Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Elderly Rectal Cancer: An Updated Review

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Treatment of rectal cancer patients of advanced age should be modulated by life expectancy and tolerance. Due to the rapid advance of this field, we aim to conduct an updated review of this topic.

Recent Findings

The field of elderly rectal cancer has advanced a lot. This review covers all the treatment aspects of elderly rectal cancer, including the prognostic factor, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment. We also provide the future aspect of the management of elderly rectal cancer.

Summary

The advancement of prognostic factor research, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment has made the care of elderly rectal cancer patients better. The future of these fields should focus on the definition of the elderly and the application of particle therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ashman JB, et al. New Paradigms in rectal cancer multidisciplinary care: special issue introduction. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2022;21(1):1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. • Siegel RL, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145–164. This paper summarizes the epidemiology of rectal cancer.

  3. Høydahl Ø, et al. The impact of age on rectal cancer treatment, complications and survival. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):975.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Rectal Cancer Version 5.2023 — September 21, 2023. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Published 2023. Accessed 2023/11/13.

  5. Schrag D, et al. Preoperative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023.

  6. Cercek A, et al. PD-1 blockade in mismatch repair-deficient, locally advanced rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(25):2363–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. •• De Felice F, et al. Locally advanced rectal cancer: treatment approach in elderly patients. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2020;21:1–12. This paper summarizes the treatment approach in elderly patients.

  8. Wang SJ, et al. Decision-making strategy for rectal cancer management using radiation therapy for elderly or comorbid patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100(4):926–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Podda M, et al. Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project. World J Emerg Surg. 2021;16(1):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Montroni I, et al. Personalized management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: expert recommendations of the European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Society of Coloproctology, International Society of Geriatric Oncology, and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(11):1685–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosati G. Learning to care for the older people: an urgent need in the daily practice of oncologists. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11).

  12. Miller RL, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in perioperative care: a systematic review of a complex intervention. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10): e062729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Erdem S, et al. The impact of age in the treatment of non-comorbid patients with rectal cancer: survival outcomes from the National Cancer Database. World J Surg. 2023;47(8):2023–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Manoglu B, et al. Inflammation-based prognostic scores in geriatric patients with rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2023;27(5):397–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Qu Y, et al. Construction of a predictive model for clinical survival in male patients with non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(1):132–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu H, et al. Prediction of cancer-specific survival and overall survival in middle-aged and older patients with rectal adenocarcinoma using a nomogram model. Transl Oncol. 2021;14(1):100938.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zheng P, et al. Nomogram predicting cancer-specific survival in elderly patients with stages I-III colon cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020;55(2):202–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang MC, et al. Effect of prehabilitation on patients with frailty undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2023;104(6):313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Berkel AEM, et al. Effects of community-based exercise prehabilitation for patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with high risk for postoperative complications: results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2022;275(2):e299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Millan M, et al. Minimizing the impact of colorectal surgery in the older patient: the role of enhanced recovery programs in older patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(3):338–43.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lu S, et al. The preoperative geriatric nutritional risk index predicts long-term prognosis in elderly locally advanced rectal cancer patients: a two-center retrospective cohort study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023;35(2):311–21.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Minami S, et al. The geriatric nutritional risk index as a prognosis predictor in patients with rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Anticancer Res. 2022;42(7):3759–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park SE, et al. Sarcopenia is poor prognostic factor in older patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received preoperative or postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(48): e13363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cai X, et al. Tolerability and outcomes of radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer in elderly patients aged 70 years and older. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xu Y, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative albumin to globulin ratio in elderly patients with rectal cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(24): e16066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosa C, et al. Clinical outcomes in elderly rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: impact of tumor regression grade. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021;147(4):1179–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Q, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22(4):1325.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Charalambides M, et al. A systematic review of the literature assessing operative blood loss and postoperative outcomes after colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(1):47–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolarsick PA, et al. Minimizing the impact of colorectal surgery in the older patient: the role of minimally invasive surgery in the geriatric population. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(3):333–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Flynn J, et al. Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2023;93(3):510–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Safiejko K, et al. Robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19,731 patients. Cancers (Basel). 2021;14(1).

