García‐Aguilar, Julio

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is the treatment of choice for selected patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Involvement of major pelvic neurovascular structures and bone was historically considered a contraindication due to unacceptably high rates of morbidity and low R0 resection rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of these “high-complexity” exenterative resections to those of “conventional” pelvic exenteration. DESIGN: International multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Sixteen specialized exenteration centers. PATIENTS: Those who underwent total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer between 2018 and 2023 at participating centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative resource utilization, morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates were reported. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent total pelvic exenteration, of whom 478 (63%) and 285 (37%) required conventional and high-complexity procedures, respectively. High-complexity pelvic exenteration was associated with longer operating time (600 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally advanced primary rectal cancer, 623 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally recurrent rectal cancer), intensive care stay (2 vs 1 day, p < 0.001 and 3 vs 1 day, p < 0.001), hospital stay (19 vs 15 days, p = 0.008 and 23 vs 15 days, p < 0.001), and higher blood loss (2000 vs 1236 mL, p < 0.001 and 3000 vs 1600 mL, p < 0.001). Morbidity and mortality outcomes and R0 resection rates were similar between the groups. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings outside of expert units. CONCLUSIONS: High-complexity pelvic exenteration for the treatment of rectal cancer is associated with similar morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates, but it has a significantly higher operative time, blood loss, and hospital resource utilization compared to conventional pelvic exenteration. In high-volume, specialized centers, these techniques are considered the standard of care for appropriately selected patients with tumors that involve major pelvic bone or neurovascular structures. See Video Abstract . EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL CONVENCIONAL FRENTE A EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL DE ALTA COMPLEJIDAD PARA EL CÁNCER RECTAL LOCALMENTE AVANZADO Y LOCALMENTE RECURRENTE: UN ESTUDIO MULTICÉNTRICO INTERNACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: La exenteración pélvica es el tratamiento de elección para determinados pacientes con cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado. La afectación de las principales estructuras neurovasculares y óseas pélvicas se consideraba históricamente una contraindicación debido a las tasas inaceptablemente altas de morbilidad y a las bajas tasas de resección R0. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados de estas resecciones exenteración «de alta complejidad» con los de la exenteración pélvica «convencional». DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico internacional. ENTORNOS: Dieciséis centros especializados en exenteración. PACIENTES: Aquellos que se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total por cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado entre 2018 y 2023 en los centros participantes. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Se informaron la utilización de recursos perioperatorios, la morbilidad, la mortalidad y las tasas de resección R0. RESULTADOS: 763 pacientes se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total, de los cuales 478 (63 %) y 285 pacientes (37 %) requirieron procedimientos convencionales y de alta complejidad, respectivamente. La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (600 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal primario localmente avanzado, 623 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal localmente recurrente), estancia en cuidados intensivos (2 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001 y 3 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001), estancia hospitalaria (19 frente a 15 días, p = 0,008 y 23 frente a 15 días, p < 0,001) y mayor pérdida de sangre (2000 frente a 1236 ml, p < 0,001 y 3000 frente a 1600 ml, p < 0,001). Los resultados de morbilidad y mortalidad, así como las tasas de resección R0, fueron similares entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: Generalización de los resultados fuera de las unidades especializadas CONCLUSIONES: La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto se asocia con tasas similares de morbilidad, mortalidad y resección R0, pero con un tiempo quirúrgico, una pérdida de sangre y una utilización de recursos hospitalarios significativamente mayores en comparación con la exenteración pélvica convencional. En centros especializados con un gran volumen de casos, estas técnicas se consideran el tratamiento estándar para pacientes adecuadamente seleccionados con tumores que afectan a los huesos pélvicos principales o a las estructuras neurovasculares. ( AI-generated translation )

TPS3650 Background: A total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone in those with locally advanced rectal cancer. Recent data indicate that optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to improve complete response rates. The use of FOLFIRINOX has shown to improve response and outcomes compared to CRT and surgery alone. Data have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed with a watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to improve cCR rates has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. We designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address this and to increase cCR rates, provide opportunity for organ preservation, and survival outcomes. Methods: In this multigroup randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N+) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0–4; 4–8; 8–12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX (control arm)) or triplet chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX (experimental arm)) for 3–4 months. LCRT in both arms involve 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks +900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine. Patients will undergo assessment 8–12 (±4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include overall survival, organ preservation time, time to distant metastasis, and adverse event rates. This study has accrued 587 patients as of January 2025, and is investigating exploratory correlatives (e.g., ctDNA). Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163. Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .

Abstract Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Furthermore, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with &lt;80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.

Objective: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. Background: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. Methods: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. Results: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARCs and 299 (39%) had LRRCs. Five hundred forty-four patients (71%) who met predefined lower-risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For patients with LARC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For patients with LRRC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. Conclusions: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

TPS3640 Background: Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients (pts) with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated it as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and pt groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation and improve quality of life for pts. Methods: In this Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology randomized phase II trial (1:1), up to 312 pts with microsatellite stable LARC, clinical stage T4N0, any T, N+ or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Pts will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long course CRT (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (w) + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Pts will undergo assessment 8-12 w post-TNT completion for the primary endpoint of cCR per previously validated criteria and recommended WW and surveillance if cCR is achieved or TME if an incomplete response is noted. Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (disease-free and overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse effects. Statistical power, based on cCR, incorporates a one-sided alpha = 0.048 and power = 90% yielding 312 patients (156 per arm). Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, matched / normal blood samples and serial rectal MRI will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and is actively recruiting. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG); Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163 Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .

Objective: Compare oncological long-term and short-term outcomes between patients with distal cT2NO rectal cancer treated with chemoradio-therapy and local excision (CRT + LE) and patients treated with total mesorectal excision (TME). Summary Background Data: Previous studies showed that CRT + LE is equivalent to TME in local tumor control and survival for T2N0 rectal cancer. Methods: Seventy-nine patients with cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT + LE in the ACOSOG Z6041 trial were compared to a cohort of 79 patients with pT2N0 tumors treated with upfront TME in the Dutch TME trial. Survival, short-term outcomes, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared between groups. Results: Three patients (4%) in the CRT + LE group required abdominoperineal resection, compared with 31 (40%) in the TME group. Forty TME patients (51%) required a permanent stoma. CRT-related toxicity occurred in 43% of the CRT + LE patients; however, TME patients had a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation (1 vs 9%; P = 0.03). Five-year disease-free survival {88.2% [confidence interval (CI), 77.7%–93.9%] vs 88.3% [CI, 78.7%–93.7%]; P = 0.88} and overall survival [90.3% (CI, 80.8%–95.3%) vs 88.4% (CI, 78.9%–93.8%); P = 0.82] were similar in the 2 groups. Compared to baseline, overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in the TME group. In both groups, patients with sphincter preservation had worse HRQOL scores 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: In patients who underwent CRT + LE, oncological outcomes were similar to those of patients who underwent TME, with fewer complications requiring reoperation but significant CRT toxicity. Although overall HRQOL decreased in the CRT + LE group and improved in TME patients, when considering anorectal function, results were worse in both groups.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about anorectal function and quality of life after chemoradiation followed by local excision, which is an alternative to total mesorectal excision for selected patients with early rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess anorectal function and health-related quality of life of patients with T2N0 rectal cancer who were treated with an alternative approach. DESIGN: This was a prospective, phase II trial. SETTINGS: The study was multicentric (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z6041). INTERVENTIONS: Patients with stage cT2N0 rectal adenocarcinomas were treated with an oxaliplatin/capecitabine-based chemoradiation regimen followed by local excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anorectal function and quality of life were assessed at enrollment and 1 year postoperatively with the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal Questionnaire. Results were compared, and multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (98%) were evaluated at enrollment and 66 (92%) at 1 year. Compared with baseline, no significant differences were found on Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores at 1 year. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life results were significantly worse in the lifestyle (p < 0.001), coping/behavior (p < 0.001), and embarrassment (p = 0.002) domains. There were no differences in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy overall score, but the physical well-being subscale was significantly worse and emotional well-being was improved after surgery. Treatment with the original chemoradiation regimen predicted worse depression/self-perception and embarrassment scores in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life, and male sex was predictive of worse scores in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy overall score and trial outcome index. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, relatively short follow-up, and absence of information before cancer diagnosis were study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoradiation followed by local excision had minimal impact on anorectal function 1 year after surgery. Overall quality of life remained stable, with mixed effects on different subscales. This information should be used to counsel patients about expected outcomes.