Search

Background: Local excision (LE) has been proposed as an alternative to radical resection for early distal rectal cancer, for which the optimal oncologic treatment remains unclear., Objective: The goal of this study was to compare the overall survival of rectal cancer patients with early distal tumors who underwent LE versus abdominoperineal resection (APR) using a large contemporary database., Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004-2013) was used to identify patients with early T-stage rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent LE or APR. Patients were split into groups based on T stage and type of surgery (LE vs. APR). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of treatment strategy on survival., Results: Overall, there were 2084 patients with T1 tumors and 912 patients with T2 tumors. For patients with T1 disease, after adjusting for age, sex, income level, race, Charlson score, insurance payor, and tumor size, there was no significant difference in survival between the LE and APR groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.22; P = 0.49). For patients with T2 disease, after adjusting for age, Charlson score, and tumor size, there was no significant difference in survival between patients undergoing LE + chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and APR (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84-1.45; P = 0.47)., Conclusions: Patients with early distal rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent LE had similar survival to patients who underwent APR. LE is an acceptable oncologic treatment strategy for patients with T1 rectal cancers, and LE with CRT is an acceptable oncologic treatment for patients with T2 distal rectal cancers.

Purpose: Low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis (CAA) for low rectal cancer is a technically difficult operation with limited data available on oncologic outcomes. We aim to investigate overall survival and operative oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent CAA compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR)., Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004-2013) was used to identify patients with non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent CAA or APR. Patients were 1:1 matched on age, gender, Charlson score, tumor size, tumor grade, pathologic stage, and radiation treatment with propensity scores. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and resection margins., Results: Following matching, 3536 patients remained in each group. No significant differences in matched demographic, treatment, or tumor variables were seen between groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.24% vs. 1.39%, p = 0.60). Following resection, margins were more likely to be negative after CAA compared with APR (5.26% vs. 8.14%, p < 0.001). When stratified by pathologic stage, there was a significant survival advantage for individuals undergoing CAA compared to APR (stage 1 HR 0.72, [95% CI 0.62-0.85], p < 0.001; stage 2 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.65-0.88], p < 0.001; stage 3 HR 0.76, [95% CI 0.67-0.85], p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing CAA compared with APR for rectal cancer have better overall survival and are less likely to have positive margins despite the technically challenging operation.