Open Access

Short–term effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy on anorectal function in rectal cancer patients: a pilot study

  • Bong-Hyeon Kye1,
  • Hyung-Jin Kim1,
  • Jun-Gi Kim2,
  • Sung-Hwan Kim3,
  • Byoung-Yong Shim4,
  • Nan-Sook Lee1 and
  • Hyeon-Min Cho1Email author
Radiation Oncology20138:203

https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-203

Received: 8 January 2013

Accepted: 16 August 2013

Published: 20 August 2013

Abstract

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by curative surgery has gained acceptance as the therapy of choice in locally advanced rectal cancer. However, deterioration of anorectal function after long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy combined with surgery for rectal cancer is poorly defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the physiological and clinical change of anorectal function after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer.

Methods

We analyzed 30 patients on whom preoperative anorectal manometry data were available both before and after chemoradiation from October 2010 to September 2011. All patients underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. We compared manometric parameters between before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Results

Of 30 patients, 20 were males and 10 females. The mean age was 64.9 ± 9.9 years (range, 48-82). Before nCRT, the rectal compliance was higher in patients with ulceroinfiltrative type (P = 0.035) and greater involvement of luminal circumference (P = 0.017). However, there was the tendency of increased rectal sensory threshold for desire to defecate when the patient had decreased circumferential ratio of the tumor (P = 0.099), down-graded T stage (P = 0.016), or reduced tumor volume (P = 0.063) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy did not significantly impair overall sphincter function before radical operation. The relationship between tumor response of chemoradiation and sensory threshold for desire to defecate may suggest that neoadjuvant chemoradiation may be helpful for defecatory function as well as local disease control, at least in the short-term period after the radiation in locally advanced rectal cancer patients.

Keywords

Anorectal functionNeoadjuvant chemoradiationManometryRectal cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) followed by curative surgery has become the therapy of choice in locally advanced rectal cancer. The nCRT was introduced to improve local control and some studies have demonstrated a significant benefit from this treatment with reduced local recurrence rates [1]. Low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical procedure in sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer [2]. Currently, a combined-modality therapy including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy is recommended for the majority of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer.

However, deterioration of anorectal function after nCRT combined with sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer may happen. Although factors that may affect on postoperative bowel function are not predictable and not well understood, nCRT and LAR with TME can be important ones that may influence anorectal function [35]. Many investigators have reported defecatory dysfunction such as frequent defecation, urgency, and incontinence after sphincter-saving procedure, especially with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis [6, 7]. Worsening of anorectal function after nCRT for locally advanced rectal cancer is often referred as radiation damage of the anorectum and pelvic floor [8, 9].

Until recently, most of the studies about the effects of nCRT on anorectal function have assessed pre-nCRT and long-term postoperative results [36, 8]. However, SPS alone could also adversely affect the outcome of anorectal function and it could introduce a significant bias in the assessment of the impact of nCRT. There are a few studies that reported short-term effect of nCRT on anorectal function [10, 11]. In that studies, the authors found no significant changes of manometric data after nCRT and concluded that fecal incontinence after SPS should not be the result of radiotherapy. However, they did not evaluate the relationship between the tumor response and the change of anorectal function.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the preoperative short-term effects of nCRT on anorectal function and the relationship between the tumor response for nCRT and the change of anorectal function.

Methods

We prospectively collected manometric data before and after nCRT in patients who were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of rectum below 12 cm from the anal verge by rigid proctosigmoidoscopy before nCRT from October 2010. Among these patients, 30 patients whose preoperative manomertic data were available at both before and after nCRT from October 2010 to September 2011 were enrolled in this study. After obtaining review board approval from our institute (VC12RISI0016), we analyzed manometric data and clinical information of these 30 patients retrospectively.

