4.7 Article

Predictors of recurrence in patients with T2 and early T3, N0 adenocarcinoma of the rectum treated by surgery alone

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 25, Pages 4078-4084

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.2968

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Treatment of rectal cancer with neoadjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to reduce local recurrence and improve overall survival. The role of chemoradiotherapy in patients with T2, N0 and early T3, N0 rectal cancer, treated by radical surgery with total mesorectal excision, remains controversial. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of recurrence in this group of patients to enhance treatment selection. Patients and Methods One hundred patients with primary T2-3, N0 adenocarcinoma of the rectum, uniformly treated by surgery alone, were studied. The pathology slides available for 97 patients were rereviewed. Three patients with incomplete data sets were excluded. Clinical and survival data were obtained from a prospective computerized database and updated from hospital and office charts. The study end points were disease-free survival, disease-specific survival (DSS), time to pelvic recurrence (PR), and distant recurrence. Results Complete follow-up was available for all study patients. Median follow-up was 79.5 months (range, 57.7 to 105.9 months). During this time period 30 patients (31.9%) died as a result of disease and 64 patients (68.1%) remained alive and disease free. Five-year DSS was 73%. The cumulative risk for PR was 8% at 5 years and 10% at 8 years. Lymphovascular invasion, preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA > 5 ng/mL) level, and age older than 70 years were all associated with adverse outcome. Conclusion Patients with T2-3, N0 rectal cancers and either lymphovascular invasion or elevated CEA levels have reduced survival and a higher incidence of PR, and should be considered for future randomized trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available