Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 May;245(5):726-33.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000252590.95116.4f.

Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: a nationwide cohort study from the National Cancer Database

Y Nancy You  1 , Nancy N Baxter, Andrew Stewart, Heidi Nelson
Affiliations

Is the increasing rate of local excision for stage I rectal cancer in the United States justified?: a nationwide cohort study from the National Cancer Database

Y Nancy You et al. Ann Surg. 2007 May.

Abstract

Objective: Determine rates of local excision (LE) over time, and test the hypothesis that LE carries increased oncologic risks but reduced perioperative morbidity when compared with standard resection (SR).

Summary background data: Despite the lack of level I/level II evidence supporting its oncologic adequacy, LE is performed for stage I rectal cancer.

Methods: Surgical therapy for 35,179 patients with stage I rectal cancer diagnosed in 1989 to 2003 was examined over time, utilizing the National Cancer Database. A special study then analyzed perioperative outcomes, local recurrence and survival in 2124 patients diagnosed between 1994 and 1996, including 765 (T1, 601; T2, 164) treated by LE and 1359 (T1, 493; T2, 866) treated by SR.

Results: From 1989 to 2003, the use of LE has increased (T1, 26.6-43.7%; T2, 5.8-16.8%; P < 0.001 both). The special study demonstrated significantly lower 30-day morbidity after LE versus SR (5.6% vs. 14.6%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, the 5-year local recurrence after LE versus SR was 12.5 versus 6.9% (P = 0.003; hazard ratio = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62) for T1 tumors, and 22.1 versus 15.1% (P = 0.01; hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44-1.07) for T2 tumors. The 5-year overall survival (T1, 77.4% vs. 81.7%, P = 0.09; T2, 67.6% vs. 76.5%, P = 0.01) was influenced by age and comorbidities but not the type of surgery.

Conclusions: This study provides the best evidence for both the increasing use and the associated risks of LE versus SR. For each individual patient, the benefits of LE must be balanced against the heightened risk of local failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
FIGURE 1. Study cohorts as selected from cases reported to the National Cancer Database.
None
FIGURE 2. Proportion of patients reported to the National Cancer Database with T1 (n = 15,313) and T2 (n = 19,766) AJCC stage I rectal cancer treated by local excision between 1989 and 2003.
None
FIGURE 3. Overall survival (OS, A) and disease-specific survival (DSS, B) for T1 and T2 rectal cancer patients treated by local excision (LE) versus standard resection (SR). The number of patients at risk in each group is at time points for every 12 months. (Table 6)
None
FIGURE 4. Cumulative hazard of local disease recurrence among T1 and T2 rectal cancer patients following R0 surgical resection. The number of patients at risk in each group is at time points for every 12 months. (Table 7)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ota DM, Jacobs L, Kuvshinoff B. Rectal cancer: the sphincter-sparing approach. Surg Clin North Am. 2002;82:983–993. - PubMed
    1. Bleday R. Local excision of rectal cancer. World J Surg. 1997;21:706–714. - PubMed
    1. Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:583–596. - PubMed
    1. Heriot AG, Grundy A, Kumar D. Preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1999;86:17–28. - PubMed
    1. Rectal Cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: National Comprehensive Cancer Network.; Version 2, 2006. Available at www.nccn.org. Accessed June 15, 2006.

Publication types