Clinical stage was determined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Six Staging System. All 30 patients had clinical T3 to T4 or N positive tumors. All of the analyzed patients received neoadjuvant radiotherapy with conventional fractionation as follows: 1.8 Gy per day; five fractions per week; and total dose, 50.4 Gy/28 fractions (45 Gy/25 fractions initially to the whole pelvis, followed by 5.4 Gy/3 fractions as a boost to the gross tumor). All of the patients received two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy (5-fluorouracil [5-FU], 400 mg/m2 [IV] 1 h before radiotherapy and leucovorin, 20 mg/m2 [IV] immediately before each dose of 5-FU on days 1–5 and days 29–33).

Anorectal manometry was performed before nCRT and three to four weeks after the end of nCRT with the water-perfusion technique using an 8-channel Micro Tip catheter connected to a perfusion pump (POLYGRAF ID; Alpine Biomed, Denmark). Manometric data including mean resting pressure (MRP), maximum squeezing pressure (MSP), the percentages of asymmetry of resting (R asymmetry) and squeezing (S asymmetry) sphincter, the length of high-pressure zone (HPZ) at resting and squeezing, recto-anal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), rectal sensory threshold (RST), and rectal compliance. RST was measured via determination of threshold volume of the first minimal sensation, desire to defecate, and maximal tolerance. All manometry procedures were performed by a single practitioner who has performed anal physiologic test over 5 years.

We compared manometric data before nCRT according to tumor location from the anal verge, tumor gross morphology, tumor circumferential ratio (CIR) and T stage. Also, we evaluated tumor response after nCRT with above factors adding tumor volume. We divided our patients into two groups according to tumor location from the anal verge whether the lower margin of tumor was >5 cm or ≤ 5 cm from anal verge by rigid proctosigmoidoscopy. For patients with tumor below 5 cm from the anal verge, the field of additional booster on peritumoral region included the anal canal. However, in tumor above 5 cm from the anal verge, the anal canal and perineum were excluded from the field of additional booster. This was the reason that we divided out patients with 5 cm criteria. Tumor gross morphology on flexible colonofiberscopy was classified to three categories; fungating, ulcerofungating, and ulceroinfiltrative. Tumor CIR was defined as a ratio of the circumference of infiltrative component of tumor to luminal circumference. We used trans-rectal ultrasound to measure tumor CIR. CIR was classified into four categories; CIR ≤ 1/4, CIR ≤ 1/2, CIR ≤ 3/4, and CIR >3/4. T stage was also measured by trans-rectal ultrasound. We defined reduction of tumor volume as more than 70% of decreased tumor volume after nCRT by CT volumetry. Rigid proctosigmoidoscopy, flexible colonofiberscopy, and trans-rectal ultrasound were performed by the colorectal surgeons whose sub-specialty is colorectal disease in Korea and are co-authors in this study.

The difference of manometric data between before and after nCRT was measured by subtraction from manometric data before nCRT to that after nCRT. The negative value means that value of manometric data after nCRT was increased comparing to that before nCRT.

Continuous variables between two groups were compared using the Student’s t-test and expressed as mean ± SD. Categorical variables were analyzed with χ2 test. Although significance was defined as P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.1 was regarded as marginal significance. All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL).

Results

Of 30 patients, there were 20 males and 10 females. The mean age was 64.9 ± 9.9 years (range, 48–82). All patients did not experience any radiation-related or chemotherapy-related major adverse effect, more than grade 3 reaction according to the Common Toxicity Criteria. There was a marginal difference in the maximal rectal sensory threshold between before and after nCRT (179.3 ± 63.7 ml vs 151.7 ± 53.4 ml, P = 0.073) without a difference in rectal compliance (P = 0.638) (Table 1). There were four patients whose RAIR were absent before CRT. However, this reflex was recovered after nCRT in these four patients.
Table 1

Comparison of manometric data between before and after nCRT in 30 patients

 

Before nCRT (N = 30)

After nCRT (N = 30)

P-value

MRP (mmHg)

93.5 ± 44.7

80.3 ± 32.4

0.195

R asymmetry (%)

22.3 ± 12.9

23.9 ± 9.7

0.572

MSP (mmHg)

348.8 ± 177.2

285.2 ± 111.7

0.102

S asymmetry (%)

17.2 ± 11.6

16.3 ± 4.8

0.667

HPZ length at rest (cm)

