RESUMO
In recent years, with the development of rectal cancer treatment mode, the anal preservation rate in rectal cancer patients has been gradually increased. In addition to preserving the anal shape, the preservation of anal function is also gradually valued. In this article, literature review on anal function related to radiotherapy and chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients was conducted, aiming to elaborate the evaluation criteria and research status of anal function in rectal cancer patients.
RESUMO
Objective:To compare the outcomes of watch&wait (W&W) strategy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieved complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy, with those who obtained pathological complete response (pCR) after total mesorectal excision (TME).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort analysis study. Patients histologically proven with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (stage Ⅱ-Ⅲ) who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible between January 2014 and December 2019. In whom we included patients who had cCR offered management with W&W strategy after completing neoadjuvant therapy and follow-up ≥1 year (W&W group), and patients who did not have cCR but pCR after TME (pCR group). The primary endpoints were 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS), colostomy-free survival (CFS), disease-free survival (DFS), non-local regrowth disease-free survival (NR-DFS), and organ preservation rate. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival analysis and log-rank test was performed. For comparative analysis, we also derived one-to-one paired cohorts of W&W versus pCR using propensity-score matching (PSM).Results:A total of 118 patients were enrolled, 49 of whom had cCR and managed by W&W, 69 had pCR, with a median follow-up period of 49.5 months (12.1-79.9 months). No difference was observed in the 3-year OS (97.1% vs. 96.7%) and 5-year OS (93.8% vs. 90.9%, P=0.696) between the W&W and pCR groups. Patients managed by W&W had significantly better 3-year and 5-year CFS (89.1% vs. 43.5%, P<0.001), better 3-year DFS (83.6% vs. 97.0%) and 5-year DFS (83.6% vs. 91.2%, P=0.047) compared with those achieving pCR. The 3-year NR-DFS (95.9% vs. 97.0%) and 5-year NR-DFS (92.8% vs. 97.0%, P=0.407) did not significantly differ between the W&W and pCR groups. Local regeneration occurred in six cases, and 87.7% of patients had successful rectum preservation in the W&W group. In the PSM analysis (34 patients in each group), absolutely better CFS (90.1% vs. 26.5%, P<0.001) was noted in the W&W group. A median interval of 17.5 weeks was observed for achieving cCR, while only 23.9% of patients achieved cCR within 5 to 12 weeks from radiation completion. Patients with short-course sequential chemoradiotherapy achieved cCR significantly later when compared with those with long-course concurrent chemoradiotherapy (19.0 vs. 9.8 weeks, P<0.001). Conclusions:The oncological outcomes of W&W strategy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer are safe and effective, significantly improving the quality of life. Longer interval for cCR evaluation may improve rectal organ preservation rate.
RESUMO
Objective:To explore the motion and influencing factors of implanted gold markers in guiding liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using abdominal compression.Methods:Twenty patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer or primary hepatocellular carcinoma from January 2016 to December 2019 were included. All patients were treated with SBRT under abdominal compression, with 1-3 gold markers were implanted within 2 cm from the lesion before positioning. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scan was used for treatment planning. The respiratory cycle was divided into 0-90% respiratory phase images based on the respiratory signal, which were reconstructed by the system (Pinnacle 3 version 9.1; Philips Medical System, Madison, WI, USA), and cone beam CT validation images before radiation exposure were obtained. The liver volume was divided into 3 parts: within 2 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, 2-5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, and>5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein. The motion of different tumor locations was evaluated. Results:The average intrafractional motion amplitude was (2.63±2.81) mm in the cranial-caudal (CC) direction, (1.35±1.23) mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, and (0.76±0.88) mm in the left-right (LR) direction, respectively. The average interfractional motion amplitude was (3.45±3.06) mm, (2.64±2.60) mm, and (2.23±2.07) mm, respectively. Both the intra-or inter-fractional motion amplitudes in the CC direction were the highest, followed by those in the AP and LR direction (all P<0.001). The motion varied at different tumor locations. The longer distance from the main hepatic portal vein, the larger the intrafractional motion (all P<0.05). To cover the 95% population-based confidence interval, the internal target volume (ITV) was suggested to include the expansion of 3.9 mm, 5.2 mm and 7.9 mm in the LR, AP and CC direction. The expansion of 4.3 mm, 4.4 mm and 6.1 mm was delivered within 2 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, and 3.5 mm, 7.3 mm and 9.7 mm>5 cm from the main hepatic portal vein, respectively. The expansion varied significantly depending on the tumor location, whereas the motion in the CC direction was the largest regardless of the tumor location. The longer distance of the tumor from the main portal vein, the larger expansion in the CC direction. The expansion of tumor > 5 cm from the main portal vein in the AP direction was larger than that of inner parts. Conclusion:Liver tumors at different locations require individual external expansion of ITV.