[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-371608-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-371608-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","a-comparison-of-organ-preservation-in-older-adults-with-stage-i-rectal-cancer","A comparison of organ preservation in older adults with stage I rectal cancer","","Background Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard for high-risk T1–T2 stage I rectal cancer, yet preoperative therapy may enable organ preservation (OP) and reduce morbidity from major resection, especially in older adults. This retrospective cohort compared OP rates in adults ≥70 years versus those \u003C70 with high-risk T1 or T2 rectal cancers. Primary analysis assessed the association between age and OP receipt, adjusting for relevant covariates.",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-comparison-of-organ-preservation-in-older-adults-with-stage-i-rectal-cancer/371608/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-comparison-of-organ-preservation-in-older-adults-with-stage-i-rectal-cancer/371608.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Melati","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-23",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the primary goal of the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To compare organ preservation (OP) rates in adults aged 70 and older versus those under 70 with high-risk stage I rectal cancer.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How was the study conducted and what database was used?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"A retrospective cohort study used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and multivariate analysis to evaluate the association of age with OP receipt.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did the results show about older adults and organ preservation?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Older adults were more likely to receive OP than younger patients (45.6% vs 30.6%), and the association persisted after adjusted analysis (OR 1.9, p \u003C 0.001).",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Which additional factors were predictive of receiving organ preservation?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"Non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity, lack of insurance, higher comorbidity score, treatment at a community facility versus an academic facility, and female sex were all associated with higher OP receipt.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},371608,1790663667,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,105,110,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":135},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":111,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148},962085570644,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","International Journal of Colorectal Disease (2025) 40:148  \n[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-025-04940-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-025-04940-8)  \nA comparison of organ preservation in older adults with stage I rectal cancer  \nAnnmarie Butare1 · Scarlett Hao1 · AnasTaha1,2 · Michael Drew Honaker3  \nAccepted: 16 June 2025 © The Author(s) 2025  \nAbstract  \nBackground Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the primary recommended treatment for high-risk T1 and T2 rectal cancer. However, growing evidence suggests preoperative therapy may lead to eligibility for organ preservation (OP), avoiding the morbidity of major resection, which may be beneficial in older adults. The primary aim of the study was to compare rates of OP in adults 70 years of age and older to those less than 70 with T1 lesions rectal cancers with high-risk features and T2 rectal cancers.  \nMethods A retrospective, cohort study of patients with high-risk stage 1 rectal cancer was identified within the National Cancer Database (NCDB) . Primary outcome was the association of age with receipt of organ preservation. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the effect of covariates on the outcome.  \nResults Out of 38,714 patients, 34.4% were ≥ 70 years, 42.3% were female, and 75.6% had a Charlson Deyo comorbidity score of 0. Older adults were more likely to received OP compared to younger patients (45.6% vs 30.6%, p \u003C 0.001) . This persisted on adjusted analysis (OR 1.9, p \u003C 0.001) . Other factors predictive of receiving OP include non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR 1.5, p \u003C 0.001), lack of insurance (OR 1.5, p \u003C 0.001), increased comorbidity score (OR 1.7 for CDCCof 3, p \u003C 0.001), treatment at a community facility compared to academic facility (OR 1.4, p \u003C 0.001), and female sex (OR 1.2, p \u003C 0.001) .  \nConclusions Although current guideline recommendations for high-risk T1 and T2 rectal cancer is TME, a significantly higher proportion of older adult patients undergo organ preservation. This is more pronounced in comorbid and disadvantaged patients.  \nKeywords Rectal neoplasms · Organ preservation · Aged · Social determinants of health  \nIntroduction  \nAs the treatment of rectal cancer continues to evolve, thereis growing interest in organ preservation (OP) approaches based on recent data from randomized trials showing  \nAnas Taha and Michael Drew Honaker share last authorship.  \n* Anas Taha[anas.taha@unibas.ch](anas.taha@unibas.ch)  \n1 Department of Surgery, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA  \n2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland  \n3 Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA  \nincreased rates of complete clinical response (cCR) with minimal to no detriment in oncologic outcomes [1, 2] . Compared to total mesorectal excision (TME), OP offers the benefit of morbidity reduction, including a reduced incidence of symptoms associated with low colorectal or coloanal anastomoses and/or a potential permanent stoma. Particular populations, such as older adults, are at increased risk of postoperative complications, and thus may have greater benefit from an OP approach [3, 4] .  \nCurrent guidelines for patients with high risk T1 and T2 stage I rectal cancer is oncologic resection without neoadjuvant therapy [5], while the majority of studies examining organ preservation rates (OPR) only include patients with stage II/III rectal cancer [6 , 7] . For patients with early cancer who may benefit from avoiding TME, such as those of advanced age or have significant comorbidities, an argument can be made for to undergo  \nneoadjuvant therapy with the goal of achieving a cCRand avoidance of oncologic resection.  \nThe primary aim of the current study was to examine the utilization of OP approaches in older adult patients with high-risk stage I disease compared to younger patients. We hypothesize","cbCaiqLHnc6WzcjW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqLHnc6WzcjW","pdf",462556,"English","# Abstract\n## Background\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Introduction\n# Methods\n## Data source and study population\n## Variables and outcomes","[{\"question\":\"What was the primary goal of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To compare organ preservation (OP) rates in adults aged 70 and older versus those under 70 with high-risk stage I rectal cancer.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the study conducted and what database was used?\",\"answer\":\"A retrospective cohort study used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and multivariate analysis to evaluate the association of age with OP receipt.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the results show about older adults and organ preservation?\",\"answer\":\"Older adults were more likely to receive OP than younger patients (45.6% vs 30.6%), and the association persisted after adjusted analysis (OR 1.9, p \\u003c 0.001).\"},{\"question\":\"Which additional factors were predictive of receiving organ preservation?\",\"answer\":\"Non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity, lack of insurance, higher comorbidity score, treatment at a community facility versus an academic facility, and female sex were all associated with higher OP receipt.\"}]","A comparison of organ preservation in older adults with stage I rectal cancer | PDF",1790192436,18]