
==== Front
Int J Colorectal Dis
Int J Colorectal Dis
International Journal of Colorectal Disease
0179-1958
1432-1262
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39225852
4710
10.1007/s00384-024-04710-y
Research
The risk for rectal cancer recurrence and overall mortality is not increased in men previously diagnosed with prostate cancer: a report from the Swedish colorectal cancer registry
Sverrisson Ingvar ingvar.sverrisson@regionvastmanland.se

Smedh Kenneth
Chabok Abbas
Nikberg Maziar
https://ror.org/048a87296 grid.8993.b 0000 0004 1936 9457 Colorectal Unit, Västmanland’s Hospital, Department of Surgery and Centre for Clinical Research of Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden
3 9 2024
3 9 2024
2024
39 1 13724 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Introduction

Limited data exists on oncological outcomes following rectal cancer surgery in men who have previously been diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC). This study aimed to assess overall mortality and rectal cancer recurrence in men previously diagnosed with PC who underwent bowel resection.

Methods

Data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry identified men who had rectal cancer surgery between 2000 and 2016, and the National Prostate Cancer Registry was used to identify those with a prior PC diagnosis. Cox regression analysis with propensity score matching was employed for data analysis. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcome was recurrence for rectal cancer.

Results

Out of 13,299 men undergoing bowel resection for rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016, 1130 had a history of PC. Overall mortality did not significantly differ between men with and without a prior PC diagnosis. Cox regression analyses with propensity score matching revealed that men with previously diagnosed low- or intermediate-risk (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70–0.90) and high-risk PC (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.98) had lower overall mortality after rectal cancer surgery compared with men without a PC. There was no significant difference in rectal cancer recurrence between men with a previous low or intermediate-risk PC (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74–1.14) or high-risk PC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52–1.01) compared with those without PC history.

Conclusion

Men undergoing rectal cancer surgery with a previous diagnosis of prostate cancer do not experience an increased risk of rectal cancer recurrence or overall mortality compared with men without a previous history of prostate cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-024-04710-y.

Keywords

Rectal cancer
Prostate cancer
Radiation therapy
Overall survival
Rectal cancer recurrence
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009612 Landstinget Västmanland LTV-968237 Sverrisson Ingvar Uppsala UniversityOpen access funding provided by Uppsala University.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Prostate cancer (PC) and rectal cancer are two of the most common malignancies in men [1]. Radiotherapy (RT) has a well-established place in the treatment for both cancer types. For locally advanced rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant RT, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, has been shown to decrease the risk for local recurrence and increase survival [2, 3]. Radiotherapy for PC can be used either alone or in combination with surgery and/or medical treatment to increase survival and improve outcomes [4–7]. However, radiotherapy in general, is associated with several adverse effects. Long-term adverse effects indicate that RT for pelvic malignancies increases the risk of developing rectal cancer later in life, while short-term effects of pelvic RT are mostly related to gastrointestinal and urogenital problems, as well as wound healing problems [8–10]. Due to the potential cumulative radiation dose toxicity and its adverse effects, neo-adjuvant RT is routinely not used in men with rectal cancer who have previously undergone irradiation for PC [11, 12]. Restricting the use of RT in these men not only increase the risk of more challenging surgery but can also have negative effects on local recurrence and survival after rectal cancer surgery. Data on prostate cancer treatment-related factors that might impact morbidity and oncological outcomes are limited. Some retrospective studies have indicated that previous radiotherapy for prostate cancer has a negative effect on post-operative morbidity, recurrence and survival after rectal cancer surgery [13, 14]. Additionally, hormonal therapy, surgical techniques, timing between treatments, patient comorbidities, radiation dose and field and genetic factors may also play significant roles in influencing these outcomes. Understanding the interplay of these factors is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies and improving patient prognosis. In our previous study on post-operative morbidity in men undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer, previously irradiated for PC, we identified a significantly lower risk of anastomotic leakage than was previously reported [13]. The aim of the current study is to analyse the overall survival and recurrence following bowel surgery for rectal cancer in men previously diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Methods

Data was gathered from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR) [14] and the National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) [15]. Both registries prospectively collect data from all hospitals in Sweden, covering approximately 10 million inhabitants. In 2010, the NPCR was linked to a number of other population-based registries in Sweden, forming the Prostate Cancer Database (PCBaSe) [16]. This population-based retrospective cohort study included all men, older than 18 years, in the SCRCR who underwent resection for rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016. Among them, men with PC before their rectal cancer diagnosis were identified in the PCBaSe. Men who underwent emergency surgery were excluded. The following variables were analysed: age, stage of rectal cancer, treatment for PC, PC risk category, preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative radiochemotherapy, type of operation, level of rectal tumour, intraoperative bowel perforation, perioperative bleeding and local radical resection.

