Primary Surgery Followed by Selective Chemoradiotherapy Versus Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Follow

Primary Surgery Followed by Selective Chemoradiotherapy Versus Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Jun Li, Ye-Ting Hu, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Liu-Hong Wang, Hai-Xing Ju, Xue-Feng Huang, Pan Chi, Jin-Lin Du, Jian-Ping Wang, Yi Xiao, Guo-Le Lin, Wei Zhang, Hong Zhao, Ming Liu, Yong-Mao Song, Dong Xu, Jian-Wei Wang, Li-Feng Sun, Hai-Ting Xie, Hong-Feng Cao, Qian Xiao, Jian Wang, Qing-Bin Wu, De-Chuan Li, Sheng Dai, Wei-Zhong Jiang, Li Shen, Ying Yuan, Zi-Qiang Wang, Ke-Feng Ding

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2024 Jul 1;119(3):884-895.

doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.12.027.

PMID: 38185388

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this work was to determine whether locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) with negative mesorectal fascia (MRF) predicted by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be excluded from preoperative radiation therapy treatment.

Methods and materials: This multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with LARC within 6 to 12 cm from the anal verge and with negative MRI-predicted MRF. Participants were randomized to the intervention group (primary surgery, in which the patients with positive pathologic [CRM] circumferential margins were subjected to chemoradiotherapy [CRT] and those with negative CRM underwent adjuvant chemotherapy according to pathologic staging) or the control group (preoperative CRT, in which all patients underwent subsequent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

Results: A total of 275 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 140) and control (n = 135) groups, in which 33.57% and 28.15% patients were at clinical T4 stage and 85.92% and 80.45% patients were at "bad" or "ugly" risk in the intervention and control groups, respectively. There were 2 patients (1.52%) and 1 patient (0.77%) with positive CRM in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P > .05). The non-adherence rates for the intervention and control groups were 3.6% and 23.7%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 34.6 months (IQR, 18.2-45.7), 43 patients had positive events (28 patients and 15 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively). There were 6 patients (4.4%) with local recurrence in the intervention group and none in the control group, which led to the termination of the trial. The 3-year DFS rate was 81.82% in the intervention group (95% CI, 78.18%-85.46%) and 85.37% in the control group (95% CI, 81.75%-88.99%), with a difference of -3.55% (95% CI, -3.71% to -3.39%; hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.94-3.30). In the per-protocol data set, the difference between 3-year DFS rates was -5.44% (95% CI, -5.63% to -5.25%; hazard ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.01-4.06).

Conclusions: Based on the outcomes of this trial, in patients with LARC and MRI-negative MRF, primary surgery could negatively influence their DFS rates. Therefore, primary surgery was an inferior strategy compared with preoperative CRT followed by surgery and cannot be recommended for patients with LARC.