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
Clinical Trial
. 2025 Feb 13;15(1):5401.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83105-z.

Prognosis and quality of life in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomized phase 3 trial

Jochen Gaedcke  1 , Malte Sahrhage  2 , Marcel Ebeling  3 , Azadeh Azizian  3 , Felix Rühlmann  3 , Markus Bernhardt  3 , Marian Grade  3 , Wolf Otto Bechstein  4 , Christoph-Thomas Germer  5 , Robert Grützmann  6 , Pompiliu Piso  7 , Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz  8 , Ludger Staib  9 , Tim Beißbarth  2 , Rebekka Kosmala  10 , Emmanouil Fokas  11 , Claus Rödel  12 , Michael Ghadimi  3 ; German Rectal Cancer Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Prognosis and quality of life in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomized phase 3 trial

Jochen Gaedcke et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Low anterior resection (LAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) are the two main surgical procedures after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer. APR is associated with poorer prognosis; however existing data do not consider intensified CRT (5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)/Oxaliplatin + radiation) protocols. Clinicopathological data of patients treated with APR and LAR from the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial were analysed in terms of prognostic parameters and quality of life (QoL). Based on higher response rate after intensified CRT, subgroup analyses were performed. Data from n = 1173 patients were assessed. APR after preoperative CRT was associated with a significantly worse overall survival (p = 0.0056), disease-free survival (p < 0.0001) and local recurrence rate (p = 0.0047). Clinicopathological data including clinical T stage (p < 0.000001), grading (p = 0.0038), postoperative lymph node (LN) positivity (p = 0.013), and number of positive LN (p = 0.0049) significantly differed between procedures and showed higher values in APR patients. The quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) was significantly better (p < 0.0001) and complete resection rates were higher (p = 0.0022) in LAR compared to APR patients. Subgroup analyses showed worse LR rates in APR patients after standard CRT (5-FU mono and radiation) but not after intensified CRT. After 3 years, role functioning (p = 0.019) and physical functioning (p = 0.001) had a slightly poorer outcome in APR patients. The poorer prognosis of patients undergoing APR for locally advanced rectal cancer may be explained by clinicopathological characteristics. Intensified CRT may compensate for the higher risk of LR after APR in patients with worse TME quality. QoL in APR patients was comparable to LAR patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: The study was approved by the local ethic committee. Informed consent: All patients were enrolled with the understanding and appropriate informed consent. A signed informed consent from each patient is provided.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overall survival of patients according to type of surgery(left). Disease-free survival of patients according to type of surgery (right). APR – Abdominoperineal resection, ISR – Intersphincteric resection, LAR – Low anterior resection.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Local recurrence rate according to surgical procedure in patients treated with standard CRT (left). Local recurrence rate of patients treated with intensified CRT (right). (APR: Abdominoperineal resection, ISR: Intersphincteric resection, LAR: Low anterior resection).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hawkins, A. T. et al. Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer in the twenty-first century: Indications, techniques, and outcomes. J. Gastrointest. Surg.22 (8), 1477–1487 (2018). - PubMed
    1. Wang, L. et al. Abdominoperineal excision following preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: unfavorable prognosis even with negative circumferential resection margin. World J. Gastroenterol.20 (27), 9138–9145 (2014). - PMC - PubMed
    1. den Dulk, M. et al. The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer. 45 (7), 1175–1183 (2009). - PubMed
    1. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Improved survival with preoperative radiotherapy in resectable rectal cancer. N Engl. J. Med.336 (14), 980–987 (1997). - PubMed
    1. Kapiteijn, E. et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl. J. Med.345 (9), 638–646 (2001). - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources