{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017435897435897435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014358974358974359, 'mean_word_length': 4.935091277890466, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Practical neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for rectal cancer. How many patients are actually recruited in multimodality therapy concepts? An analysis of the Tumour Centre Schwerin].

INTRODUCTION
For rectal cancer in UICC stage II or III, a neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or short-course radiotherapy is established to reduce the incidence of local relapses. It has been documented that the neoadjuvant therapy is superior to the adjuvant therapy. In spite of the formulation of therapeutic principles in guidelines, they are not consistently applied. The actual rate of application and the reasons for a change from the recommended treatment strategy have been investigated.


MATERIAL AND METHOD
The data of the tumour centre West Mecklenburg were analysed. Data concerning the type and stage of rectal cancer, multimodal treatment (surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy) and treatment according to the level of medical care of hospitals were recorded from 2000 to 2008. In addition, in our clinic prospectively collected data of patients with rectal cancer (September 2006 until December 2008) were used to find out the reasons for the denial of neoadjuvant therapy.


RESULTS
During the observation period we detected 348 patients with rectal cancer in UICC stage II or III in the area of the tumour centre West Mecklenburg. 16 % of these patients were treated pre-operatively. An increase in the preoperative multimodal treatment from 3 % to 39 % was observed. Hospitals with higher provisions of medical care applied the multimodal treatment 4-fold more frequently during this period of time. 55 patients of our own clinic were found to be of UICC stage II or III. 6 patients were emergency cases. The carcinoma was found in the lower or middle third of the rectum in 38 of our patients. The endosonographical examination could not adequately show the tumour or was falsely negative in 16 of these patients. A neoadjuvant treatment was started for 58 % of the patients. Overall, 76 of patients with rectal carcinoma were treated adjuvant or neoadjuvant, 62 of them with a complete treatment scheme.


DISCUSSION
The application of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal carcinoma in UICC stage II or III in West Mecklenburg was unexpectedly low during the observation period. However, an increase in treatment frequency was detected. During the same period of time the number of patients treated in hospitals of basic and standard medical care decreased by half. This is the reason for the regional increase of neoadjuvant treatment. 47 % of the patients of our clinic received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or a short-course radiotherapy. Including the adjuvant treatment, 76 % of all patients were treated multimodally. An increase in neoadjuvant treatment can only be achieved by shifting patients to centres with an appropriate diagnostic facility and a regular tumour board for rectal cancer.