  32. Uk BS. Current status and future of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer-an English version. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2022;6(4):221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Knol J, et al. Total mesorectal excision technique-past, present, and future. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020;33(3):134–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bayer A, et al. Embryological development and topographic anatomy of pelvic compartments-surgical relevance for pelvic lymphonodectomy. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4).

  35. Longchamp G, et al. Current surgical strategies for the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma and the risk of local recurrence. Dig Dis. 2021;39(4):325–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim NK, et al. Optimal complete rectum mobilization focused on the anatomy of the pelvic fascia and autonomic nerves: 30 years of experience at Severance Hospital. Yonsei Med J. 2021;62(3):187–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Fleming CA, et al. Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(2):128–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oshio H, et al. Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(1):159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Uehara K, et al. Current status of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the expanding indications of the transanal approach for extended pelvic surgeries. Dig Endosc. 2023;35(2):243–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Escal L, et al. MRI-based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(1):140–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hahn SJ, et al. Technological advances in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2022;31(2):183–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moon JY, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(5):3122–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Vannijvel M, et al. Limitations and concerns with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2022;35(2):141–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Manceau G, et al. Emergency surgery for obstructive colon cancer in elderly patients: results of a multicentric cohort of the French National Surgical Association. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(8):941–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fahimnia S, et al. Falls in older patients with cancer undergoing surgery: prevalence and association with geriatric syndromes and levels of disability assessed in preoperative evaluation. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2018;2018:5713285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Fahim M, et al. Promising results of a new treatment in patients with bowel obstruction in colorectal surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(3):415–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ketelaers SHJ, et al. When and how should surgery be performed in senior colorectal cancer patients? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(3):326–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lindsetmo RO, et al. A standardized technique for laparoscopic rectal resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(11):2059–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Heald RJ, et al. Optimal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is by dissection in front of Denonvilliers’ fascia. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):121–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ghareeb WM, et al. Anatomy of the perirectal fascia at the level of rectosacral fascia revisited. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2022;10(1):goac001.

  51. Zhang Q, et al. Advances in pelvic imaging parameters predicting surgical difficulty in rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2023;21(1):64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ferko A, et al. CT/MRI pelvimetry as a useful tool when selecting patients with rectal cancer for transanal total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(3):1164–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tsuruta A, et al. Prediction of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection in male rectal cancer by pelvic measurement in magnetic resonance imaging. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27(1):54–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lyman WB, et al. Overuse of proximal fecal diversion in colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2023;36(1):52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kanso F, et al. Partial mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma: morbidity and oncological outcome. Clinical Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(1):82-90. e81.

  56. Lopez-Kostner F, et al. Total mesorectal excision is not necessary for cancers of the upper rectum. Surgery. 1998;124(4):612–617; discussion 617–618.

  57. Ghadimi M, et al. Multimodal treatment of rectal cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022;119(33–34):570–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Varela C, et al. Surgical treatment of low-lying rectal cancer: updates. Ann Coloproctol. 2021;37(6):395–424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Wlodarczyk J, et al. Inking outside the box: systematic review on the utility of tattooing lesions in rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(10):2101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tez M. Re: "Usefulness of endoscopic tattooing before neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinical complete response in locally advanced rectal cancer for providing a safe distal surgical margin" by Yigit et al. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021;31(11):1321.

  61. Cipe G, et al. The effects of preoperative endoscopic tattooing on distal surgical margin and ileostomy rates in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(4):301–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Xv Y, et al. Latest advances in intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020;2020.

