Upfront surgery versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a comparative survival analysis for stage II/III resectable rectal cancer.

IF 2.1 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-26 DOI:10.3393/ac.2025.00724.0103
Nattapanee Sukphol, Thitithep Limvorapitak
{"title":"Upfront surgery versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a comparative survival analysis for stage II/III resectable rectal cancer.","authors":"Nattapanee Sukphol, Thitithep Limvorapitak","doi":"10.3393/ac.2025.00724.0103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Current international guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Although nCRT reduces the risk of local recurrence, it has not demonstrated a survival advantage and increases the likelihood of preoperative overtreatment. This study investigated whether upfront TME could be offered without compromising oncologic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2015 to December 2020, patients with stage II/III LARC who underwent either upfront TME or nCRT followed by TME were analyzed using propensity score matching. Long-term survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The primary endpoint was 5-year disease-free survival. Secondary endpoints included 5-year local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 348 patients were included, of whom 138 (39.7%) underwent upfront TME. The upfront TME group showed significantly higher 5-year disease-free survival (63.3% vs. 43.9%) and distant metastasis-free survival (88.1% vs. 70.3%). However, after excluding patients with preoperative mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, no significant differences were observed in long-term oncologic outcomes. Following 1:1 propensity score matching, 47 patients from each group were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no significant differences in any endpoints. Cox regression analysis of the matched cohort indicated that preoperative MRF involvement, positive extramural vascular invasion, and tumor deposits were not independent prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Upfront TME may represent a viable treatment option for selected patients with LARC, particularly those without MRF involvement, providing comparable oncologic outcomes to the standard nCRT approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":"42 1","pages":"115-126"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12971172/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00724.0103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Current international guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Although nCRT reduces the risk of local recurrence, it has not demonstrated a survival advantage and increases the likelihood of preoperative overtreatment. This study investigated whether upfront TME could be offered without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Methods: From January 2015 to December 2020, patients with stage II/III LARC who underwent either upfront TME or nCRT followed by TME were analyzed using propensity score matching. Long-term survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The primary endpoint was 5-year disease-free survival. Secondary endpoints included 5-year local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival.

Results: A total of 348 patients were included, of whom 138 (39.7%) underwent upfront TME. The upfront TME group showed significantly higher 5-year disease-free survival (63.3% vs. 43.9%) and distant metastasis-free survival (88.1% vs. 70.3%). However, after excluding patients with preoperative mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, no significant differences were observed in long-term oncologic outcomes. Following 1:1 propensity score matching, 47 patients from each group were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no significant differences in any endpoints. Cox regression analysis of the matched cohort indicated that preoperative MRF involvement, positive extramural vascular invasion, and tumor deposits were not independent prognostic factors.

Conclusion: Upfront TME may represent a viable treatment option for selected patients with LARC, particularly those without MRF involvement, providing comparable oncologic outcomes to the standard nCRT approach.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

前期手术与术前放化疗:II/III期可切除直肠癌的比较生存分析
目的:目前的国际指南推荐局部晚期直肠癌(LARC)的新辅助放化疗(nCRT)后全肠系膜切除术(TME)。虽然nCRT降低了局部复发的风险,但它并没有表现出生存优势,而且增加了术前过度治疗的可能性。这项研究调查了是否可以在不影响肿瘤预后的情况下提供前期TME。方法:2015年1月至2020年12月,对II/III期LARC患者进行前期TME或nCRT后TME分析。比较两组患者的长期生存情况。主要终点是5年无病生存期。次要终点包括5年局部无复发生存期、远处无转移生存期和总生存期。结果:共纳入348例患者,其中138例(39.7%)接受了术前TME。前期TME组5年无病生存率(63.3% vs. 43.9%)和远端无转移生存率(88.1% vs. 70.3%)显著提高。然而,在排除术前肠系膜筋膜(MRF)受损伤的患者后,在长期肿瘤预后方面没有观察到显著差异。按照1:1的倾向评分匹配,两组各47例患者进行比较。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示,任何终点均无显著差异。匹配队列的Cox回归分析显示,术前MRF受累、外血管阳性侵犯和肿瘤沉积不是独立的预后因素。结论:对于特定的LARC患者,特别是那些没有MRF介入的患者,前期TME可能是一种可行的治疗选择,提供与标准nCRT方法相当的肿瘤学结果。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
73
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书