首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


The role of surgery for locally recurrent and second recurrent rectal cancer with metastatic disease
Institution:1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;2. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands;3. Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;4. Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands;5. School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands;1. University of Glasgow College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, Academic Unit of Surgery, School of Medicine, United Kingdom;2. St Mark''s Academic Institute, St Mark''s Hospital, United Kingdom;3. Imperial College London, United Kingdom;1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;6. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Abstract:BackgroundThe role of surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with resectable distant metastases or second LRRC remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the influence of synchronous distant metastases (SDMs), a history of distant metastasis resection (HDMR), and a second LRRC on the outcome.MethodsThe long-term outcomes of 70 surgically treated patients with LRRC between 2006 and 2018 were compared by SDM (n = 10), HDMR (n = 17), and second LRRC (n = 7).ResultsAmong the 10 patients with SDM, 4 patients underwent simultaneous resection, whereas the other 6 underwent staged resection with distant first approach. Recurrence developed in 9 patients, of which 2 patients with liver re-resection achieved long-term survival without cancer. The patients with and without SDM had equivalent 5-year overall survival rate (40.5% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.519); however, patients with SDM had a worse 3-year recurrence-free survival rate than those without SDM (10.0% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis showed that primary non-sphincter-preserving surgery, second LRRC, and R1 resection were independent risk factors for overall survival. Similarly, primary non-sphincter-preserving surgery, second LRRC, SDM, and R1 resection were risk factors for recurrence-free survival.ConclusionsPatients with SDM might still be suitable to undergo salvage surgery and achieve favourable overall survival. Distant metastasectomy should be performed first, followed by a sufficient interval to avoid unnecessary LRRC resection in uncurable patients. An HDMR should not be taken into consideration when making surgical plans. Surgical indication of second LRRC should be strict, especially in referred patients.
Keywords:Locally recurrent rectal cancer  Distant metastases  Surgical indication  LRRC"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0030"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"locally recurrent rectal cancer  SDM"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0040"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"synchronous distant metastasis  HDMR"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0050"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"history of distant metastasis resection  NAC"}  {"#name":"keyword"  "$":{"id":"kwrd0060"}  "$$":[{"#name":"text"  "_":"neoadjuvant chemotherapy
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号