Michel Prudhomme, Igor Sileznieff, Frédéric Marchal, Anne Rullier, Julien Asselineau, Alain Valverde, Denis Pezet, G. Portier, Jean-Jacques Tuech, Bernard Lelong, Eric Rullier, Véronique Vendrely, Bernard Meunier, Jean-Luc Faucheron, Adélaïde Doussau, Michel Rivoire, Quentin Denost, Mehrdad Jafari, Marc Pocard, Philippe Rouanet, Centre d'investigation clinique et d'épidémiologie clinique 7 (CIC-EC7), Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-CHU Bordeaux [Bordeaux]-Institut Bergonié - CRLCC Bordeaux-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Cancéropôle du Grand Sud-Ouest, Department of Surgical Oncology, Centre Val d'Aurelle, Laboratoire d'éthique médicale et médecine légale (LEM), Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5), Service de chirurgie thoracique cardiaque et vasculaire [Rennes], Université de Rennes 1 (UR1), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Hôpital Pontchaillou-CHU Pontchaillou [Rennes], Applications des ultrasons à la thérapie, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Département de Gastroentérologie et hépatologie, Université Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1 (UJF)-CHU Grenoble-Hôpital Michallon, Chirurgie Générale et Digestive [Purpan], CHU Toulouse [Toulouse]-Hôpital Purpan [Toulouse], CHU Toulouse [Toulouse], Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et Digestive, Département de chirurgie digestive, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nîmes (CHRU Nîmes), Hôpital Lariboisière, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Hôpital Lariboisière-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7), Department of Digestive Surgery, University Medical Hospital, Microbes, Intestin, Inflammation et Susceptibilité de l'Hôte - Clermont Auvergne (M2iSH), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA)-Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine d'Auvergne (CRNH d'Auvergne), Service de pathologie [Bordeaux], Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-CHU Bordeaux [Bordeaux]-Groupe hospitalier Pellegrin, Groupe Hospitalier Saint-André, Groupe hospitalier Saint-André, Bioingénierie tissulaire (BIOTIS), Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Unité de Soutien Méthodologique à la Recherche Clinique (USMR), CHU Bordeaux [Bordeaux], Pôle de Santé publique, Institut Bergonié [Bordeaux], UNICANCER-UNICANCER-Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-CHU Bordeaux [Bordeaux]-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Cancéropôle du Grand Sud-Ouest, Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et Digestive [Rennes], Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes (CHU Nîmes), Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Hôpital Lariboisière-Fernand-Widal [APHP], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP), Microbes, Intestin, Inflammation et Susceptibilité de l'Hôte (M2iSH), Université Clermont Auvergne [2017-2020] (UCA [2017-2020])-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine d'Auvergne (CRNH d'Auvergne)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Service de chirurgie thoracique cardiaque et vasculaire [Rennes] = Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery [Rennes], CHU Pontchaillou [Rennes], Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse (CHU Toulouse), Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et Digestive [Rennes] = Hepatobiliary and Digestive Surgery [Rennes], Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Clermont Auvergne [2017-2020] (UCA [2017-2020])-Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine d'Auvergne (CRNH d'Auvergne), Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-CHU Bordeaux [Bordeaux]-Institut Bergonié [Bordeaux], UNICANCER-UNICANCER-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Cancéropôle du Grand Sud-Ouest, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Lariboisière-Fernand-Widal [APHP], and Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)
Summary Background Organ preservation is a concept proposed for patients with rectal cancer after a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to potentially avoid morbidity and side-effects of rectal excision. The objective of this study was to compare local excision and total mesorectal excision in patients with a good response after chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer. Methods We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial at 15 tertiary centres in France that were experts in the treatment of rectal cancer. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage T2T3 lower rectal carcinoma, of maximum size 4 cm, who had a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were centrally randomly assigned by the surgeon before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision surgery. Randomisation, which was done via the internet, was not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was required if tumour stage was ypT2–3. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death, recurrence, morbidity, and side-effects at 2 years after surgery, to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (expected proportions of patients having at least one event were 25% vs 60% for superiority). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. Findings From March 1, 2007, to Sept 24, 2012, 186 patients received chemoradiotherapy and were enrolled in the study. 148 good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three were excluded (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, and withdrew consent), and 145 were analysed: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. In the local excision group, 26 patients had a completion total mesorectal excision. At 2 years in the modified ITT population, one or more events from the composite primary outcome occurred in 41 (56%) of 73 patients in the local excision group and 33 (48%) of 69 in the total mesorectal excision group (odds ratio 1·33, 95% CI 0·62–2·86; p=0·43). In the modified ITT analysis, there was no difference between the groups in all components of the composite outcome, and superiority was not shown for local excision over total mesorectal excision. Interpretation We failed to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision, because many patients in the local excision group received a completion total mesorectal excision that probably increased morbidity and side-effects, and compromised the potential advantages of local excision. Better patient selection to avoid unnecessary completion total mesorectal excision could improve the strategy. Funding National Cancer Institute of France, Sanofi, Roche Pharma.