There are several strategies in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with the optimum treatment yet to be established. This systematic review aims to compare oncological outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for LRRC who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant CRT, surgery only or surgery and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT).

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed for studies that reported data on oncological outcomes for the different treatment modalities in patients with LRRC from January 1990 to January 2022. Weighted means were calculated for the following outcomes: postoperative resection status, local control, and overall survival at 3 and 5 years.

Fifteen studies of 974 patients were included and they received the following treatment: 346 neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 279 neoadjuvant CRT, 136 adjuvant CRT, 189 surgery only, and 24 surgery and IORT. The highest proportion of R0 resection was found in the neoadjuvant CRT group followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant CRT groups (64.07% vs 52.46% vs 47.0% respectively). The neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean 5-year local control rate (49.50%) followed by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (22.0%). Regarding the 5-year overall survival rate, the neoadjuvant CRT group had the highest mean of 34.92%, followed by surgery only (29.74%), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (28.94%) and adjuvant CRT (20.67%).

The findings of this systematic review suggest that neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery can lead to improved resection status, long-term disease control and survival in the management of LRRC. However, treatment strategies in LRRC are complex and further comparisons, particularly taking into account previous treatments for the primary rectal cancer, are required.

Intraoperative frozen-section analysis provides real-time margin resection status that can guide intraoperative decisions made by the surgeon and radiation oncologist. For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer undergoing surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy, intraoperative re-resection of positive margins to achieve negative margins is common practice.

This study aimed to assess whether re-resection of positive margins found on intraoperative frozen-section analysis improves oncologic outcomes.

This is a retrospective cohort study.

This study was an analysis of a prospectively maintained multicenter database.

All patients who underwent surgical resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer with intraoperative radiation therapy between 2000 and 2015 were included and followed for 5 years. Three groups were compared: initial R0 resection, initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, and initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection. Grossly positive margin resections (R2) were excluded.

The primary outcome measures were 5-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local re-recurrence.

A total of 267 patients were analyzed (initial R0 resection, n = 94; initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, n = 95; initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection, n = 78). Overall survival was 4.4 years for initial R0 resection, 2.7 years for initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection, and 2.9 years for initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection ( p = 0.01). Recurrence-free survival was 3.0 years for initial R0 resection and 1.8 years for both initial R1 converted to R0 after re-resection and initial R1 that remained R1 after re-resection ( p ≤ 0.01). Overall survival did not differ for patients with R1 and re-resection R1 or R0 ( p = 0.62). Recurrence-free survival and freedom from local re-recurrence did not differ between groups.

This study was limited by the heterogeneous patient population restricted to those receiving intraoperative radiation therapy.

Re-resection of microscopically positive margins to obtain R0 status does not appear to provide a significant survival advantage or prevent local re-recurrence in patients undergoing surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B886 .

ANTECEDENTES:El análisis de la ténica de criosección para los margenes positivos encontrados de manera intraoperatoria proporciona el estado de la resección del margen en tiempo real que puede guiar las decisiones intraoperatorias tomadas por el cirujano y el oncólogo radioterapeuta. Para los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente recurrente que se someten a cirugía y radioterapia intraoperatoria, la re-resección intraoperatoria de los márgenes positivos para lograr márgenes negativos es una práctica común.OBJETIVO:Evaluar si la re-resección de los márgenes positivos encontrados en el análisis de la ténica por criosecciónde manera intraoperatorios mejora los resultados oncológicos.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Análisis de una base de datos multicéntrica mantenida de forma prospectiva.POBLACIÓN:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica de cáncer de recto localmente recurrente con radioterapia intraoperatoria entre 2000 y 2015 fueron incluidos y seguidos durante 5 años. Se compararon tres grupos: resección inicial R0, R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección y R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección. Se excluyeron las resecciones de márgenes macroscópicamente positivos (R2).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Supervivencia global a cinco años, supervivencia sin recidiva y recidiva local.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron un total de 267 pacientes (resección inicial R0 n = 94, R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección n = 95, R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección n = 78). La supervivencia global fue de 4,4 años para la resección inicial R0, 2,7 años para la R1 inicial convertida en R0 después de la re-resección y 2,9 años para la R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección ( p = 0,01). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia fue de 3,0 años para la resección inicial R0 y de 1,8 años para el R1 inicial convertido en R0 después de la re-resección y el R1 inicial que permaneció como R1 después de la re-resección ( p ≤ 0,01). La supervivencia global no difirió para los pacientes con R1 y re-resección R1 o R0 ( p = 0,62). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia y la ausencia de recurrencia local no difirieron entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Población de pacientes heterogénea, restringida a aquellos que reciben radioterapia intraoperatoria.CONCLUSIONES:La re-resección de los márgenes microscópicamente positivos para obtener el estado R0 no parece proporcionar una ventaja de supervivencia significativa o prevenir la recurrencia local en pacientes sometidos a cirugía y radioterapia intraoperatoria para el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B886 . (Traducción-Dr. Daniel Guerra ).

Reporting of pelvic exenteration specimens for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) can be challenging for structured pathological analysis and currently, there is a lack of specific guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of pathology reporting in a cohort of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC in a high-volume tertiary unit.