1.8 ± 0.6

1.8 ± 0.8

0.789

HPZ length at squeezing (cm)

2.2 ± 0.5

2.3 ± 0.8

0.634

RAIR (ml)

37.3 ± 13.6

40.7 ± 9.8

0.281

Rectal sensory threshold (ml)

 

First

63.0 ± 32.1

57.3 ± 18.9

0.408

Desire to defecate

117.3 ± 46.5

108.7 ± 42.3

0.453

Maximal

179.3 ± 63.7

151.7 ± 53.4

0.073

Rectal compliance (ml/mmHg)

1.4 ± 0.8

1.3 ± 0.7

0.638

MRP Mean Resting Pressure, R asymmetry asymmetry of the resting sphincter, MSP Maximal Squeezing Pressure, S asymmetry asymmetry of the squeezing sphincter, HPZ High Pressure Zone, RAIR Recto-Anal Inhibitory Reflex, nCRT neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

In manometry performed before nCRT, the maximal RST was marginally higher in patients with ulceroinfiltrative type than ulcerofungating type (212.5±80.3 ml vs 167.2±53.7ml, P = 0.086) and the rectal compliance was significantly higher in patients with ulceroinfiltrative type than ulcerofungating type (1.9 ± 1.1 ml/mmHg vs 1.2 ± 0.6 ml/mmHg, P = 0.035). Also, as smaller involvement of luminal circumference, the maximal RST was higher marginally (P = 0.083) and the rectal compliance was significantly higher (P = 0.017) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparison of manometric data before nCRT according to each tumor characteristics

 

Tumor location

Gross morphology

CIR

T stage

 

>5 cm (n = 18)

≤5 cm (n = 12)

P-value

UF (n = 22)

UI (n = 8)

P-value

R1 (n = 15)

R2 (n = 10)

R3 (n = 5)

P-value

T3 (n = 27)

T4 (n = 3)

P-value

MRP (mmHg)

89.4 ± 41.7

99.6 ± 50.1

0.550

97.8 ± 46.4

81.7 ± 39.9

0.393

79.6 ± 38.7

99.3 ± 38.4

123.5 ± 62.9

0.144

88.4 ± 43.6

138.8 ± 26.6

0.063

R asymmetry (%)

20.7 ± 5.8

24.6 ± 19.5

0.427

22.8 ± 14.5

20.8 ± 7.5

0.725

21.4 ± 6.8

17.6 ± 5.8

34.1 ± 27.3

0.059

23.1 ± 13.3

14.9 ± 3.9

0.310

MSP (mmHg)

313.7 ± 116.5

401.3 ± 238.2

0.189

345.9 ± 200.8

356.5 ± 94.4

0.888

319.7 ± 91.5

353.6 ± 121.6

425.9 ± 392.7

0.523

351.1 ± 183.7

328.5 ± 124.5

0.839

S asymmetry (%)

15.9 ± 4.1

19.2 ± 17.9

0.470

18.2 ± 13.3

14.7 ± 3.2

0.485

15.3 ± 4.2

13.9 ± 3.3

29.4 ± 25.6

0.029

17.8 ± 12.1

12.1 ± 2.2

0.424

HPZ length at rest (cm)

1.7 ± 0.6

1.9 ± 0.5

0.512

1.8 ± 0.6

1.6 ± 0.4

0.438

1.6 ± 0.5

1.7 ± 0.6

2.1 ± 0.7

0.416

1.7 ± 0.6

1.8 ± 0.7

0.829

HPZ length at squeezing (cm)

2.3 ± 0.5

2.1 ± 0.3

0.147

2.2 ± 0.5

2.1 ± 0.3

0.251

2.0 ± 0.3

2.3 ± 0.6

2.6 ± 0.4

0.059

2.1 ± 0.4

2.8 ± 0.7

0.017

RAIR (ml)

36.7 ± 14.1

38.3 ± 13.4

0.749

38.2 ± 8.5

35.0 ± 23.3

0.581

40.0 ± 13.1

36.0 ± 12.6

32 ± 17.8

0.504

37.1 ± 14.3

40.0 ± 0.1

0.728

Rectal sensory threshold (ml)