Definitions

Rectal cancer was defined as an adenocarcinoma of the rectum located within 15 cm from the anal verge. The predominant neoadjuvant RT regimen during the study period for rectal cancer was short course RT (5 Gy five times over 1 week) followed by surgery. If a concomitant chemotherapy (CRT) was necessary, a long course of RT (1.8–2 Gy for 25–28 days over 6–8 weeks) was delivered with chemotherapy. According to Swedish national guidelines, MR of the rectum and CT examination of the chest and abdomen to detect metastases was recommended. Rectal cancer was classified at diagnosis according to tumour-node-metastases staging system (TNM 8th edition) [17].

PC was defined as an adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Low-risk PC was defined as T1–T2a tumours with Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ug/L, intermediate-risk PC was defined as T2b–T2c tumours and/or Gleason 7 and/or PSA 10–19 ug/L, and high-risk PC was defined as T3–T4 tumours and/or Gleason 8 + and/or PSA > 20 ug/L and metastatic PC as either “distant metastases” (defined as PSA ≥ 100 ug/L or M1) or “regionally metastatic” (defined as N1 and/or T4 and/or PSA 50–99 ug/mL). The most common curative RT regime for PC was external beam radiotherapy with a total dose of 78–80 Gy using 2 Gy/fraction.

Rectal cancer recurrence is defined as a recurrence of the disease, locally and/or distant metastases diagnosed with a computed tomography (CT) scan and/or a biopsy. Patients with rectal cancer are routinely followed up with a CT scan 1 and 3 years after the operation.

This manuscript is reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist for the reporting of observational studies [18].

Statistical analysis

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics, medians and quartiles for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. For time-to-event endpoints, cumulative incidence curves defined as one minus the conditional survival function were calculated for mortality and recurrence, censoring at death. Imbalances in observed baseline variables were assessed and used to calculate propensity scores, to mitigate baseline imbalances between men without previous PC and men with different PC risk categories. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and secondary outcome was recurrence for rectal cancer. Cox regression models were employed to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for mortality and recurrence, including a variable for PC risk category with a separate category for men without previous PC, and propensity scores [19]. In supplemental analyses, a multivariable model was constructed with the propensity score matching variables as baseline covariates and also presented as stratified to preoperative radiotherapy. An unadjusted Cox regression model was also constructed, to assess the impact of propensity scores versus multivariable adjustment. A two-sided confidence level of 5% was set for all tests and confidence intervals, which were not adjusted for multiplicity. R version 4.1.1 was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

The demographics and baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. In total, 13,299 men underwent rectal cancer surgery between 2000 and 2016, with 56 individuals excluded due to emergency surgery. Among the remaining 13,243 men, 1130 (9%) were previously diagnosed with PC. Median age was 69 years, with men with a previous PC being older (73 years) than those without PC (69 years). Eighty-six percent of the men had stage 1–3 rectal cancer. The median distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 9 cm and did not differ significantly between men with and without previous PC. Neo-adjuvant RT was applied in 52% of the men with a higher prevalence among men without a previous PC diagnosis (53% vs. 38%). In men with a previous PC, 51% were operated with resection and permanent stoma, compared to 48% in men without previous PC. The median time between PC diagnosis and rectal cancer surgery was 52.5 months. Table 1 Demographics and baseline characteristics of the study population

