Annals of Coloproctology

Reviews

Colorectal cancer

Postoperative outcomes after prehabilitation for colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies: Ian Jun Yan Wee, Isaac Seow-En, Aik Yong Chok, Eileen Sim, Chee Hoe Koo, Wenjie Lin, Chang Meihuan, Emile Kwong-Wei Tan; Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(3):191-199. Published online May 16, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.01095.0156

3,255 View
209 Download
5 Web of Science
4 Citations

Purpose
Prehabilitation (PH) is purported to improve patients’ preoperative functional status. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare short-term postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent a protocolized PH program and the existing standard of care among colorectal cancer patients awaiting surgery.
Methods
A search in MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL was conducted to identify relevant articles. Repetitive and exhaustive combinations of MeSH search terms (“prehabilitation,” “colorectal cancer,” “colon cancer,” and “rectal cancer”) were used to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing PH versus standard of care for colorectal cancer patients awaiting surgery. The primary outcomes included postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, and readmission rates.
Results
Seven studies including 1,042 colorectal cancer patients (PH, 382) were included. No significant differences were found in intraoperative outcomes. The postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups (Clavien-Dindo grades I and II: risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–1.07; P=0.15; Clavien-Dindo grades ≥III: risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.44; P=0.92). There were also no significant differences in length of hospital stay (P=0.21) or the risk of 30-day readmission (P=0.68).
Conclusion
Although PH does not appear to improve short-term postoperative outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery, the quality of evidence is impaired by the limited trials and heterogeneity. Thus, further large-scale trials are warranted to draw definitive conclusions and establish the long-term effects of PH.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The inequalities and challenges of prehabilitation before cancer surgery: a narrative review
Hilary Stewart, Sophie Stanley, Xiubin Zhang, Lisa Ashmore, Christopher Gaffney, Jo Rycroft‐Malone, Andrew F. Smith, Laura Wareing, Cliff Shelton
Anaesthesia.2025; 80(S2): 75. CrossRef
Prehabilitation in surgery – an update with a focus on nutrition
Chelsia Gillis, Arved Weimann
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care.2025; 28(3): 224. CrossRef
The role of exercise-based prehabilitation in enhancing surgical outcomes for patients with digestive system cancers: a meta-analysis
Shasha Xu, Rong Yin, Haiou Zhu, Yin Gong, Jing Zhu, Changxian Li, Qin Xu
BMC Gastroenterology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Identifying and optimizing psychosocial frailty in surgical practice
Kurt S. Schultz, Caroline E. Richburg, Emily Y. Park, Ira L. Leeds
Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2024; 35(4): 101061. CrossRef

ERAS

Venous thromboembolism among Asian populations with localized colorectal cancer undergoing curative resection: is pharmacological thromboprophylaxis required? A systematic review and meta-analysis: Shih Jia Janice Tan, Emile Kwong-Wei Tan, Yvonne Ying Ru Ng, Rehena Sultana, John Carson Allen, Isaac Seow-En, Ronnie Mathew, Aik Yong Chok; Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(3):200-209. Published online May 16, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.01046.0149

2,648 View
180 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
We compared the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among Asian populations with localized colorectal cancer undergoing curative resection with and without the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (PTP).
Methods
A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1980 to February 28, 2022. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent primary tumor resection for localized nonmetastatic colorectal cancer; an Asian population or studies conducted in an Asian country; randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies; and the incidence of symptomatic VTE, deep vein thrombosis, and/or pulmonary embolism as the primary study outcomes. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. This study was registered in PROSPERO on October 11, 2020 (No. CRD42020206793).
Results
Seven studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational cohort studies) were included, encompassing 5,302 patients. The overall incidence of VTE was 1.4%. The use of PTP did not significantly reduce overall VTE incidence: 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%–3.1%) versus 1.9% (95% CI, 0.3%–4.4%; P = 0.55). Similarly, PTP was not associated with significantly lower rates of symptomatic VTE, proximal deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism.
Conclusion
The benefit of PTP in reducing VTE incidence among Asian patients undergoing curative resection for localized colorectal cancer has not been clearly established. The decision to administer PTP should be evaluated on a case-bycase basis and with consideration of associated bleeding risks.