 

First

65.6 ± 37.9

59.2 ± 21.5

0.602

63.2 ± 35.1

62.5 ± 23.7

0.960

71.3 ± 41.5

59.0 ± 17.9

46.0 ± 0.5

0.258

62.9 ± 32.6

63.3 ± 32.1

0.985

Desire to defecate

116.1 ± 45.8

119.2 ± 49.4

0.863

116.8 ± 43.4

118.7 ± 57.4

0.922

204.0 ± 66.2

162.0 ± 57.3

179.3 ± 63.7

0.297

117.1 ± 45.1

120.0 ± 69.2

0.919

Maximal

174.4 ± 57.2

186.7 ± 74.5

0.615

167.2 ± 53.7

212.5 ± 80.3

0.086

204.0 ± 66.2

162.0 ± 57.3

140.0 ± 41.8

0.083

177.1 ± 65.4

200.0 ± 50.0

0.563

Rectal compliance (ml/mmHg)

1.4 ± 0.8

1.3 ± 0.7

0.852

1.2 ± 0.6

1.9 ± 1.1

0.035

1.8 ± 0.9

1.1 ± 0.5

0.8 ± 0.5

0.017

1.4 ± 0.8

1.0 ± 0.2

0.346

MRP Mean Resting Pressure, R asymmetry asymmetry of the resting sphincter, MSP Maximal Squeezing Pressure, S asymmetry asymmetry of the squeezing sphincter, HPZ High Pressure Zone, RAIR Recto-Anal Inhibitory Reflex, UF Ulcerofungating type, UI Ulceroinfiltrative type, CIR Circumferential ratio, R1 1/4 < CIR ≤ 2/4, R2 2/4 < CIR ≤ 3/4, R3 CIR > 3/4.

When we considered the effect of nCRT on tumor, there were twenty two patients who underwent the change of tumor gross morphology after nCRT, ten patients with reduced CIR after nCRT, eight patients with down-staging in T-stage, and four patients with more than 70% of volume reduction of tumor after nCRT. When we considered the effect of nCRT on anorectal function, there were no significant differences on the changes of manometric data between before and after nCRT according to the tumor location from the anal verge and the change of tumor gross morphology. Patients who had tumor with reduced CIR after nCRT had the tendency of improved RST for ‘desire to defecate’ (P = 0.099). Those patients with down-staging in T stage showed elongated HPZ length (P = 0.030), decreased volume for RAIR (P = 0.029), and improved RST for ‘desire to defecate’ (P = 0.016). Although there was no significance, patients with tumor volume reduction after nCRT showed the tendency of increased RST for ‘desire to defecate’ (P = 0.063) (Table 3).
Table 3

Comparison of the difference of manometric data between before and after nCRT according to each tumor characteristics

 

Tumor location

Gross morphology

CIR

T stage

Tumor volume

 

>5 cm (n = 18)

≤5 cm (n = 12)

P-value

No change (n = 8)

Change (n = 22)

P-value

No reduced (n = 20)

Reduced (n = 10)

P-value

No reduced (n = 22)

Reduced (n = 8)

P-value

No reduced (n = 26)

Reduced (n = 4)

P-value

MRP (mmHg)

8.2 ± 26.9

20.7 ± 39.2

0.304

12.1 ± 24.5

13.6 ± 35.3

0.914

9.1 ± 25.4

21.5 ± 43.6

0.331

16.2 ± 32.6

4.9 ± 32.3

0.404

12.4 ± 33.8

18.6 ± 23.5

0.726

R asymmetry (%)

−3.8 ± 5.9

1.5 ± 23.7

0.371

−3.5 ± 5.0

−1.1 ± 17.9

0.700

−3.7 ± 5.7

2.5 ± 26.0

0.311

−10.1 ± 15.9

−3.4 ± 15.5

0.731

−2.2 ± 16.6

1.5 ± 3.1

0.670

MSP (mmHg)

