Comparative analysis of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and upfront surgery in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer: oncological benefits, surgical outcomes, and cost implications.

The value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is not absolutely clear for upper-half (> 7-15 cm) rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of radical surgery with preoperative CRT vs. upfront surgery (US) in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled retrospectively (280 treated with CRT and 529 treated with US). Through 1:1 propensity score matching, the CRT (172 patients) and US (172 patients) groups were compared for short-term postoperative results and long-term oncological and functional outcomes. In the entire cohort, patients in the CRT group had a younger age, lower distance from the anal verge (DAV), and higher rates of cT4 stage, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, CEA elevation, and CA-199 elevation than those in the US group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the CRT group than in the US group (76% vs. 84%, p = 0.022), while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (85% and 88%, p = 0.084). The distant metastasis rate was higher in the CRT group than in the US group (12.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.028), though the local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% and 1.3%, p = 1.000). After performing PSM, the 5-year OS (86% vs. 88% p = 0.312), the 5-year DFS (79% vs. 80%, p = 0.435), the local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and the distant metastasis rate (11.0% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.593) were comparable between the two groups. Notable pathological downstaging was observed in the CRT group, with a pathological complete response (PCR) rate of 14.5%. In addition, patients in the CRT group had a lower proportion of pT3 (61.6% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001), pN + (pN1, 15.1% vs. 30.2%, pN2, 9.3% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), stage III (24.4% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001), perineural invasion (19.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.014), and lymphovascular invasion (9.3% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001) than those in the US group. Postoperative complications and long-term functional results were similar, yet there was a trend toward a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (5 (2.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%), p = 0.061) and higher rates of robotic surgery (11.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), open surgery (7.0% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), diverting stoma (47.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001), and surgery costs (1473.6 ± 106.5 vs. 1140.3 ± 54.3$, p = 0.006) in the CRT group. In addition, EMVI (OR = 2.516, p = 0.001) was the only independent risk factor associated with poor response to CRT, and in subgroup analysis of EMVI + , CRT group patients presented a lower 5-year DFS (72.9% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.025) compared to US group patients. CRT prior to surgery has no additional oncological benefits over US in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer. In contrast, CRT is associated with increased rates of conversion to laparotomy, stoma creation and higher surgery costs. Surgeons tend to favor robotic surgery in the treatment of complex cases such as radiated upper-half rectal cancers. Notably, EMVI + patients with upper-half rectal cancer should be encouraged to undergo upfront surgery, as preoperative CRT may not provide benefits and may lead to delayed treatment effects.