Otero de Pablos Jaime, Mayol Julio
Department of Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Front Surg. 2020 Jan 17;6:79. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2019.00079. eCollection 2019.
The presence of lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) in advanced rectal cancer entails challenges with ongoing debate regarding the role of prophylactic dissection vs. neoadjuvant radiation treatment. This article highlights the most recent data of both approaches: bilateral LPLN dissection in every patient with low rectal cancer (Rb) as per the Japanese guidelines, vs. the developing approach of neoadjuvant radiotherapy as per Eastern countries. In addition, we also accentuate the importance of a combined approach published by Sammour et al. where a simple "one-size-fits-all" strategy should be abandoned. Rectal cancer treatment is well-established in Western countries. Patients with advanced rectal cancer will undergo radiation ± chemo neoadjuvant therapy followed by TME. In the Dutch TME trial, TME plus radiotherapy showed that the presacral area was the most frequent site of recurrence and not the lateral pelvic wall. Supporting this data, the Swedish study also concluded that LPLN metastasis is not an important cause of local recurrence in patients with low rectal cancer. Therefore, Western approach is CRM-orientated and prophylactic LPLN dissection is not performed routinely as the NCCN guideline does not recommend its surgical removal unless metastases are clinically suspicious. The paradigm in Eastern countries differs somewhat. The Korean study demonstrated that adjuvant radiotherapy without lateral lymph node dissection was not enough to control local recurrence and LPLN metastases. The Japanese Trial JCOG 0212 demonstrated the effects of LPLN dissection in reducing local recurrence in the lateral pelvic compartment. We agree with Sammour and Chang on the fact that rather than a mutual exclusivity approach, we should claim for an approach where all available modalities are considered and used to optimize treatment outcomes, classifying patients into 3 categories of LPLN: low risk cT1/T2/earlyT3 (and Ra) with clinically negative LPLN on MRI; Moderate risk (cT3+/T4 with negative LPLN on MRI) and high risk (clinically abnormal LPLN on MRI). Treatment modality should be based on detailed pretreatment workup and an individualized approach that considers all options to optimize the treatment of patients with rectal cancer in the West or the East.
晚期直肠癌患者存在侧方盆腔淋巴结(LPLN)会带来挑战,关于预防性清扫与新辅助放疗的作用仍存在争议。本文重点介绍了这两种方法的最新数据:根据日本指南,对每例低位直肠癌(Rb)患者进行双侧LPLN清扫,以及东方国家正在发展的新辅助放疗方法。此外,我们还强调了Sammour等人发表的联合方法的重要性,即应摒弃简单的“一刀切”策略。直肠癌治疗在西方国家已很成熟。晚期直肠癌患者将接受放疗±化疗新辅助治疗,随后进行全直肠系膜切除术(TME)。在荷兰TME试验中,TME加放疗显示骶前区域是最常见的复发部位,而非侧盆腔壁。支持这一数据的是,瑞典研究也得出结论,低位直肠癌患者中LPLN转移并非局部复发的重要原因。因此,西方的方法是以环周切缘(CRM)为导向的,除非临床上怀疑有转移,否则不常规进行预防性LPLN清扫,因为美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)指南不建议手术切除。东方国家的模式有所不同。韩国研究表明,不进行侧方淋巴结清扫的辅助放疗不足以控制局部复发和LPLN转移。日本JCOG 0212试验证明了LPLN清扫在减少侧盆腔区域局部复发方面的效果。我们同意Sammour和Chang的观点,即不应采取相互排斥的方法,而应主张一种考虑所有可用方式以优化治疗结果的方法,将患者分为LPLN的3类:MRI显示LPLN临床阴性的低风险cT1/T2/早期T3(和Ra);中度风险(cT3+/T4且MRI显示LPLN阴性)和高风险(MRI显示LPLN临床异常)。治疗方式应基于详细的术前检查和个体化方法,考虑所有选项以优化东西方直肠癌患者的治疗。