Active clinical trials for "Rectal Neoplasms"

A randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the short and long outcomes of low anterior resection for middle-low rectal cancer with or without pelvic peritonization.

The purpose of the study is to determine if short-term outcomes of rectal resections after full bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotics) are superior to rectal resections with only mechanical bowel preparation.

Single centre double-blinded three-arm randomised controlled trial of extended margin surgery + IOERT at standard dose (10 Gy) versus extended margin surgery + IOERT at higher dose (15 Gy) versus extended margin surgery alone in a 1:1:1 ratio in patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC) or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer (LRRC).

The goal of this clinical trial is to assess the number of harvested locoregional lymph nodes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and indocyanine green (ICG)-guided lymphoadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does the use of ICG increase the total number of harvested lymph nodes? Does the use of ICG increase the number of harvested extra-mesorectal lymph nodes? Participants will intraoperatively receive a trans-anal administration of ICG near to rectal cancer; during laparoscopic surgery, ICG-fluorescent nodes beyond the mesorectum will be separately excised and sent for pathology. A comparison will be performed with a recent cohort of patients affected by rectal cancer treated with standard surgery without the use of ICG.

The treatment protocol proposed in this study is to perform short-term radiation therapy and 4 cycles of FOLFOX chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. Compared to conventional chemoradiation therapy, the preoperative radiotherapy period is shortened, and the cure rate of rectal cancer patients can be improved by early treatment of micrometastasis using systemic chemotherapy. The patients who are assigned to the study group will received the short-course radiotherapy and 4 cycles of FOLFOX and patients in the control will received conventional chemoradiotherapy for preoperative treatment. All patients are recommended to receive total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy will be given according to the pathological stage.

This study compared robot-assisted total mesorectal excision to treat very low rectal cancer within 2 cm from the dentate line to avoid permanent colostomy. improves the quality of life with better defecation function, urinary function and sexual function.

Standard surgical treatment of mid and low rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME). Originally performed by open surgery, TME demonstrated improved local control and reduced urogenital morbidity. Laparoscopic approach has been validated by several randomised controlled trials: laparoscopic approach offers to the patient a better post-operative recovery, a lower risk of wound hernia and comparable oncological results. However, the risk of conversion to open procedure remains significant. Endoscopic Transanal Proctectomy allows retrograd mesorectal excision, performing the whole pelvic dissection via a specific-moderate cost device. The procedure is then completed by a briefer transabdominal laparoscopic step to mobilise the colon and perform inferior mesenteric vessels ligation, prior to low coloanal anastomosis. The originality of this approach is to perform a surgical dissection via an extra peritoneal route, without peritoneal and abdominal wound trauma. This focuses on new technical improvement in the area of mini-invasive pelviabdominal surgery using natural orifice as surgical access. This approach offer closer and better exposure of pelvic dissection plane and could improve oncological quality and pelvic nerve preservation. It could be profitable to postoperative patient outcome. However rates and type of cancer-recurrences as well as functional results have to be assessed in a controlled study. This technique has shown to be feasible and reproducible through early clinical series. Conversion rates appear to be lower than published rates of laparoscopic approach, markedly inferior to 10%. Compiled rates of morbidity (27.8%), R1 resection* (6%), mesorectum macroscopic integrity (100%) appear to be comparable to laparoscopic approach results. However functional results as well as urologic morbidity have to be evaluated in comparative studies. In a preliminary retrospective comparative (n=72) we founded comparable oncological quality criteria (R1 resection 5.9% vs 10.5% p 0.74, Grade 3 mesorectal integrity 57.5 vs 56.2 p 0.99), lower conversion rate to open procedure (2.9% vs 23.6% p 0.011), shorter in-hospital stay (8 vs 9 days p 0.038). Comparable morbidity rates (Dindo 1-4 27% vs 34% p 0.52) and functional results (Kirwan 1/2 80.3% vs 80.6% p 0.94) were also founded. These data need to be confirmed. To this date, Endoscopic Transanal Proctectomy has been evaluated through preliminary studies including several short series demonstrating the feasibility of the technique and showing low morbidity. For some authors the benefit of transanal approach is significant in difficult cases such as male patient and narrow pelvis. Very recently, two non randomised comparative studies were published with conclusions close to those in our study. Investigators propose, with the support of the GRECCAR group, to conduct a national, multicenter, open-label randomized study based on oncological non-inferiority (R1 resection rate) for the main objective, comparing Endoscopic Transanal Proctectomy to Standard Transabdominal Laparoscopic Proctectomy, for low lying rectal cancer requiring manual colo-anal anastomosis. There is a clear expected benefit expected for the patients through the ETAP procedure in term of post operative short term outcome, risk of conversion to open procedure, risk of wound hernia.This trial could also show significant advantages in terms of quality of dissection, quality of the specimen, quality of nerve preservation.

The main clinical hypothesis is that compared to radio-chemotherapy for low and mid rectal tumors or surgery for high rectal tumors neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduces the rate of distant relapse without increasing the rate of local relapse. The aim of the present study is to compare long term and short term outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing standard treatment (radio-chemotherapy/surgery) or experimental neoadjuvant chemotherapy/surgery Furthermore, early surgical and medical complications, the functional outcome, toxicity and quality of life (QoL) may be improved if radiotherapy can be avoided. Exploratory analyses are planned in order to find potential predictive markers for selecting patients to either radio-chemotherapy/surgery or neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy/surgery.

Study design: A prospective phase II, non-randomized observational study of dose-escalated pencil beam proton therapy re-irradiation for pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer. Re-irradiation is either a part of neo-adjuvant treatment or as a definitive treatment strategy for un-resectable recurrences.

Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy has become the guideline-recommended standard treatment for patients with locally advanced or mid-to-low rectal cancer with suspected regional lymph node metastasis. However, preoperative neoadjuvant radiotherapy caused radiation damage to the pelvic bowel, resulting in varying degrees of edema, vascular stiffness, and insufficient blood supply. According to the traditional rectal cancer surgery, the proximal bowel resection only needs to be more than 10cm above the upper edge of the tumor. However, this range of resection cannot remove all the damaged proximal bowel, and using the damaged proximal bowel for anastomosis may lead to the risk of anastomotic-related complications (including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, and anastomotic proximal bowel stiffness, etc.) also increased. Therefore, extended resection of the proximal bowel with splenic flexure mobilization and using healthy proximal bowel for anastomosis may help reduce the incidence of complications related to rectal anastomosis after neoadjuvant therapy.