39.5 ± 73.4

99.6 ± 261.9

0.362

21.9 ± 73.4

78.6 ± 197.1

0.438

35.2 ± 71.8

120.1 ± 284.1

0.212

74.6 ± 196.5

33.1 ±85.8

0.571

63.2 ± 184.2

65.5 ± 89.9

0.981

S asymmetry (%)

−0.7 ± 4.3

3.6 ±18.5

0.348

0.3 ± 3.8

1.3 ± 13.9

0.843

−1.2 ± 4.5

5.4 ± 19.8

0.162

1.2 ± 13.9

0.4 ±3.6

0.869

0.8 ± 12.9

2.0 ±1.2

0.860

HPZ length at rest (cm)

−0.1 ± 0.6

0.08 ±0.7

0.345

0.2 ± 0.6

−0.1 ± 0.6

0.140

−0.08 ± 0.6

0.02 ± 0.7

0.677

0.1 ± 0.5

−0.4 ±0.6

0.030

0.008 ±0.5

−0.4 ±0.8

0.215

HPZ length at squeezing (cm)

−0.02 ± 0.8

−0.2 ± 0.8

0.612

0.01 ± 1.0

−0.1 ± 0.7

0.696

−0.1 ± 0.9

−0.02 ± 0.4

0.762

−0.1 ± 0.8

0.06 ± 0.7

0.551

−0.06 ± 0.6

−0.3 ±0.3

0.658

RAIR (ml)

−2.2 ± 18.1

−5.0 ± 15.1

0.663

−7.5 ± 18.3

−1.8 ± 16.2

0.419

−4.0 ± 17.9

−2.0 ± 14.7

0.763

−7.3 ± 15.8

7.5 ± 14.8

0.029

−4.6 ± 17.3

5.0 ±10.0

0.291

Rectal sensory threshold (ml)

               

First

8.3 ± 38.8

1.7 ±21.2

0.593

16.25 ± 56.6

1.8 ± 18.7

0.292

4.0 ± 10.5

9.0 ± 56.5

0.700

10.0 ± 32.9

−6.2 ± 30.7

0.235

7.3 ±31.3

−5.0 ±44.3

0.493

Desire to defecate

9.4 ± 51.5

7.5 ± 51.9

0.920

31.3 ± 64.2

0.5 ± 43.8

0.145

19.5 ± 32.4

−13.0 ± 72.9

0.099

21.8 ± 41.7

−27.5 ± 58.5

0.016

15.4 ±45.3

−35.0 ± 70.0

0.063

Maximal

28.9 ± 55.2

25.8 ±49.4

0.878

41.3 ± 57.2

22.7 ± 50.6

0.399

36.5 ± 50.1

10.0 ± 54.2

0.194

30.9 ±58.1

18.8 ± 31.8

0.581

29.6 ± 54.9

15.0 ±30.0

0.610

Rectal compliance (ml/mmHg)

0.2 ± 0.7

−0.07 ± 0.5

0.283

0.1 ± 0.7

0.07 ± 0.7

0.794

0.2 ± 0.7

−0.1 ± 0.5

0.206

0.1 ±0.7

0.006 ± 0.5

0.675

0.1 ± 0.7

−0.3 ± 0.5

0.223

MRP Mean Resting Pressure, R asymmetry asymmetry of the resting sphincter, MSP Maximal Squeezing Pressure, S asymmetry asymmetry of the squeezing sphincter, HPZ High Pressure Zone, RAIR Recto-Anal Inhibitory Reflex, CIR Circumferential ratio.

† For patients with tumor below 5 cm from the anal verge, the field of additional booster on peritumoral region included the anal canal. However, in tumor above 5 cm from the anal verge, the anal canal and perineum were excluded from the field of additional booster.

* The negative value means that value of manometric data after nCRT was increased than that before nCRT.

