Table A1.
Main conclusions of studies up to 2011 (reproduced from Anwar et al. [4]).
From Anwar 2013 | Main Conclusions | |
---|---|---|
1 | Jensen et al. [31] | AA is associated with poor survival |
2 | Abel et al. [32] | APR for local control needed in most patients |
3 | Basik et al. (1995) [33] | Improved survival through early diagnosis and radical surgery |
4 | Joon et al. (1999) [24] | CRT preferred for early cancers and APR reserved for salvage surgery |
5 | Wolff and Peiffert [34] | Gold standard for treatment should stay as APR |
6 | Belkacémi et al. (2003) [26] | Recommend CRT for early cancers and APR for salvage surgery |
7 | Longo et al. [35] | APR followed by CRT is optimal treatment |
8 | Anthony et al. [36] | Combination of neoadjuvant CRT and APR is optimal treatment |
9 | Klas et al. [37] | Tumours larger than 5 cm should be managed with surgery and CRT, smaller with S alone. |
10 | Beal et al. (2003) [30] | APR and CRT combination is a reasonable approach to treatment |
11 | Papagikos et al. (2003) [29] | Neoadjuvant CRT and APR combination, +/− adjuvant CT is the optimal treatment regimen |
12 | Li et al. [38] | APR and postoperative CRT is suggested |
13 | Chang et al. (2009) [25] | APR with neoadjuvant CRT is the most sensible management |
14 | Devon et al. [39] | Recommend multimodality therapy |
15 | Iesalnieks et al. [27] | For patients with CD and chronic perianal fistulae, cancer surveillance is essential |
16 | Wong et al. [40] | Recommend S alone, with postoperative CRT for certain patients |