Miyakita H, Kamei Y, Chan LF, Okada K, Kayano H, Yamamoto S. Classification of rectal cancer according to recurrence types - comparison of Japanese guidelines and Western guidelines. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(36): 13284-13292 [PMID: 36683641 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i36.13284]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Hiroshi Miyakita, MD, PhD, Doctor, Surgeon, Surgical Oncologist, Department of Digestive System Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya Isehara, Isehara 259-1193, Kanagawa, Japan. mykt0124@tokai-u.jp
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Dec 26, 2022; 10(36): 13284-13292 Published online Dec 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i36.13284
Table 1 Patients’ characteristics
Variable
n (%)
Male
579 (60)
Female
379 (40)
Age
22-93
Median
68
Location of the tumor RC
323 (33.7)
LC
284 (29.6)
R
351 (36.6)
Neoadjuvant CRT Yes
217 (61.8)
No
134 (38.2)
Histological type wel-mod
868 (90.6)
Muc
37 (3.8)
Por or Sig
21 (2.2)
PCR
26 (2.7)
Unknown
6 (0.6)
T factor 0
37 (3.8)
1
40 (4.2)
2
83 (8.6)
3
610 (63.6)
4
188 (19.6)
N factor positive
379 (39.5)
Negative
579 (60.4)
Lymphatic invasion positive
655 (68.3)
Negative
302 (31.5)
Unknown
1 (0.1)
Venous invasion positive
647 (67.5)
Negative
310 (32.3)
Unknown
1 (0.1)
Pathological Stage 0
38 (4)
I
59 (6.1)
II
482 (50.3)
III
379 (39.5)
Table 2 Distance to the lower border of the tumor according to localization by rigid endoscopy and enema examination
Classification
Rigid endoscope
Enema examination
mean ± SD
Range
n
mean ± SD
Range
n
RS
10.3 ± 2.3
6-13.5
12 (11.8)
12.3 ± 2.8
7-21
105 (29.9)
Ra
7.7 ± 1.6
5-12
38 (37.6)
7.2 ± 2.3
3-18
90
Rb
3.5 ± 1.8
0-7
54 (53.4)
3.2 ± 2.3
0-10
156
0-5 cm
6-10 cm
11-15 cm
> 15 cm
Total
RS
0
28 (26.6)
66 (62.8)
11 (10.4)
105
Ra
17 (18.8)
67 (74.4)
5 (4.4)
1 (1.1)
90
Rb
132 (84.6)
24 (15.3)
0
0
156
Table 3 Reccurence pattern according to Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinoma guidelines
Liver (%)
Lung (%)
Local (%)
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Colon cancer
77 (12.6)
530 (87.4)
33 (5.4)
574 (94.6)
21 (3.4)
586 (96.6)
RS
8 (7.5)
97 (92.5)
0.1491
5 (4.7)
100 (94.3)
0.7737
6 (5.7)
99 (94.3)
0.2657
Ra and Rb
23 (9.3)
223 (90.7)
0.3049
26 (10.5)
220 (89.5)
0.0043
5 (17.2)
24 (82.8)
0.0002
Total
958
958
740
Table 4 Recurrence pattern according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines
Liver (%)
Lung (%)
Local (%)
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Colon cancer
77 (12.6)
530 (87.4)
33 (5.4)
574 (94.6)
21 (3.4)
586 (96.6)
> 12 cm
6 (11.5)
46 (88.5)
2 (3.8)
50 (96.2)
4 (8.3)
48 (91.7)
≤ 12 cm
25 (8.3)
274 (91.4)
0.0631
29 (10.7)
270 (89.3)
0.0117
7 (8.5)
75 (91.5)
0.0467
Total
958
958
740
Table 5 Recurrence pattern according to European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines
Liver (%)
Lung (%)
Local (%)
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Metastasis
n
P value
Colon cancer
77 (12.6)
530 (87.4)
33 (5.4)
574 (94.6)
21 (3.4)
586 (96.6)
> 15 cm
2 (16.6)
10 (83.4)
1 (8.3)
11(91.7)
0 (0)
12 (100)
11-15 cm
5 (6.9)
66 (93.1)
0.1714
2 (2.8)
69 (97.2)
0.3357
4 (5.7)
65 (94.3)
0.3400
≤ 10 cm
24 (8.9)
244 (91.1)
0.1752
28 (10.4)
240 (89.6)
0.0036
7(13.2)
46 (86.8)
0.0010
Total
958
958
740
Citation: Miyakita H, Kamei Y, Chan LF, Okada K, Kayano H, Yamamoto S. Classification of rectal cancer according to recurrence types - comparison of Japanese guidelines and Western guidelines. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(36): 13284-13292