Discussion

The majority of patients with rectal cancer have received external pelvic radiation therapy for local control of tumors. The nCRT has been preferred due to lower 5-year locoregional recurrence and better sphincter preservation [1]. Anorectal function may deteriorate after SPS with TME. Some studies have described the “anterior resection syndrome” as an increased number of daily bowel movements, clustering, anal incontinence, and soiling after SPS [12]. An increase in number of stools, frequent use of pads, urgency of defecation, impaired sensory perception, and fecal incontinence may occur after pelvic radiation [9, 1315]. Hence, it is well conceivable that nCRT may cause additional damage to sphincter function after SPS with TME. However, the data about short-term preoperative change of anorectal function based on manometric data after nCRT were limitd [10, 11]. Especially, the report for the change of manometric data regarding to tumor response after nCRT has not been published.

In this study, we examined the effect of nCRT on anorectal function in three aspects; the change of anorectal function by rectal irradiation, that according to whether anal sphincter was irradiated or not by additional booster on peritumoral region, and that according to the tumor response.

Firstly, we investigated the change of anorectal function by rectal irradiation. Some studies about postoperative change of anorectal function demonstrated that the RAIR is stimulated by intramural nervous pathways. These nervous pathways might be injured during the dissection of the rectum, then the RAIR will be absent postoperatively [16, 17]. However, two studies about the short-term preoperative change of anorectal function after nCRT demonstrated that the RAIR is present in all patients both before and after nCRT and there is no change in RAIR between them [10, 11]. In our study, the RAIR was not changed after nCRT (37.3 ± 13.6 mL vs 40.7 ± 9.8 mL, P = 0.281). There were four patients who were absent of the RAIR before nCRT, however, the RAIR was present after nCRT in these four patients. This finding may imply that the reflex mechanism was not damaged by nCRT in short-term period after nCRT. When we analyzed the data from all 30 patients, the maximal RST was decreased after nCRT (179.3 ± 63.7 mL vs 151.7 ± 53.4 mL, P = 0.073). However, rectal compliance was not changed much after nCRT (1.4 ± 0.8 mL/mmHg vs 1.3 ± 0.7 mL/mmHg, P = 0.638). Haboubi et al., [18] in their histologic study after radiotherapy, demonstrated that acute changes of the rectum included mucosal edema and patchy fibroblastic proliferation in the lamina propria. They found that cellular epithelial damage appeared early after radiotherapy whereas architectural epithelial damage appeared late after radiotherapy. This may explain the unchanged rectal compliance in early period after nCRT. The decrease of maximal RST and the maintenance of rectal compliance may imply that rectal hypersensitivity without the change of rectal elasticity was induced by nCRT in early period after nCRT.

Secondly, we intended to investigate the change of anal sphincter function after nCRT by comparing two groups divided by whether anal sphincter was irradiated or not by additional booster on peritumoral region. In this study, we compared changes of manometric data between before and after nCRT according to tumor location with 5 cm criteria. For patients with tumor below 5 cm from the anal verge, the field of additional booster on peritumoral region included the anal canal. However, in tumor above 5 cm from the anal verge, the anal canal and perineum were excluded from the field of additional booster. As shown in Table 3, MRP, MSP, sphincter asymmetry, and HPZ length, which reflect sphincter function, were not significantly different between these two groups. This means that irradiation on sphincter complex did not affect sphincter function in short-term period after nCRT. This is similar to other studies that compared changes of manometric data between mid and low rectal cancer after nCRT [11, 19].

Finally, we investigated the change of anorectal function according to tumor response. For this, we had observed the changes of manometric data according to the tumor response for nCRT, classifying four factors; change of tumor gross morphology, CIR, T stage, and tumor volume. In this study, rectal compliance (P = 0.035) and the maximal RST (P = 0.086) were lower in patients who had ulcerofungating type than in ulceroinfiltrative type before nCRT.

