Tumour budding correlates with local recurrence of rectal cancer.

AIM: Predictive tools for local recurrence (LR) of rectal cancer are needed. This study assessed the predictive value of tumour budding detected by MNF-116 and laminin-5 γ2 chain (Ln-5 γ2). METHOD: In a case-control study, the surgical specimens of 48 patients with LR after from primary resection of rectal carcinoma and 82 control patients matched for gender and preoperative radiation from a population of 1180 patients operated with total mesorectal excision were studied. The presence of budding was examined using immunohistochemistry with Ln-5 γ2 and pan-cytokeratin staining with MNF-116. RESULTS: Tumour budding counts ranged from 0 to 106 buds (mean 43, median 38) for all patients. Significantly more tumours with more than 35 buds were seen in the LR than in the control group (67 vs 44%; P = 0.02). The spread of budding was also more extensive in the LR than in the control group (63 vs 49%, P = 0.03). In a multivariate analysis with tumour, node, metastasis stage, MNF-116-stained budding was an independent predictor of local failure (P = 0.02). The budding frequency was higher in irradiated tumours in comparison with tumours that had not received irradiation (mean 53 vs 38, P = 0.03). For Ln-5 γ2, more tumours with ≥ 10 buds were seen in the group with LR than among the control patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (73 vs 57%; P = 0.09). No additive value was found in the multivariate logistic regression model when Ln-5 γ2-stained budding frequency was added to MNF-116 and tumour, node, metastasis stage. The agreement between budding frequency determined by MNF-116 and Ln-5 γ2 was moderate, with a κ-coefficient of 0.34 (0.16-0.51). CONCLUSION: Tumour budding determined by MNF-116 staining may serve as a predictive marker for LR in rectal cancer.

Factors influencing local failure in rectal cancer: analysis of 2315 patients from a population-based series.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for local failure in an effort to optimize treatment for rectal cancer. METHODS: A total of 154 patients with local failure after abdominal resection were identified from a population-based consecutive series of 2315 patients who underwent operations for rectal cancer in the Stockholm region between January 1995 and December 2004. Surgeons trained in total mesorectal excision performed the surgery, and preoperative radiotherapy was given according to defined protocols. Data from the 9 hospitals in the region, prospectively registered in a database, were reviewed with regard to tumor location and stage, radiation therapy, surgical treatment, and follow-up. RESULTS: In a multivariable analysis, independent risk factors for local failure were distal tumor location and advanced tumor and nodal stage, omission of preoperative radiation, residual disease, and hospitals with lower caseload. Low anterior resection and total mesorectal excision were deployed more often in centers with low failure rates. Discriminators for radiation therapy were patients with male gender, less advanced age, and tumors situated <6 cm from the anal verge. CONCLUSION: The variability of patient outcome according to local failure depends on tumor stage, nodal stage, and location. Omission of radiation therapy and surgical performance are important additional risk factors to consider when optimizing treatment for rectal cancer.

Radiological findings do not support lateral residual tumour as a major cause of local recurrence of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the sites of local recurrence following radical (R0) total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in an effort to elucidate the reasons for recurrence. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with recurrence following curative resection for rectal cancer were identified from a population of 880 patients operated on by surgeons trained in the TME procedure. Two radiologists independently examined 33 available computed tomograms and magnetic resonance images taken when the recurrence was detected. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 33 recurrences were found in the lower two-thirds of the pelvis. Two recurrent tumours appeared to originate from lateral pelvic lymph nodes. Evidence of residual mesorectal fat was identified in 15 patients. Fourteen of the recurrent tumours originated from primary tumours in the upper rectum; all of these tumours recurred at the anastomosis and 12 of the 14 patients had evidence of residual mesorectal fat. CONCLUSION: Lateral pelvic lymph node metastases are not a major cause of local recurrence after TME. Partial mesorectal excision may be associated with an increased risk of local recurrence from tumours in the upper rectum.