Lateral Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemo-radiation in Advanced Low Rectal Cancer
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614157|
Recruitment Status : Terminated (The enrollment was too low)
First Posted : November 25, 2015
Last Update Posted : February 1, 2021
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Rectal Cancer||Procedure: LLND Device: labeled line||Not Applicable|
Recently, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have increased, leading the second prevalence after lung cancer. Local recurrence of mid/low rectal cancer is not only the poor prognostic factor but also the threat of terrible quality of life. Although universal usage of neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) have decreased local recurrence to 5%-10%, the ratio of local recurrence has occupied almost 30% of total metastasis and recurrence incidences, which limited the therapeutic effect of rectal cancer. Increasing evidences have demonstrated lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LLN) metastasis as one of the prominent causes of local recurrence, accompanied with 10%-25% advanced rectal cancer. Published researches also reminder us preoperative LLN involvement may lead to high local recurrence and poor overall survival.
As for the treatment strategies on LLN metastasis, there are huge controversies on whether lateral pelvic lymph nodes dissection (LLND) or LLND+TME after nCRT:
Eastern countries especially Japan favors LLND following TME with the reasons: 1) the incidence of LLN metastasis reaches as high as 10%-25% and 27% of rectal patients who undergo TME solely (without LLND) will develop into local recurrence. And the predictive pelvic recurrence rate will decrease 50%; corresponding 5-year overall survival will increase 8%-9%. 2) efficacy of LLND equals to resection of "local lymph nodes metastases". A large cohort of 11567 cases from Japan demonstrates resection of iliac lymph nodes metastasis does not show any difference from TME of cTxN2aM0 and resection of obturator and external iliac lymph nodes favors that of liver metastasis. 3) Japanese Guidelines for treatment of colorectal in 2014 also recommends mid/low II/III rectal cancer under peritoneal reflex undergo regular TME+LLND.
On the contrary, western countries favor sole TME after nCRT for LLN metastasis, holding that: 1) rate of lymph nodes metastasis is relatively low and LLN metastasis is regarded as systemic metastasis. 2) LLND experiences longer operative time, higher postoperative complications, and poor quality of life. 3) American NCCN and European ESMO guidelines recommend single TME for rectal cancer, if necessary, LLDN is added when LLN is indeed metastasis.
However, there is a blank strict prospective randomized control study on the comparison of nCRT and LLND. Present existing retrospective cohort mainly focus on all the mid/low advanced cancer, not the specific individual of suspicious LLN metastasis. In fact, the results almost indicate no differences on local recurrence and overall survival, except for less operation time, blood loss, and perioperative complications in LLND. Although the latest researches start to report their preliminary outcomes, the patients sample sizes are small and they achieve varied recurrence and overall survival.
In conclusion, the treatment strategy for colorectal cancer has focused on individual and precision. Massive of retrospective reports have indicated that rectal cancer patients with LLN metastasis will benefit from LLND, however, there is hot controversy on the treatment of whether TME+LLND or TME+nCRT for specific rectal patients with suspicious LLN metastasis. Therefore, our trial will compare the efficacy and safety of the two strategies for mid/low rectal cancer with suspicious LLN metastasis. The risk factors (such as radiologic factors, pathologic factors, and serum protein) to predict local recurrence and overall survival will be further investigated.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||51 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemo-radiation for Preoperative Enlarged Lateral Nodes in Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial|
|Study Start Date :||May 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||May 2017|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||May 2017|
Experimental: LLND+TME group
advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chem-radiation with suspicious lateral lymph nodes involvement undergo lateral lymph node dissection and total mesorectal excision(LLND+TME)
advanced rectal cancer patients whose lymph nodes are suspiciously enlarged after neoadjuvant chemoradiation will undergo lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) and total mesorectal excision (TME)
Other Name: Lateral Lymph Node Dissection
Device: labeled line
No Intervention: TME group
advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chem-radiation with suspicious lateral lymph nodes involvement undergo total mesorectal excision (TME)solely, without LLND
- 3-year local recurrence [ Time Frame: until local-recurrence (up to 3 years) ]
- overall survival [ Time Frame: 3 years ]
- disease free survival [ Time Frame: 3 years ]
- Incidence of sexual and urinary dysfunction [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
- postoperative complications [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02614157
|West China Hospital|
|Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610000|
|Principal Investigator:||Ziqiang Wang, MD,PhD||West China Hospital|