	No PC	Low- or intermediate-risk PC	High-risk PC	Metastatic PC	Missing risk category	
Men	12113 (100)	548 (100)	277 (100)	209 (100)	96 (100)	
Age (years)						
Median (IQR)	69 (61–76)	72 (67–77)	76 (71–81)	75 (69–80)	70 (65–77)	
 < 70	6335 (52)	207 (38)	55 (20)	55 (26)	45 (47)	
70–74	2147 (18)	132 (24)	60 (22)	44 (21)	14 (15)	
75 + 	3629 (30)	209 (38)	162 (58)	110 (53)	37 (39)	
Missing data	2 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	
Received prostate cancer treatment						
Conservative treatment		203 (37)	60 (22)	17 (8)	33 (39)	
Radical prostatectomy		44 (8)	6 (2)	3 (1)	2 (2)	
RT		85 (16)	39 (14)	8 (4)	3 (4)	
Radical prostatectomy and RT		1 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	
Hormonal or surgical castration		57 (10)	123 (44)	164 (78)	18 (21)	
Missing data		158 (29)	48 (17)	17 (8)	29 (34)	
Rectal cancer stage (1–4)						
Stage 1–2	6450 (53)	316 (58)	144 (52)	103 (49)	58 (60)	
Stage 3	3973 (33)	165 (30)	107 (39)	80 (38)	25 (26)	
Stage 4	1383 (11)	51 (9)	19 (7)	23 (11)	10 (10)	
Missing data	307 (3)	16 (3)	7 (3)	3 (1)	3 (3)	
Preoperative RT						
No	5706 (47)	353 (64)	173 (62)	119 (57)	50 (52)	
Yes	6407 (53)	195 (36)	104 (38)	90 (43)	46 (48)	
Preoperative CRT						
No	10348 (85)	495 (90)	266 (96)	197 (94)	88 (92)	
Yes	1765 (15)	53 (10)	11 (4)	12 (6)	8 (8)	
Type of operation						
APE	4291 (36)	187 (34)	92 (33)	75 (36)	45 (47)	
HP	1617 (13)	82 (15)	47 (17)	39 (19)	12 (12)	
AR	6205 (51)	279 (51)	138 (50)	95 (45)	39 (41)	
Level of rectal tumour (cm)						
0–5	2477 (20)	91 (17)	43 (16)	34 (16)	22 (23)	
5–10	5883 (49)	264 (48)	140 (51)	99 (48)	51 (53)	
 > 10	3539 (29)	180 (33)	91 (33)	67 (32)	23 (24)	
Missing data	214 (2)	13 (2)	3 (1)	9 (4)	0 (0)	
Intraoperative colon/rectal perforation						
Yes	668 (5)	42 (8)	20 (7)	15 (7)	8 (8)	
No	11333 (94)	500 (91)	254 (92)	192 (92)	86 (90)	
Missing data	112 (1)	6 (1)	3 (1)	2 (1)	2 (2)	
Perioperative bleeding (mL)						
 < 500	6341 (52)	308 (56)	150 (54)	105 (50)	47 (49)	
 ≥ 500	5772 (48)	240 (44)	127 (46)	104 (50)	49 (51)	
Local radical resection						
Yes	11243 (93)	519 (95)	259 (94)	188 (90)	89 (93)	
No*	813 (7)	28 (5)	18 (6)	19 (9)	6 (6)	
Missing data	57 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	2 (1)	1 (1)	
Low-risk prostate cancer was defined as T1–T2a tumours with Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ug/L. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer was defined as T2b–T2c tumours and/or Gleason 7 and/or PSA 10–19 ug/L. High-risk prostate cancer was defined as T3–T4 tumours and/or Gleason 8 + and/or PSA > 20 ug/L. Metastatic PC was defined as either “distant metastases” (defined as PSA ≥ 100 ug/mL or M1) or “regionally metastatic” (defined as N1 and/or T4 and/or PSA 50–99 ug/mL)

*Local radical resection is defined as “no” if it is uncertain or not evaluable

APE abdominoperineal excision, CRT chemoradiotherapy, HP Hartmann’s procedure, IQR interquartile range, AR anterior resection, PC prostate cancer, RT radiotherapy, PSA prostate-specific antigen

Rectal cancer is classified at diagnosis according to TNM 8 where stage 1 disease is without lymph node and distant metastases and the tumour does not invade outside of muscularis propria, stage 2 is without metastases but the tumour grows outside of muscularis propria, stage 3 has lymph node metastases but without distant metastases, and stage 4 has distant metastases

