Clinical trial · Interventional
Salvage Chemotherapy Versus Total Mesorectal Resection for Local Resection Rectal Cancer Patients
A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open, Parallel Controlled, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial of Salvage Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radical Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Intermediate-risk Early Middle-low Rectal Cancer After Local Resection
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
Whether to perform radical TME or salvage chemoradiotherapy after local resection of intermediate-risk T1 rectal cancer is still controversial. A study based on the National Cancer Data Center showed that, because of the need for organ preservation, rescue chemoradiotherapy after local resection of rectal cancer was used in 10% of patients with T1N0 tumors and in 40% of patients with T2N0 tumors. However, the local recurrence caused by non-TME surgery is still the focus of concern for clinicians and patients. Previous retrospective studies have shown that there is no significant difference in overall survival and disease free survival between salvage CRT group and salvage TME group for patients with early rectal cancer after local resection. Pathological pT2 after local resection is the only independent risk factor for disease-free survival. However, limited to a single center and small sample size, the recurrence caused by salvage radiotherapy and chemotherapy should still be alert. Given these concerns, there is an urgent need to identify a better treatment regimen that can ensure reliable oncologic outcomes after local resection. Therefore, with TME as the control group and salvage chemoradiotherapy as the experimental group, we conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority clinical trial of the treatment effect of patients with intermediate-risk T1 and clinical stage N0M0 rectal cancer after local resection, to provide high-level evidence-based medical evidence for the final choice of these two salvage treatment methods.
Conditions
Conditions (2)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemotherapy Effect | — | UNRESOLVED | — |
| Rectal Cancer | Malignant Rectal Neoplasm | CURATED_EXACT | 0.92 |
Interventions
Interventions (2)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radical total mesorectal excision | Procedure | — | UNRESOLVED |
| Salavge Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy | Other | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (2)
- type
- EXPERIMENTAL
- label
- Salvage adjuvant chemoradiotherapy group
- description
- Patitents under local radical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma received: 1. Concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy 2. Adjuvant radiotherapy: long-course radiotherapy was planned in this study.
- interventionNames
- Other: Salavge Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
- type
- ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
- label
- Radical TME group
- description
- Patitents under local radical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma received: Standard TME surgery was performed 3-4 weeks after local resection.
- interventionNames
- Procedure: Radical total mesorectal excision
Primary outcomes (1)
- measure
- Three years disease-free survival rate
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- All
- Minimum age
- 18 Years
- Maximum age
- 75 Years
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: 1. aged 18-75 years; 2. Local radical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma (TEM, TAMIS, TSPM, EMR, ESD or polypectomy) 3. pT1 with a diameter of 3-5 cm, or a maximum diameter of 3 cm, and at least poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion and/or perineural invasion and/or SM3; 4. The distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the anal verge was within 10cm on MRI at initial diagnosis; 5. clinical stage N0M0 at initial diagnosis; 6. no multiple colorectal cancer; 7. The heart, lung, liver and kidney function can tolerate surgery; 8. Patients and their families were able to understand and willing to participate in this study, and provided written informed consent Exclusion Criteria: 1. complicated with other malignant tumors or a previous history of malignant tumors; 2. not suitable for subsequent chemoradiotherapy or surgery; 3. a history of inflammatory bowl disease (IBD) or familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP); 4. recently diagnosed with other malignant tumors; 5. ASA physical status ≥ IV and/or ECOG performance status \> 2 points; 6. patients with severe liver and kidney function, cardiopulmonary function, coagulation dysfunction or combined with serious underlying diseases can not tolerate surgery; 7. a history of severe mental illness; 8. pregnant or lactating women; 9. Patients with other clinical or laboratory conditions were not considered to be eligible for the study
References
Publications (12)
- BACKGROUNDWallner C, Lange MM, Bonsing BA, Maas CP, Wallace CN, Dabhoiwala NF, Rutten HJ, Lamers WH, Deruiter MC, van de Velde CJ; Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Total Mesorectal Excision Trial. Causes of fecal and urinary incontinence after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer based on cadaveric surgery: a study from the Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch total mesorectal excision trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 20;26(27):4466-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.3062. PMID 18802159
- BACKGROUNDden Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KC, Kranenbarg EM, Rutten HJ, Wiggers T, Putter H, van de Velde CJ; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Apr;8(4):297-303. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70047-5. PMID 17395102
- BACKGROUNDMarr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons WJ, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Sebag-Montefiore D, Scott N, Johnston D, Sagar P, Finan P, Quirke P. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005 Jul;242(1):74-82. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000167926.60908.15. PMID 15973104
- BACKGROUNDBach SP, Hill J, Monson JR, Simson JN, Lane L, Merrie A, Warren B, Mortensen NJ; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Collaboration. A predictive model for local recurrence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009 Mar;96(3):280-90. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6456. PMID 19224520
- BACKGROUNDBosch SL, Teerenstra S, de Wilt JH, Cunningham C, Nagtegaal ID. Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):827-34. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1344238. Epub 2013 Jul 24. PMID 23884793
- BACKGROUNDDiagnosis And Treatment Guidelines For Colorectal Cancer Working Group CSOCOC. Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) diagnosis and treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer 2018 (English version). Chin J Cancer Res. 2019 Feb;31(1):117-134. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.01.07. No abstract available.