Objective To evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT), neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy (SCRT), and total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) on chemoradiotherapy related complications and perioperative safety in mid-low rectal cancer patients. Methods The clinical data of 63 rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapies and surgery treatment in West China Hospital from Jul. 2014 to Feb. 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the neoadjuvant regimen, the patients were divided into CRT group (n=15), SCRT group (n=30), and TNT group (n=18), and then the effects of these 3 kinds of neoadjuvant regimen on chemoradiotherapy related complications and perioperative safety were compared. Results ① Chemoradiotherapy related complications: among all the included 63 patients, 29 patients (46.0%) occurred chemoradiotherapy related complications, including radiation enteritis in 9 patients and bone marrow suppression in 25 patients. There were significant differences in the overall incidence of chemoradiotherapy related complications, incidence of radiation enteritis and bone marrow suppression (P≤0.001). The overall incidence of chemoradiotherapy related complications and incidence of bone marrow suppression of SCRT group were lower. ② Perioperative safety: no significant differences were found in the incidence of surgical complications, incidence of specific surgical complication, operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative flatus time (P<0.05), but there was significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay among 3 groups (P=0.033), the postoperative hospital stay of SCRT group was shorter. Conclusion CRT, SCRT, and TNT have similar effect on the safety in the mid-low rectal cancer patients, which suggests that SCRT is worthy of further research and promotion.
Objective To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of various neoadjuvant therapy , provide reference for clinical diagnosis and treatment, and provide direction for further research and exploration. Method The recent domestic and international medical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, VIP database, CNKI, WanFang database, etc.) were searched and the relevant literature on neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were reviewed. Results Neoadjuvant therapy could decrease tumor staging, increase anal reserving rate, and reduce local recurrence rate, but it does not significantly reduce the rates of distant metastasis and lateral lymph node metastasis, nor does it improve long-term survival. More and more optimization neoadjuvant therapy had emerged. Molecular targeted drugs and immunotherapy were being attempted for clinical using, combined with research on emerging biomarkers, to improve the therapeutic efficacy of LARC patients, reduce treatment related side effects, and improve patient survival benefits. Conclusions Neoadjuvant therapy is the standard treatment strategy for LARC, and the exploration of neoadjuvant treatment models is expected to further improve treatment effectiveness, reduce toxic side effects, and improve survival prognosis. By combining tumor molecular biology indicators to identify and screen beneficiaries, it is expected to become an important direction for future research.
ObjectiveTo analyze the association between preoperative staging (AJCC-TNM) and neoadjuvant therapy regimen decision-making and efficacy in patients with rectal cancer in the current version of Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsThe data analysis for this study selected the DACCA version updated on April 20, 2024. The patient information was collected and categorized into three stages (Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ). The differences in neoadjuvant treatment decision-making and therapeutic effects, including gross changes, imaging changes, and tumor regression grade (TRG), were analyzed. ResultsA total of 3 158 eligible cases were collected in this study, with complete preoperative staging and neoadjuvant therapy decision-making data available for 2 370 (75.0%) patients. There were statistically significant differences in the overall comparison among the patients with rectal cancer in terms of the selection of combined targeted therapy, radiotherapy regimens, and the intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by patients at different preoperative stages (χ²=42.239, P<0.001; χ²=41.615, P<0.001; H=1.161, P=0.004). Specifically, the proportion of patients choosing combined targeted therapy and combined radiotherapy gradually increased as the stage advanced. Among patients at different stages, the proportion of those choosing medium-course chemotherapy was the highest, and the proportion of patients choosing long-course chemotherapy was the highest among those with more advanced stages. Regarding the gross changes, imaging changes, and TRG results after neoadjuvant treatment in the patients at different preoperative stages, there were statistically significant differences in the overall comparison among patients with stage Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ rectal cancer (H=7.860, P=0.020; H=9.845, P=0.007; H=6.680, P=0.035). The proportion of partial response was the highest across all response metrics (macroscopic, radiographic, and TRG) in each stage. Notably, stage II patients demonstrated the highest rate of complete response. For TRG evaluation, grade 2 (TRG2) was the most common outcome across all stages. ConclusionsData analysis from DACCA reveals that patients with advanced stages are more likely to choose chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or radiotherapy, and had a higher proportion of intermediate range chemotherapy and the intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is stronger. In terms of neoadjuvant treatment effects, the earlier the staging, the better the gross and imaging changes, and the lower the TRG level.