  63. Collard M, et al. Ultimate functional preservation with intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:297.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim JC, et al. Complete intersphincteric longitudinal muscle excision may be key to reducing local recurrence during intersphincteric resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(7):1629–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Shen Y, et al. Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Tech Coloproctol. 2023;27(12):1307–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Mari G, et al. 5 year oncological outcomes of the HIGHLOW randomized clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49(3):641–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tryliskyy Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of the level of ligation of inferior mesenteric artery on functional outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(3):709–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kim K, et al. High versus low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(9).

  69. Liu FC, et al. Preservation of left colic artery in laparoscopic colorectal operation: the benefit challenge. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2023;15(5):825–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Sokolov M, et al. Technical considerations depending on the level of vascular ligation in laparoscopic rectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(3):1961–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhong W, et al. Comparison of high or modified low tie of the inferior mesenteric artery in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(47): e32065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Badic B, et al. Ostomy prevalence and survival in elderly patients with stage III and IV rectal cancer. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2021;21(8):670–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nurkin S, et al. The role of faecal diversion in low rectal cancer: a review of 1791 patients having rectal resection with anastomosis for cancer, with and without a proximal stoma. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(6):e309-316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Vogel I, et al. Overall readmissions and readmissions related to dehydration after creation of an ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2022;26(5):333–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Rutegård M, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy in anterior resection for rectal cancer and subsequent renal failure: nationwide population-based study. BJS Open. 2023;7(3).

  76. Loria A, et al. Major renal morbidity following elective rectal cancer resection by the type of diverting ostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2023;25(3):404–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Caminsky NG, et al. Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren’t we doing it? Surg Endosc. 2023;37(1):669–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Danielsen AK, et al. Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Dressler JA, et al. Predicting anastomotic leak after elective colectomy: utility of a modified frailty index. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(4):574–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Rullier E, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1998;85(3):355–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Bertelsen CA, et al. Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer: risk factors. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(1):37–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Midura EF, et al. Risk factors and consequences of anastomotic leak after colectomy: a national analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(3):333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. McDermott FD, et al. Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg. 2015;102(5):462–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Slieker JC, et al. Long-term and perioperative corticosteroids in anastomotic leakage: a prospective study of 259 left-sided colorectal anastomoses. Arch Surg. 2012;147(5):447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hennessey DB, et al. Preoperative hypoalbuminemia is an independent risk factor for the development of surgical site infection following gastrointestinal surgery: a multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):325–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Telem DA, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery: a case-control study. Arch Surg. 2010;145(4):371–6 (discussion 376).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bianco F, et al. Short stump and high anastomosis pull-through (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis with no protective stoma for low rectal cancer. Updates Surg. 2021;73(2):495–502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Kamada Y, et al. Two cases of lower rectal cancer in which temporary ileostomy could be avoided by using the pull through procedure. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2022;49(13):1579–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. O’Brien TN, et al. Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: totally not translatable to the older patient? J Geriatr Oncol. 2023;14(1): 101348.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Def F, et al. Intensified total neoadjuvant therapy versus intensified concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Anticancer Res. 2022;42(2):991–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Lo Greco MC, et al. Integrated Intensified chemoradiation in the setting of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective single-arm study on feasibility and efficacy. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3).

  92. Rosati G, et al. An update on the role of anti-EGFR in the treatment of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Med. 2022;11(23).

  93. Sastre J, et al. First-line single-agent panitumumab in frail elderly patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer and poor prognostic factors: a phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(11):1371–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Pietrantonio F, et al. Single-agent panitumumab in frail elderly patients with advanced RAS and BRAF wild-type colorectal cancer: challenging drug label to light up new hope. Oncologist. 2015;20(11):1261–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Battaglin F, et al. The PANDA study: a randomized phase II study of first-line FOLFOX plus panitumumab versus 5FU plus panitumumab in RAS and BRAF wild-type elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Rosati G, et al. Reduced-dose of doublet chemotherapy combined with anti-EGFR antibodies in vulnerable older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: data from the REVOLT study. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(3):302–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Méndez Méndez JC, et al. First-line panitumumab plus capecitabine for the treatment of older patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. The phase II. PANEL study J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(8):1263–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Terazawa T, et al. Phase II study of panitumumab monotherapy in chemotherapy-naïve frail or elderly patients with unresectable RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: OGSG 1602. Oncologist. 2021;26(1):17-e47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Douillard JY, et al. Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(7):1346–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Heinemann V, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1065–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Papamichael D, et al. Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ≥ 70 years. Eur J Cancer. 2022;163:1–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. van Tuil T, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of liver resection for colorectal metastases in elderly patients. Dig Surg. 2019;36(2):111–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. de’Angelis N, et al. Surgical and regional treatments for colorectal cancer metastases in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0230914.

  104. Sponholz S, et al. Morbidity, mortality, and survival in elderly patients undergoing pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33:1401–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Alabraba E, et al. Systematic review of treatments for colorectal metastases in elderly patients to guide surveillance cessation following hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Am J Clin Oncol. 2021;44(5):210–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Lehtomäki K, et al. Resectability, Resections, survival outcomes, and quality of life in older adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (the RAXO-study). J Clin Med. 2023;12(10):3541.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Osterlund P, et al. Repeated centralized multidisciplinary team assessment of resectability, clinical behavior, and outcomes in 1086 Finnish metastatic colorectal cancer patients (RAXO): a nationwide prospective intervention study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021;3.

  108. Lehtomäki K, et al. Health-related quality of life in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with curative resection and/or local ablative therapy or systemic therapy in the Finnish RAXO-study. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(7).

  109. Tonello M, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from rectal or colonic adenocarcinoma treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): two different diseases. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20(10):1268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Cascales-Campos PA, et al. Survival outcomes in patients aged 75 years and over with peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): multicenter study of the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery (GECOP). Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22(1):130–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Tabrizian P, et al. Outcomes for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the elderly. Surg Oncol. 2013;22(3):184–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Parikh MS, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(1):16–26.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Fokas E, et al. Radiotherapy dose escalation using endorectal brachytherapy in elderly and frail patients with rectal cancer unsuitable for surgery: lessons from studies in fit patients and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2023;112: 102490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Rijkmans EC, et al. Endorectal brachytherapy boost after external beam radiation therapy in elderly or medically inoperable patients with rectal cancer: primary outcomes of the phase 1 HERBERT study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(4):908–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Fleischmann M, et al. Image-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy for rectal cancer: technical note and first clinical experience on an organ-preserving approach. Strahlenther Onkol. 2022;198(7):654–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Gerard JP, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with radiation dose escalation with contact x-ray brachytherapy boost or external beam radiotherapy boost for organ preservation in early cT2-cT3 rectal adenocarcinoma (OPERA): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):356–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Stewart AJ, et al. GEC ESTRO ACROP consensus recommendations for contact brachytherapy for rectal cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2022;33:15–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. François E, et al. Comparison of short course radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancers in the elderly: a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3 trial. Eur J Cancer. 2023;180:62–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Hamed RAM, et al. Toxicities and outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment in elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023;41(4_suppl):91–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Ruppert R, et al. Risk-adapted neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: final report of the OCUM study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(24):4025–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Vaios EJ, et al. Proton beam radiotherapy for anal and rectal cancers. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;11(1):176–86.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

ChatGPT and Grammarly were used in the English editing

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chih-Kai Huang

  2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Taoyuan General Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Chi-Hsiu Shih

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taoyuan General Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, No.1492, Zhongshan Rd., Taoyuan Dist., Taoyuan City, 330, Taiwan

    Yung-Shuo Kao

Authors
  1. Chih-Kai Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chi-Hsiu Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yung-Shuo Kao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C-KH and Y-SK wrote this manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yung-Shuo Kao.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, CK., Shih, CH. & Kao, YS. Elderly Rectal Cancer: An Updated Review. Curr Oncol Rep 26, 181–190 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01495-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01495-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation