Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To highlight the opportunities and pitfalls of organ-preservation strategies for rectal cancer and to define the clinical circumstances in which radical total mesorectal excision (TME) remains imperative, particularly when treatment is delivered outside referral centres.</p> Methods <p>Two illustrative patients initially managed in a tertiary hospital that is not a referral centre for rectal cancer and organ-preservation strategies are presented. Clinical records, imaging, histopathology, and follow-up were reviewed. Key management decisions were compared with current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, as well as recent evidence from systematic reviews.</p> Results <p>Case 1 involved a bulky (10&#xa0;cm), circumferential cT3N + mucinous adenocarcinoma. Despite apparent local control after transanal excision, the patient developed sphincter-destructive recurrence requiring abdominoperineal resection; final pathology was ypT3N2b KRAS-mutant. Case 2 concerned an initially pT1 rectal adenocarcinoma in a 6-cm laterally spreading tumour, but surveillance was non-standardized; the patient re-presented with metastatic (liver) mucinous adenocarcinoma 4&#xa0;years later, misdiagnosed as liver abscesses. In both patients, deviation from guideline criteria (tumour size, nodal status, unfavourable histology, or inadequate follow-up) led to undertreatment and delayed radical therapy.</p> Conclusion <p>Organ preservation offers functional benefits but must be confined to rigorously selected low-risk lesions within prospective protocols and high-volume centres. Radical TME remains the gold standard when guideline criteria are not fully met or staging is ambiguous.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Organ preservation in rectal cancer: opportunity within boundaries

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月23日

查看全文
  • Michele Maria Cantagalli,
  • Valentina Sani,
  • Carlo Alberto Schena,
  • Nicola de’Angelis

摘要

Purpose

To highlight the opportunities and pitfalls of organ-preservation strategies for rectal cancer and to define the clinical circumstances in which radical total mesorectal excision (TME) remains imperative, particularly when treatment is delivered outside referral centres.

Methods

Two illustrative patients initially managed in a tertiary hospital that is not a referral centre for rectal cancer and organ-preservation strategies are presented. Clinical records, imaging, histopathology, and follow-up were reviewed. Key management decisions were compared with current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, as well as recent evidence from systematic reviews.

Results

Case 1 involved a bulky (10 cm), circumferential cT3N + mucinous adenocarcinoma. Despite apparent local control after transanal excision, the patient developed sphincter-destructive recurrence requiring abdominoperineal resection; final pathology was ypT3N2b KRAS-mutant. Case 2 concerned an initially pT1 rectal adenocarcinoma in a 6-cm laterally spreading tumour, but surveillance was non-standardized; the patient re-presented with metastatic (liver) mucinous adenocarcinoma 4 years later, misdiagnosed as liver abscesses. In both patients, deviation from guideline criteria (tumour size, nodal status, unfavourable histology, or inadequate follow-up) led to undertreatment and delayed radical therapy.

Conclusion

Organ preservation offers functional benefits but must be confined to rigorously selected low-risk lesions within prospective protocols and high-volume centres. Radical TME remains the gold standard when guideline criteria are not fully met or staging is ambiguous.