Premium
Local excision versus radical resection in patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumours: a propensity score match analysis
Author(s) -
Zhao Beiqun,
Hollandsworth Hannah M.,
Lopez Nicole E.,
Parry Lisa A.,
Abbadessa Benjamin,
Cosman Bard C.,
Ramamoorthy Sonia L.,
Eisenstein Samuel
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1111/ans.16221
Subject(s) - medicine , propensity score matching , rectum , neuroendocrine tumors , retrospective cohort study , overall survival , surgery , relative risk , resection margin , resection , urology , confidence interval
Background The rectum is a common site for neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract. Diagnosis of these tumours has been increasing in recent years, highlighting the need to better define treatment options for patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumours (rNETs). Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database (2004–2014) to compare overall survival (OS) between local excision (LE) and radical resection (RR). To minimize bias, we performed three propensity score‐matched comparisons stratified by tumour size: <10 mm, 10–20 mm, >20 mm. We compared OS by Kaplan–Meier analysis. We also examined margin status and postoperative outcomes for each comparison. Results A total of 12 996 patients underwent surgical treatment for rNET. There was no significant difference in probability of 10‐year OS between LE and RR for patients with tumours <10 mm (88.6% versus 83.8%, P = 0.631, respectively) and tumours 10‐20 mm (69.5% versus 69.3%, P = 0.226, respectively). In patients with tumours >20 mm, probability of 10‐year OS was significantly longer in the LE group (76.5% versus 37.0%, P < 0.001). For all tumour sizes <10 mm and >20 mm, RR had significantly higher rates of 30‐day readmission and negative margins. In subset analysis, there was no difference in OS for patients with positive margins after LE versus negative margins after RR for all tumour size groups. Conclusions Our findings suggest that LE is a reasonable treatment option in patients with rNETs, especially for patients with high perioperative risk. Limitations to this study include its retrospective nature and inability to analyse surgeon decision‐making.