Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study

• Published in: BJS open Vol. 8; no. 5
• Main Authors: van Lieshout, Annabel S, Smits, Lisanne J H, Sijmons, Julie M L, van Dieren, Susan, van Oostendorp, Stefan E, Tanis, Pieter J, Tuynman, Jurriaan B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: UK Oxford University Press 03.09.2024
• Subjects: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Netherlands - epidemiology; Original; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Proctectomy - adverse effects; Propensity Score; Rectal Neoplasms - pathology; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery; Rectum - surgery; Treatment Outcome; Netherlands
• ISSN: 2474-9842; 2474-9842
• DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae103

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision. Methods Short-term data for patients with cT1–2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate. Results From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death. Conclusion This study shows that, over time, cT1–2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making. This population study in the Netherlands explores the treatment strategies for early rectal cancer, comparing the one-stage approach of primary total mesorectal excision with the two-stage approach of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision. The data from 2012 to 2020 reveal an increasing trend in the use of the two-stage approach, but local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision is associated with a higher risk of end ostomy. Clinicians and patients should be mindful of this risk during shared decision-making for colorectal cancer treatment.