Background: The risks of local recurrence and treatment-related morbidity need to be balanced after local excision of early rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine oncological outcomes after local excision of pT1–2 rectal cancer followed by no additional treatment (NAT), completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (aCRT).Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was local recurrence. Statistical analysis included calculation of the weighted average of proportions.Results: Some 73 studies comprising 4674 patients were included in the analysis. Sixty-two evaluated NAT, 13 cTME and 28 aCRT. The local recurrence rate for NAT among low-risk pT1 tumours was 6·7 (95 per cent c.i. 4·8 to 9·3) per cent. There were no local recurrences of low-risk pT1 tumours after cTME or aCRT. The local recurrence rate for high-risk pT1 tumours was 13·6 (8·0 to 22·0) per cent for local excision only, 4·1 (1·7 to 9·4) per cent for cTME and 3·9 (2·0 to 7·5) per cent for aCRT. Local recurrence rates for pT2 tumours were 28·9 (22·3 to 36·4) per cent with NAT, 4 (1 to 13) per cent after cTME and 14·7 (11·2 to 19·0) per cent after aCRT.Conclusion: There is a substantial risk of local recurrence in patients who receive no additional treatment after local excision, especially those with high-risk pT1 and pT2 rectal cancer. The lowest recurrence risk is provided by cTME; aCRT has outcomes comparable to those of cTME for high-risk pT1 tumours, but shows a higher risk for pT2 tumours.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate interobserver variability between individual pathologists and a panel of pathologists in the histopathological assessment of advanced colorectal neoplasms in the Dutch bowel cancer screening population.Methods and results: Histological slides of adenomas with high‐grade dysplasia and early colorectal carcinomas (CRC) from 20 different laboratories were reviewed by the pathology panel of the Dutch bowel screening programme. Interobserver variability was reported by descriptive statistics. In addition, potential clinical consequences of discrepancies were evaluated. A total of 104 cases of adenomas with high‐grade dysplasia and 83 early CRCs were reviewed. Discrepancies were observed in 41 of 104 (39.4%) adenoma cases, which potentially had clinical consequences in 16 (15.4%) cases. For CRC, discrepancies were shown in 44 of 83 cases (53.0%) and would have potentially led to alternative treatment strategies in 25 (30.1%) cases. Most frequently, discrepancies were observed in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion (23 of 73 cases, 31.5%).Conclusion: This study showed that considerable interobserver variability is present in the histopathological assessment of advanced colorectal neoplasia, which may impact upon treatment choices. Additional stains and education, as well as intercollegial consultation, might decrease this variability.

The implementation of bowel cancer screening programs has led to a rise in the incidence of early rectal cancer. The combination of increased incidence and the growing interest in organ-sparing treatment options has led to an amplified importance of local excision techniques in treatment strategies for early rectal cancer. In addition, developments in new technologies of single-port surgery have popularized surgical techniques. Although local treatment of early rectal cancer seems promising, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary and awareness of the oncological robustness is warranted to enable shared decision-making. This review illustrates the position of surgical local excision in the treatment of early rectal cancer and reflects on its role in current and future clinical practice.

Background: A growing proportion of patients with early rectal cancer is treated by local excision only. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term oncological outcomes and the impact of local recurrence on overall survival for surgical local excision in pT1 rectal cancer. Methods: Patients who only underwent local excision for pT1 rectal cancer between 1997 and 2014 in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was the local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were distant recurrence, overall survival and the impact of local recurrence on overall survival. Results: A total of 150 patients (mean age 68.5 ± 10.7 years, 57.3% males) were included in the study. Median length of follow-up was 58.9 months (range 6–176 months). Local recurrence occurred in 22.7% (n = 34) of the patients, with a median time to local recurrence of 11.1 months (range 2.3–82.6 months). The vast majority of local recurrences were located in the lumen. Five-year overall survival was 82.0%, and landmark analyses showed that local recurrence significantly impacted overall survival at 6 and 36 months of follow-up (6 months, p = 0.034, 36 months, p = 0.036). Conclusions: Local recurrence rates after local excision of early rectal cancer can be substantial and may impact overall survival. Therefore, clinical decision-making should be based on patient- and tumour characteristics and should incorporate patient preferences.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Background: Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians’ perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients’ involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians’ perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights. Results: Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life. Conclusion: Patients’ preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.