Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown
{"title":"Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.

Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.

Results: Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I2 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I2 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.

Conclusions: LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.

在分期和监测的背景下,早期直肠癌局部切除与根治术的肿瘤治疗效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:直肠癌的局部切除术(LR)方法一般用于姑息治疗或麻醉风险较高的患者。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在从分期和监测评估的角度比较早期直肠癌局部切除术和根治性切除术(RR)的肿瘤学结果:方法:对MEDLINE、Embase和Emcare数据库中1995年1月至2023年4月期间报告早期直肠癌LR和RR临床疗效数据的研究进行文献检索。采用随机效应模型进行了 Meta 分析,并评估了研究间的异质性。对观察性研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估,对随机对照试验采用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 工具进行评估:共纳入 20 项研究,12,022 名患者:6476名患者接受了LR治疗,5546名患者接受了RR治疗。与 LR 相比,RR 可提高 5 年总生存率(OR 1.84;95 % CI 1.54-2.20;P 2 20 %)和局部复发率(OR 3.06;95 % CI 2.02-4.64;P 2 39 %)。然而,如果在 LR 病例中明确采用分期和监测方法,与未报告/未进行分期和监测时相比,R0 率(96.7 % vs 85.6 %)、5 年无病生存率(93.0 % vs 77.9 %)和总生存率(81.6 % vs 79.0 %)均有所提高:结论:对于没有不良预后因素的特定早期直肠癌患者,LR可能是合适的选择。这项研究还强调,目前在早期直肠癌的治疗中还没有采用单一的标准化分期或监测方法。有必要制定更加明确和标准化的术前分期,以便选择患者,并制定基于临床和图像的监测方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信