4.7 Article

Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Local Excision After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer With Lymph Node Metastasis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine whether local excision (LE) outcomes were comparable to total mesorectal excision (TME) outcomes in node-positive (cN+) rectal cancer patients who were good responders. Methods and Materials: This retrospective study included clinical T2-3 and cNthorn low rectal cancer patient who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) followed by TME or LE. Clinical stage T1 or T4 tumors, upper-to-middle rectal tumors (>7 cm from anal verge), and synchronous distant metastases were excluded. Lymph nodes >= 5 mm in size were defined as tumor-positive, and patients with metastatic lymph nodes >20 mm in size were excluded. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy comprised radiation (50-50.4 Gy/ 25-28 fractions over 5 weeks) with 2 cycles of 5-fluorouracil or oral capecitabine. Propensity scores were computed from tumor and patient variables and used for 1-to-1 matched analysis. Local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared between the 2 matched groups. Results: Between January 2007 and December 2013, 563 and 55 patients underwent TME and LE, respectively. The median follow-up period was 54 months. In propensity score-matched analysis, 48 patients were included in each group. No statistical differences were observed in 3-year local recurrence-free survival (97.9% vs 97.9%, P=.994), 3-year disease-free survival (91.5% vs 91.4%, P=.968), or 3-year OS (93.7% vs 97.9%, P=.809) between the TME and LE groups. Conclusions: In clinical Nthorn rectal cancer patients, oncologic outcomes of PCRT followed by LE were comparable to those of TME; this finding might be applicable only to those patients with good response in the primary tumor and small lymph node metastases. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据