This outcome can be interpreted as the fungating component of tumor might affect anorectal function negatively, which led to bad influence on defecation symptom of those patients before nCRT. However, we observed that most patients (22/30, 73.3%) showed changes of tumor gross morphology from ulcerofungating type to ulceroinfiltrative type after nCRT. As shown in Table 3, the change of tumor gross morphology between before and after nCRT did not affect to the change of anorectal function. This finding shows that the response of fungating component of tumor to nCRT doesn’t significantly relate to the change of anorectal function. Lee et al. [20] demonstrated that preoperative rectal reservoir function is altered by the existence of a tumor and tumor infiltration may alter the anorectal function because the ulceroinfiltrative type was correlated with intramural distal spread. Thus, it can be said that we should focus on infiltrating components rather than fungating components when we evaluate rectal reservoir and anorectal function. In this study, tumor volume, CIR, and T stage were examined to evaluate the response of infiltrating component to nCRT. Though the fungating components take a significant sum in tumor volume, we assumed that infiltrating components should be reduced in some degrees if there was a volume reduction at all. Considering the volume reduction after nCRT, we could observe that the RST for desire to defecate was improved in the patients who had tumor which was decreased more than 70% of its volume. From these findings, we thought that marked volume reduction including infiltrative component of tumor could improve anorectal function after nCRT. We observed that as the CIR was higher, the maximal RST (P = 0.086) and the rectal compliance (P = 0.017) were lower before nCRT. This may explain that the extent of infiltrative component of tumor can be involved in the anorectal function before nCRT. After nCRT, although the changes of the maximal RST and rectal compliance were not significantly different between patients with and without reduced CIR, the RST for desire to defecate in patients with reduced CIR was marginally higher than that in patients without reduced CIR (P = 0.099). This finding may suggest that in addition to the effect of radiation on normal tissue, the effect of radiation on tumor can affect the rectal sensory as well, to improve anorectal function, inversely. Although there was no significant difference in RST according to T stage before nCRT, the RST for desire to defecate was significantly higher in patients with down staging after nCRT than in patients without down staging (P = 0.016). However, these changes of manometric data resulted not from improving the RST for desire to defecate in patients with reduced CIR or T stage but from worsening in patients without those. This means that good tumor response with nCRT offset the negative effect for anorectal function, especially sensory function, worsened by nCRT.

Jang et al. [11] demonstrated that the observed decrease of maximal tolerance volume and rectal compliance was in contradiction with the improvement of clinical symptoms observed after nCRT. They explained the reason by a positive effect on clinical impact of tumor downsizing. Although these findings are similar to our study, our study suggested more concrete result for the relationship between the change of anorectal function and the tumor response. In summary, the nCRT might affect the RST positively when the infiltrative component of tumor had a response with booster dose for tumor, but irradiated rectum and sphincter complex might not be affected. Our results give the information about short-term anorectal function in regard to future strategies like omitting major surgery in patients with complete response after nCRT or applying those findings (especially in the group with tumors located < 5 cm from anal verge) to patients with anal cancer, who are usually treated with chemoradiation alone, although higher doses and different chemotherapy agents are used.

This study has some limitations such as use of retrospective analysis, a small number of patients, and omitting evaluation of clinical symptoms. However, there are not any reports searching about the short-term relationship with quantitative assessment between anorectal function and tumor response after nCRT for rectal cancer.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the nCRT did not impair overall sphincter function before radical operation significantly. In this study, when tumor was shrunk or down-staged, the RST for desire to defecate was increased. Especially, those patients who showed down-staging by transrectal ultrasonography had significantly increased rectal sensory threshold for desire to defecate. This finding may suggest that nCRT may be helpful for their defecatory function in patients with radiosensitive rectal cancer as well as local disease control, at least in the short-term period of nCRT.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, St. Vincent HospitalThe Catholic University of Korea
(2)
Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s HospitalThe Catholic University of Korea
(3)
Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent HospitalThe Catholic University of Korea
(4)
Department of Medical Oncology, St. Vincent HospitalThe Catholic University of Korea