In a retrospective analysis of histopathology reports of consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC from 1996 to 2018, the quality of pathology reporting was assessed using the Structure Reporting Protocol for Colorectal Cancer. The primary endpoint was the completeness of pathology reporting, secondary endpoints were the association between the reporting style (narrative versus synoptic), reporting period (the first half versus the second half), as well as the activity of the pathologists with the completeness of pathology reporting.

221 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC were included into the study. There was a high variability in completeness of pathology reporting within the cohort, ranging from 9.5% to 100%. Notably, microscopic clearance was reported in only 92.4% of the reports. Overall, a significantly higher rate of completeness was observed in synoptic reports when compared to narrative reports and in more recent compared to earlier reports. There was no significant association between the activity of pathologists and the completeness of reporting.

This study shows a significant variability in the quality of reporting in pelvic exenteration for LRRC. The use of synoptic reporting clearly resulted in more complete reports.

Despite advances in surgical techniques and chemoradiation therapy, recurrent rectal cancer remains a cause of morbidity and mortality. After successful treatment of rectal cancer, patients are typically enrolled in a surveillance strategy that includes imaging as studies have shown improved prognosis when recurrent rectal cancer is detected during imaging surveillance versus based on development of symptoms. Additionally, patients who experience a complete clinical response with chemoradiation therapy may elect to enroll in a "watch-and-wait" strategy that includes imaging surveillance rather than surgical resection. Factors that increase the likelihood of recurrence, patterns of recurrence, and the imaging appearances of recurrent rectal cancer are reviewed with a focus on CT, PET CT, and MR imaging.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is a complex disease with far-reaching implications for the patient. Until recently, research was limited regarding surgical techniques that can increase the ability to perform an en bloc resection with negative margins. This has changed in recent years and therefore outcomes for these patients have improved. Novel radical techniques and adjuncts allow for more radical resections thereby improving the chance of negative resection margins and outcomes. In the past contraindications to surgery included anterior involvement of the pubic bone, sacral invasions above the level of S2/S3 and lateral pelvic wall involvement. However, current data suggests that previously unresectable cases may now be feasible with novel techniques, surgical approaches and reconstructive surgery. The publications to date have only reported small patient pools with the research conducted by highly specialised units. Moreover, the short and long-term oncological outcomes are currently under review. Therefore although surgical options for LRRC have expanded significantly, one should balance the treatment choices available against the morbidity associated with the procedure and select the right patient for it.

The location of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) may influence survival. This study examines factors affecting the location of LRRC, the effect of LRRC location on survival, and predictive factors for survival in patients with LRRC.

Patients undergoing initial proctectomy and subsequent management of LRRC at the Cleveland Clinic (1980-2011) were included. Data regarding index surgery, LRRC, and survival were obtained from a prospectively maintained database.

One hundred and fifty-seven patients were identified with a mean follow-up 59.8 ± 50.1 months and time to LRRC of 31.7 ± 30.1 months. Sixty patients underwent surgery with curative intent. Anastomotic leak and retrieving less than 12 lymph nodes at index proctectomy were associated with posterior (P = 0.019) and lateral (P = 0.036) recurrences, respectively. Having an axial relative to an anterior, posterior, or lateral recurrence was associated with improved overall survival (P = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, undergoing primarily palliative treatment (OR, 5.2; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 3.2-8.4; P < 0.001), age at LRRC >60 years (OR, 1.9; 95 % CI, 1.3-2.7, P < 0.001), advanced primary tumour stage (OR, 1.5; 95 % CI, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.021), and anastomotic leak at index surgery (OR, 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.2-2.7; P = 0.008) were associated with reduced LRRC 5-year survival.

The current study suggests that features of the primary tumour and technical factors at the time of index proctectomy influence both the location of LRRC and survival.

Many patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer receive radiotherapy for the treatment of the primary tumour. It is unclear whether reirradiation is safe and effective when a local recurrence develops. The aim of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and oncological outcome of reirradiation in patients with locally recurrent rectal carcinoma.

From March 1994 until December 2013, data on patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (without distant metastasis) were entered into a database. Patients were reirradiated with a reduced dose of 30 Gy and received an intraoperative electron radiotherapy boost during surgery. Morbidity associated with radiotherapy, postoperative complications and oncological outcome were evaluated.

Clear margins (R0) were obtained in 75 (55·6 per cent) of the 135 patients who were reirradiated. Forty-six patients developed serious postoperative complications and the 30-day mortality rate was 4·6 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed that margin status was the main factor influencing oncological outcome (hazard ratio for overall survival 2·51 for R1 and 3·19 for R2 versus R0 resection; both P < 0·001). There was no significant difference in survival between the reirradiated group and a group of 113 patients who had full-course irradiation (5-year overall survival rate 34·1 and 39·1 per cent respectively; P = 0·278). Both reirradiation and full-course irradiation were associated with better survival than no irradiation in a historical control group of 24 patients (5-year overall survival rate 23 per cent; P = 0·225 and P = 0·062).

Reirradiation (with concomitant chemotherapy) has few side-effects and complements radical resection of recurrent rectal cancer.