4.5 Article

Factors Influencing Local Failure in Rectal Cancer: Analysis of 2315 Patients From a Population-Based Series

Journal

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 744-752

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181cf8841

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Local failure; Risk factor

Funding

  1. Swedish Cancer Society
  2. Cancer Society in Stockholm, Stockholm county council and the Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for local failure in an effort to optimize treatment for rectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 154 patients with local failure after abdominal resection were identified from a population-based consecutive series of 2315 patients who underwent operations for rectal cancer in the Stockholm region between January 1995 and December 2004. Surgeons trained in total mesorectal excision performed the surgery, and preoperative radiotherapy was given according to defined protocols. Data from the 9 hospitals in the region, prospectively registered in a database, were reviewed with regard to tumor location and stage, radiation therapy, surgical treatment, and follow-up. RESULTS: In a multivariable analysis, independent risk factors for local failure were distal tumor location and advanced tumor and nodal stage, omission of preoperative radiation, residual disease, and hospitals with lower caseload. Low anterior resection and total mesorectal excision were deployed more often in centers with low failure rates. Discriminators for radiation therapy were patients with male gender, less advanced age, and tumors situated <6 cm from the anal verge. CONCLUSION: The variability of patient outcome according to local failure depends on tumor stage, nodal stage, and location. Omission of radiation therapy and surgical performance are important additional risk factors to consider when optimizing treatment for rectal cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available