Colorectal cancer

Survival outcomes of salvage surgery in the watch-and-wait approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Wenjie Lin, Ian Jun Yan Wee, Isaac Seow-En, Aik Yong Chok, Emile Kwong-Wei Tan; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(6):447-456. Published online December 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.01221.0174

3,678 View
172 Download
6 Web of Science
8 Citations

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) approach versus radical surgery (RS) in rectal cancers with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Methods
This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched to identify relevant articles. WW and RS were compared through meta-analyses of pooled proportions. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis rates. Pooled salvage surgery rates and outcomes were also collected. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the risk of bias.
Results
Eleven studies including 1,112 rectal cancer patients showing cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included. Of these patients, 378 were treated nonoperatively with WW, 663 underwent RS, and 71 underwent local excision. The 2-year OS (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; P = 0.94), 5-year OS (RR, 2.59; P = 0.25), and distant metastasis rates (RR, 1.05; P = 0.80) showed no significant differences between WW and RS. Local recurrence was more frequent in the WW group (RR, 6.93; P < 0.001), and 78.4% of patients later underwent salvage surgery (R0 resection rate, 97.5%). The 2-year DFS (RR, 1.58; P = 0.05) and 5-year DFS (RR, 2.07; P = 0.02) were higher among RS cases. However, after adjustment for R0 salvage surgery, DFS showed no significant between-group difference (RR, 0.82; P = 0.41).
Conclusion
Local recurrence rates are higher for WW than RS, but complete salvage surgery is often possible with similar long-term outcomes. WW is a viable strategy for rectal cancer with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but further research is required to improve patient selection.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Phase 2, Multicenter, Open-label, Nonrandomized Study of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Liposomal Irinotecan With 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin, Followed by Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Rectal Cancer in a Watch-and-Wait Program
César Muñoz, María-C. Riesco Martinez, Lisardo Ugidos, Pilar García-Alfonso, Rafael Alvarez-Gallego, Paloma Peinado, Carmen Toledano, Luka Mihic-Góngora, Justo Gabriel Ortega Anselmi, Enrique Sanz Garcia, Emilio Vicente, Yolanda Quijano, Hipólito J. Durán
American Journal of Clinical Oncology.2025; 48(3): 142. CrossRef
Therapeutic Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Existing and Prospective Approaches
Horia-Dan Lișcu, Nicolae Verga, Dimitrie-Ionuț Atasiei, Andreea-Teodora Ilie, Maria Vrabie, Laura Roșu, Alexandra Poștaru, Stefania Glăvan, Adriana Lucaș, Maria Dinulescu, Andreea Delea, Andreea-Iuliana Ionescu
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(3): 912. CrossRef
A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer
Yu-Xin Liu, Xin-Rong Yang, Lan-Qing Peng, Zhuo-Hong Li
Frontiers in Oncology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
ACCORD study: a national multi‐centre study of the watch and wait approach in patients with rectal cancer in Aotearoa New Zealand

ANZ Journal of Surgery.2025; 95(3): 440. CrossRef
Advancing Personalized Medicine in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Francesco Giulio Sullo, Alessandro Passardi, Chiara Gallio, Chiara Molinari, Giorgia Marisi, Eleonora Pozzi, Leonardo Solaini, Alessandro Bittoni
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(9): 2562. CrossRef
Tailoring rectal cancer surgery: Surgical approaches and anatomical insights during deep pelvic dissection for optimal outcomes in low‐lying rectal cancer
Youn Young Park, Nam Kyu Kim
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery.2024; 8(5): 761. CrossRef
Combined Transanal and Laparoscopic Approach for Full-Thickness Local Excision of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Following Near-Complete Response after Chemotherapy
Joshua S. H. Lim, Si-Lin Koo, Iain Beehuat Tan, Isaac Seow-En
World Journal of Colorectal Surgery.2024; 13(3): 95. CrossRef
Watch‐and‐Wait Approach Following Neoadjuvant Chemo‐Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Single‐Center Cohort Study
Georgi Kalev, Sylvia Buettner, Tianzuo Zhan, Ralf‐Dieter Hofheinz, Judit Boda‐Heggemann, Christoph Reissfelder, Steffen Seyfried, Georgi Vassilev, Julia Hardt
Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search