Objective: To propose a new staging system for presacral recurrence of rectal cancer and explore the factors influencing radical resection of such recurrences based on this staging system. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, clinical data of 51 patients with presacral recurrence of rectal cancer who had undergone surgical treatment in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital between January 2008 and September 2022 were collected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) primary rectal cancer without distant metastasis that had been radically resected; (2) pre-sacral recurrence of rectal cancer confirmed by multi-disciplinary team assessment based on CT, MRI, positron emission tomography, physical examination, surgical exploration, and pathological examination of biopsy tissue in some cases; and (3) complete inpatient, outpatient and follow-up data. The patients were allocated to radical resection and non-radical resection groups according to postoperative pathological findings. The study included: (1) classification of pre-sacral recurrence of rectal cancer according to its anatomical characteristics as follows: Type I: no involvement of the sacrum; Type II: involvement of the low sacrum, but no other sites; Type III: involvement of the high sacrum, but no other sites; and Type IV: involvement of the sacrum and other sites. (2) Assessment of postoperative presacral recurrence, overall survival from surgery to recurrence, and duration of disease-free survival. (3) Analysis of factors affecting radical resection of pre-sacral recurrence of rectal cancer. Non-normally distributed measures are expressed as median (range). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison between groups. Results: The median follow-up was 25 (2-96) months with a 100% follow-up rate. The rate of metachronic distant metastasis was significantly lower in the radical resection than in the non-radical resection group (24.1% [7/29] vs. 54.5% [12/22], χ2=8.333, P=0.026). Postoperative disease-free survival was longer in the radical resection group (32.7 months [3.0-63.0] vs. 16.1 [1.0-41.0], Z=8.907, P=0.005). Overall survival was longer in the radical resection group (39.2 [3.0-66.0] months vs. 28.1 [1.0-52.0] months, Z=1.042, P=0.354). According to univariate analysis, age, sex, distance between the tumor and anal verge, primary tumor pT stage, and primary tumor grading were not associated with achieving R0 resection of presacral recurrences of rectal cancer (all P>0.05), whereas primary tumor pN stage, anatomic staging of presacral recurrence, and procedure for managing presacral recurrence were associated with rate of R0 resection (all P<0.05). According to multifactorial analysis, the pathological stage of the primary tumor pN1-2 (OR=3.506, 95% CI: 1.089-11.291, P=0.035), type of procedure (transabdominal resection: OR=29.250, 95% CI: 2.789 - 306.811, P=0.005; combined abdominal perineal resection: OR=26.000, 95% CI: 2.219-304.702, P=0.009), and anatomical stage of presacral recurrence (Type III: OR=16.000, 95% CI: 1.542 - 166.305, P = 0.020; type IV: OR= 36.667, 95% CI: 3.261 - 412.258, P = 0.004) were all independent risk factors for achieving radical resection of anterior sacral recurrence after rectal cancer surgery. Conclusion: Stage of presacral recurrences of rectal cancer is an independent predictor of achieving R0 resection. It is possible to predict whether radical resection can be achieved on the basis of the patient's medical history.

AIM: To compare the accuracy of hand-held ultrasonography (US), mammography (MG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) in defining residual breast cancer tumour size after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed breast cancer and who received NAT at the Breast Center, Peking University People's Hospital, were enrolled prospectively. Imaging was performed after the last cycle of NAT. The residual tumour size, intraclass correlation co-efficients (ICCs), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) to predict pathological complete response (pCR) were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients with 159 tumours were analysed. ABVS had a moderate correlation with histopathology residual tumour size (ICC = 0.666), and showed high agreement among triple-positive tumours (ICC = 0.797). With 5 mm as the threshold, the coincidence rate reached 64.7% between ABVS and pathological size, which was significantly higher than that between US, MG, MRI, and pathological size (50%, 45.1%, 41.4%; p=0.0 09, p=0.001, p<0.001, respectively). For ROC analysis, ABVS demonstrated a higher area under the ROC curve, but with no statistical difference, except for MG (0.855, 0.816, 0.819, and 0.788, respectively; p=0.183 for US, p=0.04 4 for MG, and p=0.397 for MRI, with ABVS as the reference). CONCLUSIONS: The longest tumour diameter on ABVS had a moderate correlation with pathological residual invasive tumour size. ABVS was shown to have good ability to predict pCR and would appear to be a potential useful tool for the assessment after NAT for breast cancer. (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

