with an unrecognized complete response were included. Mucosal abnormalities were present at restaging endoscopy in 84%, mixed signal intensity on T2-MRI in 53%, an irregular aspect of the former tumour location on T2-MRI in 69%, diffusion restriction on DWI in 51% and suspicious lymph nodes in 25%. Conclusions Overstaging of residual tumour after (chemo)radiotherapy in rectal cancer is mainly due to residual mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy, mixed signal intensity or irregular fibrosis at T2-MRI, diffusion restriction at DWI and residual suspicious lymph nodes. Presence of these features is not definitely associated with residual tumour and in selected cases an extended waiting interval can be considered

Laparoscopic and open resection for colorectal cancer: an evaluation of cellular immunity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer is one kind of frequent malignant tumors of the digestive tract which gets high morbidity and mortality allover the world. Despite the promising clinical results recently, less information is available regarding the perioperative immunological effects of laparoscopic surgery when compared with the open surgery. This study aimed to compare the cellular immune responses of patients who underwent laparoscopic(LCR) and open resections(OCR) for colorectal cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between Mar 2009 and Sep 2009, 35 patients with colorectal carcinoma underwent LCR by laparoscopic surgeon. These patients were compared with 33 cases underwent conventional OCR by colorectal surgeon. Clinical data about the patients were collected prospectively. Comparison of the operative details and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resection was performed. Peripheral venous blood samples from these 68 patients were taken prior to surgery as well as on postoperative days(POD) 1, 4 and 7. Cell counts of total white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocyte subpopulations, natural killer(NK) cells as well as CRP were determined by blood counting instrument, flow cytometry and hematology analyzer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no difference in the age, gender and tumor status between the two groups. The operating time was a little longer in the laparoscopic group (<it>P </it>> 0.05), but the blood loss was less (<it>P </it>= 0.039). Patients with laparoscopic resection had earlier return of bowel function and earlier resumption of diet as well as shorter median hospital stay (<it>P </it>< 0.001). Compared with OCR group, cell numbers of total lymphocytes, CD4⁺T cells and CD8⁺T cells were significant more in LCR group (<it>P </it>< 0.05) on POD 4, while there was no difference in the CD45RO⁺T or NK cell numbers between the two groups. Cellular immune responds were similar between the two groups on POD1 and POD7.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Laparoscopic colorectal resection gets less surgery stress and short-term advantages compared with open resection. Cellular immune respond appears to be less affected by laparoscopic colorectal resection when compared with open resection.</p

The Importance of the Pathologist’s Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome

Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study

Background: The strategy of watch and wait (W&W) in patients with rectal cancer who achieve a complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is new and offers an opportunity for patients to avoid major resection surgery. However, evidence is based on small-to-moderate sized series from specialist centres. The International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) aims to describe the outcome of the W&W strategy in a large-scale registry of pooled individual patient data. We report the results of a descriptive analysis after inclusion of more than 1000 patients in the registry. Methods: Participating centres entered data in the registry through an online, highly secured, and encrypted research data server. Data included baseline characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, imaging protocols, incidence of local regrowth and distant metastasis, and survival status. All patients with rectal cancer in whom the standard of care (total mesorectal excision surgery) was omitted after neoadjuvant therapy were eligible to be included in the IWWD. For the present analysis, we only selected patients with no signs of residual tumour at reassessment (a cCR). We analysed the proportion of patients with local regrowth, proportion of patients with distant metastases, 5-year overall survival, and 5-year disease-specific survival. Findings: Between April 14, 2015, and June 30, 2017, we identified 1009 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment and were managed by W&W in the database from 47 participating institutes (15 countries). We included 880 (87%) patients with a cCR. Median follow-up time was 3·3 years (95% CI 3·1–3·6). The 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 25·2% (95% CI 22·2–28·5%), 88% of all local regrowth was diagnosed in the first 2 years, and 97% of local regrowth was located in the bowel wall. Distant metastasis were diagnosed in 71 (8%) of 880 patients. 5-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI 80·9–87·7%), and 5-year disease-specific survival was 94% (91–96%). Interpretation: This dataset has the largest series of patients with rectal cancer treated with a W&W approach, consisting of approximately 50% data from previous cohort series and 50% unpublished data. Local regrowth occurs mostly in the first 2 years and in the bowel wall, emphasising the importance of endoscopic surveillance to ensure the option of deferred curative surgery. Local unsalvageable disease after W&W was rare. Funding: European Registration of Cancer Care financed by European Society of Surgical Oncology, Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, Bas Mulder Award granted by the Alpe d'Huzes Foundation and Dutch Cancer Society, and European Research Council Advanced Grant

Technique for laparoscopic autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision

With the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for treatment of rectal cancer, the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer is improved. With this better prognosis, there is a growing awareness about the quality of life of patients after rectal carcinoma. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer offers several advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME), including greater patient comfort and an earlier return to daily activities while preserving the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Moreover, laparoscopy allows good exposure of the pelvic cavity because of magnification and good illumination. The laparoscope seems to facilitate pelvic dissection including identification and preservation of critical structures such as the autonomic nervous system. The technique for laparoscopic autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision is reported. A three- or four-port technique is used. Vascular ligation, sharp mesorectal dissection and identification and preservation of the autonomic pelvic nerves are described

Laparoscopic vs open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background: Next to surgical margins, yield of lymph nodes, and length of bowel resected, macroscopic completeness of mesorectal excision may serve as another quality control of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this study, the macroscopic completeness of laparoscopic TME was evaluated. Methods: A series of 25 patients with rectal cancer were managed laparoscopically (LTME) and included in this study. The pathologic specimens of the LTME group were prospectively examined and matched with a historical group of resection specimens from patients who had undergone open TME (OTME). The two groups were matched for gender and type of resection (low anterior or abdominoperineal resection). Special care was given to the macroscopic judgment concerning the completeness of the mesorectum. Results: A three-grade scoring system showed no differences between the LTME and OTME groups. Conclusion: The Current study supports the hypothesis that oncologic resection using laparoscopic TME is feasible and adequate

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision:a case-control study

Background and aims: Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains unproven. The aim of this prospective non-randomised study was to assess the feasibility and short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) after 25-30 Gy preoperative radiotherapy and to compare the results with a matched-control group of open TME (OTME). Materials and methods: A series of 41 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent LTME for rectal cancer and were matched with a historical control group of 41 patients who underwent OTME. Both groups received preoperative short-term radiotherapy. Results: There was no mortality in the LTME group and 2% mortality in the OTME group. The overall postoperative morbidity was 37% in the LTME group and 51% in the OTME group, including an anastomotic leakage of 9 and 14% in the LTME and OTME groups respectively. A positive circumferential margin was found in 7% of patients in the LTME group and in 12% of the patients in the OTME group. Conclusion: This study shows that LTME is technically feasible and can be performed safely. We show at least a similar surgical completeness using a laparoscopic technique compared with open surgery