早期直肠癌初次全直肠系膜切除术 (TME) 与局部切除术后再行全直肠系膜切除术的短期疗效对比:基于人群的倾向匹配研究。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103
Annabel S van Lieshout, Lisanne J H Smits, Julie M L Sijmons, Susan van Dieren, Stefan E van Oostendorp, Pieter J Tanis, Jurriaan B Tuynman
{"title":"早期直肠癌初次全直肠系膜切除术 (TME) 与局部切除术后再行全直肠系膜切除术的短期疗效对比:基于人群的倾向匹配研究。","authors":"Annabel S van Lieshout, Lisanne J H Smits, Julie M L Sijmons, Susan van Dieren, Stefan E van Oostendorp, Pieter J Tanis, Jurriaan B Tuynman","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375580/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Annabel S van Lieshout, Lisanne J H Smits, Julie M L Sijmons, Susan van Dieren, Stefan E van Oostendorp, Pieter J Tanis, Jurriaan B Tuynman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJS Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375580/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJS Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结直肠癌筛查计划促使人们转向早期结直肠癌,在某些情况下,可采用局部切除术治疗早期结直肠癌。然而,局部切除术后再进行完整的全直肠系膜切除术(两阶段法)的疗效可能不如初次全直肠系膜切除术(一阶段法)。这项人群研究的目的是确定荷兰早期直肠癌治疗策略的分布情况,并比较初次全直肠系膜切除术与局部切除术后再行完整全直肠系膜切除术的短期疗效:方法:从荷兰结直肠审计(Dutch Colorectal Audit)中收集了2012年至2020年间荷兰cT1-2 N0xM0直肠癌患者仅接受局部切除术、初次全直肠系膜切除术或局部切除术后再行完整全直肠系膜切除术的短期数据。根据治疗组别对患者进行分类,并在多重归因和倾向得分匹配后进行逻辑回归。主要结果是末端造口术率:结果:从2015年到2020年,两阶段方法的比例从22.3%上升到43.9%。匹配后,共纳入 1062 名患者。初次全直肠系膜切除术组的终末切除率为16.8%,而局部切除术后再行完整全直肠系膜切除术组的终末切除率为29.6%(P < 0.001)。初次全直肠系膜切除术组的再介入率高于局部切除术后再行完整全直肠系膜切除术组(16.7% 对 11.8%;P = 0.048)。在并发症、转归、分流造口、根治性切除、再入院和死亡方面没有观察到差异:本研究表明,随着时间的推移,cT1-2 直肠癌越来越多地采用两阶段方法进行治疗。然而,局部切除后再进行完整的全直肠系膜切除术似乎与较高的终末切除率有关。临床医生和患者在共同决策时必须意识到这一风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study.

Background: Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.

Methods: Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.

Results: From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.

Conclusion: This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
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