Objective: Presacral recurrence of rectal cancer have altered the adjacent structures of original pelvic organs due to the previous radical surgery of rectal cancer, and the boundary between recurrent tumor tissues and pelvic internal structures is not clear. Conventional CT examination has poor soft tissue resolution, which makes it difficult to accurately delineate the target area of radiotherapy. This study aimed to explore the guiding role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in delineating the target area of presacral recurrence after radical resection of rectal cancer. Methods: A descriptive case series research method was adopted. From May 2014 to May 2019, the clinical data of 30 patients with presacral recurrence after radical resection of rectal cancer were collected, who were admitted to Peking University People's Hospital, confirmed by pathology or discussed by multidisciplinary team (MDT), with complete MRI, CT and case information. According to the gross tumor volume (GTV) with presacral recurrence outlined in CT and MRI images, including presacral recurrent lesions (GTVT) and metastatic lymph nodes (GTVN), the GTV volume was calculated, and the tumor boundary and diameter were measured. The differences between MRI and CT were compared. Results: The volume of GTVT-CT was larger than that of GTVT-MR in all the 30 patients. The median volume of GTVT-CT was 67.86 (range 5.12-234.10) cm(3), which was significantly larger than 43.02 (range 3.42-142.50) cm(3) of GTVT-MR with statistically significant difference (Z=-4.288, P<0.001). The mean volume of GTVN outlined by CT and MRI was (0.43±0.11) cm(3) and (0.40±0.10) cm(3) respectively without statistically significant difference (t=1.550, P=0.132). The mean values of boundary and radial line of the presacral lesions on CT images were all longer than those on MRI images. The vertical diameter of GTVT on CT and MRI images was (6.66±2.92) cm and (5.17±2.40) cm (t=5.466, P<0.001); the anterior boundary was (3.24±2.51) cm and (2.69±2.48) cm (t=4.685, P<0.001); the anteroposterior diameter was (4.92±2.02) cm and (4.04±1.57) cm (t=6.210, P<0.001); the left boundary was (3.05±1.00) cm and (2.64±0.78) cm (t=2.561, P=0.016); the right boundary was 2.66 (0.00-4.23) cm and 1.82 (-1.10-3.59) cm (Z=-3.950, P<0.001); the transverse diameter was (5.01±1.78) cm and (3.82±1.29) cm (t=4.648, P<0.001), respectively, whose differences were all statistically significant. MRI was superior to CT in judging the involvement of anterior organs, such as intestine, prostate, bladder and the posterior sacrum. Fifteen patients received radiotherapy according to the target area guided by MRI and 10 patients obtained clinical symptom relief. Conclusion: Compared with CT, the GTV of postoperative presacral recurrence of rectal cancer outlined in MRI images is smaller, and MRI can determine the boundary between tumor and surrounding normal tissues more precisely, so it can show the invasion range of tumor more accurately and guide the accurate implementation of radiotherapy.

Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features and prognostic factors in patients with presacral recurrent rectal cancer (PRRC). Methods: PRRC was defined as recurrence of rectal cancer after radical surgery involving posteriorly the presacral soft tissue, the sacrum/coccyx, and/or sacral nerve root. The diagnosis is confirmed with clinical symptoms (pain of pelvis/back/lower limb, bloody stools, increased frequency of defecation, and abnormal secretions), physical examination of perineal or pelvic masses, radiological findings, colonoscopy with histopathological biopsy, and the evaluation by multi-disciplinary team (MDT). Inclusion criteria: (1) primary rectal cancer undergoing radical surgery without distant metastasis; (2) PRRC was diagnosed; (3) complete inpatient, outpatient and follow-up data. According to the above criteria, clinical data of 72 patients with PRRC in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinicopathological features and follow-up data were summarized. Cox proportional hazard models was used to analyze the prognostic factors of PRRC. Results: Among 72 patients, 45 were male and 27 were female with a male-to-female ratio of 1.7:1.0. The median age at recurrence was 58 (34 to 83) years and the median interval from surgery to recurrence was 2.0 (0.2 to 17.0) years. The main symptom was pain in 48.6% (35/72) of patients. In addition, gastrointestinal symptoms were found in 25.0% (18/72) of patients. The presacral recurrent sites were presacral fascia in 36 (50.0%) patients, lower sacrum (S3~S5 or coccyx) in 25 (34.7%) patients, and higher sacrum (S1~S2) in 11 (15.3%) patients. Forty-seven (65.3%) patients underwent radical surgery (abdominal resection, abdominoperineal resection, sacrectomy, abdominosacral resection), 12 (16.7%) underwent non-radical surgery (colostomy, cytoreductive surgery), and 13 (18.1%) did not undergo any surgery but only receive palliative chemoradiotherapy and nutritional support treatment. Thirty-three (45.8%) patients received radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, irinotecan, etc.). All the patients received follow-up, and the median follow-up time was 19 (2 to 72) months. The median overall survival time was 14 (1 to 65) months. