Prediction of R0/R+ surgery by different classifications for locally recurrent rectal cancer


A widely adopted classification system for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is currently missing, and the indication for surgery is not standardized. To evaluate all the published classification systems in a large monocentric cohort of LRRC patients, assessing their capability to predict a radical (R0) resection. A total of 152 consecutive LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) from 2009 to 2017 were classified according to Pilipshen, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Wanebo, Yamada, Boyle, Dutch TME Trial, Royal Marsden and National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) classification systems. Central location of LRRC was significantly predictive of R0 resection across all classification systems. R + resection was predicted by the “anterior” category of MSKCC (OR 2.66, p = 0.007), the “S2b” (OR 3.50, p = 0.04) and the “S3” (OR 2.70, p = 0.01) categories of NCIM, “pelvic disease through anastomosis” of Pilipshen (OR 2.89, p = 0.002), “fixed at 2 sites” of Mayo Clinic (OR 2.68, p = 0.019), and “TR4” of Wanebo (OR 3.39, p = 0.002). The NCIM was the most predictive classification for R0 surgery. The NCIM classification seems to be superior among the others in predicting R0 surgery. Generally, lateral invasive and high sacral invasive relapses are associated with reduced probability of R0 surgery and unfavorable outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Data availability

The data will be available upon request.


  1. 1.

    Hagemans JAW, van Rees JM, Alberda WJ, Rothbarth J, Nuyttens JJME, van Meerten E, Verhoef C, Burger JWA (2020) Locally recurrent rectal cancer; long-term outcome of curative surgical and non-surgical treatment of 447 consecutive patients in a tertiary referral centre. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(3):448–454

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Westberg K, Palmer G, Hjern F, Johansson H, Holm T, Martling A (2018) Management and prognosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer—a national population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sorrentino L, Belli F, Valvo F, Villa S, Guaglio M, Scaramuzza D, Gronchi A, Di Bartolomeo M, Cosimelli M (2020) Neoadjuvant (re)chemoradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer: impact of anatomical site of pelvic recurrence on long-term results. Surg Oncol 35:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rausa E, Kelly ME, Bonavina L, O’Connell PR, Winter DC (2017) A systematic review examining quality of life following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 19(5):430–436

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pellino G, Sciaudone G, Candilio G, Selvaggi F (2015) Effect of surgery on health-related quality of life of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58(8):753–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Susko M, Lee J, Salama J et al (2016) The use of re-irradiation in locally recurrent, non-metastatic rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23(11):3609–3615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pilipshen SJ, Heilweil M, Quan SH, Sternberg SS, Enker WE (1984) Patterns of pelvic recurrence following definitive resections of rectal cancer. Cancer 53:1354–1362

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Suzuki K, Gunderson LL, Devine RM et al (1995) Intraoperative irradiation after palliative surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Cancer 75:939–952

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Guillem JG, Ruo L (1998) Strategies in operative therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 9:259–268

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wanebo HJ, Antoniuk P, Koness RJ et al (1999) Pelvic resection of recurrent rectal cancer: technical considerations and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1438–1448

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yamada K, Ishizawa T, Niwa K et al (2001) Patterns of pelvic invasion are prognostic in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:988–993

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boyle KM, Sagar PM, Chalmers AG et al (2005) Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 48:929–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kusters M, Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ et al (2010) Patterns of local recurrence in rectal cancer; a study of the Dutch TME trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:470–476

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Georgiou PA, Tekkis PP, Constantinides VA et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy and value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in planning exenterative pelvic surgery for advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 49:72–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Belli F, Sorrentino L, Gallino G et al (2020) A proposal of an updated classification for pelvic relapses of rectal cancer to guide surgical decision-making. J Surg Oncol 122(2):350–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Moore HG, Shoup M, Riedel E, Minsky BD, Alektiar KM, Ercolani M, Paty PB, Wong WD, Guillem JG (2004) Colorectal cancer pelvic recurrences: determinants of resectability. Dis Colon Rectum 47(10):1599–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shaikh I, Aston W, Hellawell G et al (2014) Extended lateral pelvic sidewall excision (ELSiE): an approach to optimize complete resection rates in locally advanced or recurrent anorectal cancer involving the pelvic sidewall. Tech Coloproctol 18:1161–1168

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Warren OJ, Solomon MJ (2015) R0 resection, not surgical technique, is the key consideration in pelvic exenteration surgery. Tech Coloproctol 19(2):117–118

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McCarthy ASE, Solomon MJ, Koh CE, Firouzbakht A, Jackson SA, Steffens D (2020) Quality of life and functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration and sacrectomy. Colorectal Dis 22(5):521–528

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lambregts DMJ, Cappendijk VC, Maas M et al (2011) Value of MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 21(6):1250–1258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Grosu S, Schäfer AO, Baumann T et al (2016) Differentiating locally recurrent rectal cancer from scar tissue: value of diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur J Radiol 85(7):1265–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcello Guaglio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy (protocol no. 149/2019).

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sorrentino, L., Belli, F., Guaglio, M. et al. Prediction of R0/R+ surgery by different classifications for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Updates Surg (2021).

Download citation


  • Locally recurrent rectal cancer
  • Classification
  • R0 surgery