References

  1. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, Rödel C, Wittekind C, Fietkau R, Martus P, Tschmelitsch J, Hager E, Hess CF, Karstens JH, Liersch T, Schmidberger H, Raab R: German Rectal Cancer Study Group: Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. New Engl J Med 2004, 351: 1731-1740. 10.1056/NEJMoa040694View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Heald RJ, Ryall RD: Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986, 28: 1479-1482.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahlberg M, Glimelius B, Graf W, Påhlman L: Preoperative irradiation affects functional results after surgery for rectal cancer: results from a randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 1998, 41: 543-551. 10.1007/BF02235256View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Matzel KE, Bittorf B, Günther K, Stadelmaier U, Hohenberger W: Rectal resection with low anastomosis: functional outcome. Colorectal Dis 2003, 5: 458-464. 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.t01-1-00503.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Muehldorfer S, Hohenberger W: Continence after colorectal reconstruction following resection: impact of level of anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 1997, 12: 82-87. 10.1007/s003840050086View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Williams N, Seow-Choen F: Physiological and functional outcome following ultra-low anterior resection with colon pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1998, 85: 1029-1035. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00804.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ammann K, Kirchmayr W, Klaus A, Muhlmann G, Kafka R, Oberwalder M, De Viries A, Ofner D, Wueiss H: Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on anal sphincter function in patients with carcinoma of the mid rectum and low rectum. Arch Surg 2003, 138: 257-261. 10.1001/archsurg.138.3.257View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Iwamoto T, Nakahara S, Mibu R, Hotokezaka M, Nakano H, Tanaka M: Effect of radiotherapy on anorectal function in patients with cervical cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1997, 40: 693-697. 10.1007/BF02140899View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Yeoh E, Sun WM, Russo A, Ibanez L, Horowitz M: A retrospective study of the effects of pelvic irradiation for gynecological cancer on anorectal function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 35: 1003-1010. 10.1016/0360-3016(96)00147-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Birnbaum EH, Dreznik Z, Myerson RJ, Lacey DL, Fry RD, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW: Early effect of external beam radiation therapy on the anal sphincter: a study using anal manometry and transrectal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 1992, 35: 757-761. 10.1007/BF02050325View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jang NY, Han TJ, Kang SB, Kim DW, Kim IA, Kim JS: The short-term effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on anorectal function in low and midrectal cancer: analysis using preoperative manometric data. Dis Colon Rectum 2010, 53: 445-449. 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c38905View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Williamson ME, Lewis WG, Holdsworth PJ, Finan PJ, Johnston D: Decrease in the anorectal pressure gradient after low anterior resection of the rectum. A study using continuous ambulatory manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 1994, 37: 1228-1231. 10.1007/BF02257786View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Putta S, Andreyev HJ: Faecal incontinence: a late side-effect of pelvic radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 2005, 17: 469-477. 10.1016/j.clon.2005.02.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Varma JS, Smith AN, Busuttil A: Correlation of clinical and manometric abnormalities of rectal function following chronic radiation injury. Br J Surg 1985, 72: 875-878. 10.1002/bjs.1800721107View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Vordermark D, Sailer M, Flentje M, Thiede A, Kölbl O: Curative-intent radiation therapy in anal carcinoma: quality of life and sphincter function. Radiother Oncol 1999, 52: 239-243. 10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00096-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Efthimiadis C, Basdanis G, Zatagias A, Tzeveleki I, Kosmidis C, Karamanlis E, Harlaftis N: Manometric and clinical evaluation of patients after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 2004, 8: S205-S207. 10.1007/s10151-004-0158-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Horgan AF, Molloy RG, Coulter J, Sheehan M, Kirwan WO: Nerve regeneration across colorectal anastomoses after low anterior resection in a canine model. Int J Colorectal Dis 1993, 8: 167-169. 10.1007/BF00341192View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haboubi NY, Schofield PF, Rowland PL: The light and electron microscopic features of early and late phase radiation-induced proctitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1998, 83: 1140-1144.Google Scholar
  19. Lim JF, Tjandra JJ, Hiscock R, Chao MW, Gibbs P: Preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer causes prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. Dis Colon Rectum 2006, 49: 12-19. 10.1007/s10350-005-0221-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee TG, Kang SB, Heo SC, Jeong SY, Park KJ: Risk factors for persistent anal incontinence after restorative proctectomy in rectal cancer patients with anal incontinence: prospective cohort study. World J Surg 2011, 35: 1918-1924. 10.1007/s00268-011-1116-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kye et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement