Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42704036

The role of particle therapy in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy. Advancements in multimodality treatment have improved outcomes. About 2-10% of patients will have a local recurrence even after optimal treatment. Salvage surgical treatment is the treatment of choice, however, in posterior and lateral recurrences, surgery is linked to a high rate of treatment-related morbidity. Some recurrences remain unresectable even after neoadjuvant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to search for studies on curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) with photons, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and particle beam therapy. The aim of the literature search was to define the role of particle therapy in the treatment of patients with unresectable or inoperable local recurrences of rectal cancer where neoadjuvant treatment is unlikely to result in downstaging, leaving patients with RT as the only curative treatment option. RESULTS: 32 studies which fulfil the criteria were identified. In general, SBRT and particle beam therapy permitted the application of significantly higher doses to the target without a concomitant increase in treatment-related toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: For unresectable and inoperable locally recurrent rectal cancer ablative radiotherapy techniques such as SBRT and particle beam therapy offer a curative treatment approach as an alternative to surgery. SBRT can be offered for small local and nodal recurrences, while particle beam therapy can be offered for larger recurrences and complex shapes spanning several anatomical compartments as well. Further research is needed to stratify patients according to their need and eligibility for the different possible modalities of curative-intent RT.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ana Perpar, Petra Georg, Ajra Secerov Ermenc. 2026-09-07. The role of particle therapy in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2026-0036

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evidence Gap in Managing Lateral Pelvic Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review of Radiation Boost Strategies.

PURPOSE: Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) involvement is a significant predictor of local recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). While lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) is routinely used in some countries to manage suspicious nodes, it is associated with increased morbidity and is not widely adopted in Western practice. Radiation boost (dose escalation) to involved LPLNs during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) has emerged as a potential non-surgical alternative. Despite increasing adoption of radiation boost to clinically involved LPLNs, there remains limited evidence defining its safety, oncologic benefit, and role relative to LPLND. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported outcomes of radiation dose escalation specifically targeting radiologically suspicious LPLNs in the context of nCRT. RESULTS: Ten retrospective cohort studies encompassing 482 radiation boosted patients were included. Boost doses ranged from 35.0 to 60.2 Gy. Rates of Grade 2-3 toxicity ranged from 28.0% to 39.3% across individual studies, with only one study reporting a single Grade 4 adverse event. Across individual studies, reported nodal response rates ranged from 62.3% to 100%. Comparative studies suggest that radiation boost may improve local control and reduce LPLN recurrence. CONCLUSION: Current retrospective evidence suggests that radiation dose escalation to involved LPLNs is a promising treatment strategy; however, the available data are limited by retrospective study designs and substantial clinical heterogeneity. Given the absence of prospective evidence and lack of consensus in current guidelines, an important evidence gap remains. Well-designed prospective trials are warranted to define the role of LPLN boost relative to LPLND.

Humans

Outcomes of Response-Based Watch-and-Wait and Surgical Management After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BackgroundTotal neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) increases clinical complete response rates in locally advanced rectal cancer (RC), allowing response-based management strategies such as watch-and-wait (WW) as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME). Outcomes associated with WW after TNT remain incompletely defined. This study aimed to compare oncologic and organ-preservation outcomes between WW and surgical management following TNT.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central up to April 2025. Observational studies comparing WW and TME following TNT were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Secondary outcomes included tumor regrowth, salvage surgery, and permanent stoma. Risk of bias was evaluated using ROBINS-I.ResultsSix studies comprising 793 patients were analyzed. WW showed no significant difference compared with TME regarding local recurrence (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.07-26.17; I2 = 80%), distant metastases (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29-1.33; I2 = 49%), 5-year disease-free survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71-1.31; I2 = 51.7%), or overall survival (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.30; I2 = 27.9%). Permanent stoma rates were lower with WW (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-1.23; I2 = 71%), becoming significant after sensitivity analysis (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.19).ConclusionWW after TNT offers oncologic outcomes comparable to TME, with high organ preservation and reduced surgical morbidity in highly selected patients.

Humans

Intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for lower rectal cancer (LRC) remains debated, particularly between intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR). While ISR offers potential sphincter preservation, its oncological efficacy compared to APR is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of ISR versus APR in LRC patients. On December 8, 2024, a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 24 retrospective studies involving 4502 patients. Key outcomes analyzed included positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), local recurrence (LR), length of hospital stay (LOS), early postoperative complications, and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four retrospective studies involving 4502 patients (ISR: 2266 (50.3%) and APR: 1558 (34.6%)) met the eligibility criteria. ISR was associated with significantly lower rates of positive CRM (risk ratio (RR): 0.41, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001), decreased early postoperative complications (RR: 0.76, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001), lower LR (RR: 0.63, p&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.0038), and improvement in five-year overall survival (5YOS) (hazard ratio (HR)&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.42, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001) and five-year disease-free survival (5YDFS) (HR&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.59, p&#x202f;<&#x202f;0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ISR demonstrates several advantages over APR in selected LRC patients, including lower rates of positive CRM, fewer early postoperative complications, reduced LR, greater LN harvest, shorter LOS, and improved long-term survival outcomes (5YOS and 5YDFS). Therefore, ISR can be considered a safe and effective alternative to APR in appropriately chosen patients, with careful patient selection and surgical expertise remaining essential.

Humans