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 67.1% and 32.0%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that age at recurrence (P=0.031) and radical resection (P<0.001) were associated with prognosis. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that radical resection was independent factor of good prognosis (RR=0.140, 95%CI: 0.061-0.322, P<0.001). Conclusions: Patients tend to develop presacral recurrent rectal cancer within 2 years after primary surgery. The main symptom is pain. Patients undergoing radical resection have a relatively good prognosis.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and prognosis of three surgical methods for presacral recurrent rectal cancer (PRRC). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Case inclusion criteria: (1) primary rectal cancer without distant metastasis and undergoing radical surgery; (2) patients undergoing radical surgery after the diagnosis of PRRC; (3) complete inpatient, outpatient and follow-up data. Clinical data of 47 patients meeting the above criteria who underwent operation at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Peking University People's Hospital from January 2008 to December 2017 were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively. Of the 47 patients, 31 were male and 16 were female; the mean age was 57 years old; 9 (19.1%) were low differentiation or signet ring cell carcinoma, 38 (80.9%) were medium differentiation; 19 (40.4%) received neoadjuvant therapy. According to operative procedure, 22 patients were in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, 15 in the sacrectomy group and 10 in the abdominosacral resection group. The operative data, postoperative data and prognosis were compared among the three groups. Survival curve was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test was used to compare survival difference among three groups. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline data among three groups (all P>0.05). All the 47 patients completed the radical resection successfully. The mean operation time was (4.7±2.1) hours, the median intraoperative blood loss was 600 ml, and the median postoperative hospitalization time was 17 days. Fifteen cases (31.9%) had perioperative complications, of which 3 cases were grade III-IV. There was no perioperative death. The mean operative time was (7.4±1.6) hours in the abdominosacral resection group, (4.9±1.6) hours in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, and (3.0±1.1) hours in the sacroectomy group, with a significant difference (F=25.071, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days and perioperative complications among the three groups (all P>0.05). The median follow-up period of all the patients was 24 months, 12 cases (25.5%) developed postoperative dysfunction. The incidence of postoperative dysfunction in the abdominosacral resection group was 5/10, which was higher than 4/15 in the sacrectomy group and 3/22 (13.6%) in the abdominoperineal resection group with statistically significant difference (χ(2)=9.307, P=0.010). The 1-year and 3-year overall survival rates were 86.1% and 40.2% respectively. The 1-year overall survival rates were 86.0%, 86.7% and 83.3%, and the 3-year overall survival rates were 33.2%, 40.0% and 62.5% in the abdominal/abdominoperineal resection group, sacrectomy group and abdominosacral resection group, respectively, whose difference was not statistically significant (χ(2)=0.222, P=0.895). Conclusions: Abdominal/abdominoperineal resection, sacrectomy and abdominosacral resection are all effective for PRRC. Intraoperative function protection should be concerned for patients undergoing abdominosacral resection.

AIM:The application of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety, quality and effect of CME with non-complete mesocolic excision (NCME) in patients with colon cancer. METHOD:We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library and Scopus to identify studies comparing CME with NCME in colon cancer. We focused on three study outcome areas: safety (operation time, blood loss, complications, mortality); quality (large bowel length, distance from the tumour to the high vascular tie, area of mesentery, total lymph nodes); and effect (long-term survival). RESULTS:A total of 8586 patients from 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. CME was associated with greater intra-operative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) 79.87, 95% CI: 65.88-93.86], more postoperative surgical complications (relative risk 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08-1.40), longer large bowel resection (WMD 47.06, 95% CI: 10.49-83.62), greater distance from the tumour to the high vascular tie (WMD 17.51, 95% CI: 15.16-19.87), larger area of mesentery (WMD 36.09, 95% CI: 18.06-54.13) and more lymph nodes (WMD 6.13, 95% CI: 1.97-10.28) than NCME. CME also had positive effects on 5-year survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.81], 3-year survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86) and 3-year survival for Stage III disease (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80) compared with NCME. CONCLUSION:Limited evidence suggests that CME is a more effective strategy for improving specimen quality and survival but with a higher complication rate.