Recurrence and survival

In cumulative incidence plots, overall mortality was similar between men with and without PC (Fig. 1), with the lowest mortality in men with low- or intermediate-risk PC (Fig. 2). The cumulative incidence of rectal cancer recurrence was highest in men without previous PC diagnosis (Figs. 3 and 4). The Kaplan–Meier figures stratified for radiotherapy are presented in Supplemental Figs. 1 and 2.Fig. 1 Cumulative incidence of overall mortality after rectal cancer surgery, in men with previous prostate cancer and men without previous prostate cancer. PC, prostate cancer

Fig. 2 Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality after rectal cancer surgery, in men with different prostate cancer risk categories and men without previous prostate cancer. PC, prostate cancer

Fig. 3 Cumulative incidence of rectal cancer recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, in men with previous prostate cancer and men without previous prostate cancer. PC, prostate cancer

Fig. 4 Cumulative incidence of rectal cancer recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, in men with different prostate cancer risk categories and men without previous prostate cancer. PC, prostate cancer

In Cox regression analysis, with propensity score matching, overall mortality was lower for men with low- or intermediate-risk PC (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.90) and men with high-risk PC (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.98), compared with men without PC. In an additional Cox regression analysis, with propensity score matching, stratified by preoperative RT, all-cause mortality for men with PC was lower (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79–0.97) in patients receiving perioperative radiotherapy compared with men without PC (Table 3). Men with metastatic PC also had lower risk of recurrence (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45–0.94) than those without a previous PC (Table 2). Additionally, men with PC not reviving preoperative radiotherapy had a lower risk of rectal cancer recurrence (HR 0.66, CI 0.50–0.87) compared with men with PC (Table 3). There were no statistical differences in patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy in relation to having had prostate cancer or not. The distribution of matching variables after propensity score matching is presented in Supplemental Table 1. Table 2 Cox regression models for overall mortality and rectal cancer recurrence, with propensity score matching between men with previous prostate cancer and men without previous prostate cancer

	All-cause mortality	Rectal cancer recurrence	
	Subjects with events (%)	Event rate	HR	95% CI	Subjects with events (%)	Event rate	HR	95% CI	
PC category									
No PC	3079 (62.6)	87.2	1.00	( Ref.)	874 (17.8)	33.8	1.00	( Ref.)	
Low- or intermediate-risk PC	203 (38.7)	70.3	0.79	(0.70–0.90)	90 (17.2)	33.3	0.92	(0.74–1.14)	
High-risk PC	150 (56.4)	103.0	0.85	(0.74–0.98)	38 (14.3)	27.5	0.73	(0.52–1.01)	
Metastatic PC *	154 (76.2)	138.1	1.12	(0.99–1.28)	30 (14.9)	28.7	0.65	(0.45–0.94)	
Event rates per 1000 patient years. Low-risk prostate cancer was defined as T1–T2a tumours with Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ug/L. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer was defined as T2b–T2c tumours and/or Gleason 7 and/or PSA 10–19 ug/L. High-risk prostate cancer was defined as T3–T4 tumours and/or Gleason 8 + and/or PSA > 20 ug/L. Metastatic PC was defined as either “distant metastases” (defined as PSA ≥ 100 ug/mL or M1) or “regionally metastatic” (defined as N1 and/or T4 and/or PSA 50–99 ug/mL). The following variables were included in the propensity score matching: age at index bowl resection, rectal cancer stage, preoperative RT, preoperative CRT, intraoperative colon/rectal perforation, perioperative bleeding (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), and local radical resection

CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, PC prostate cancer, PSA prostate-specific antigen, RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy

Table 3 Cox regression model, with propensity score matching, stratified by preoperative RT

	All-cause mortality	Rectal cancer recurrence	
	Subjects with events (%)	Event rate	HR	95% CI	Subjects with events (%)	Event rate	HR	95% CI	
No preoperative RT									
No PC	1960 (55.5)	90.1	1.00	( Ref.)	748 (21.2)	37.2	1.00	( Ref.)	
PC	199 (53.5)	85.5	0.91	(0.81–1.03)	55 (14.8)	24.9	0.66	(0.50–0.87)	
Preoperative RT									
No PC	2170 (52.8)	104.2	1.00	( Ref.)	702 (17.1)	36.1	1.00	( Ref.)	
PC	307 (49.7)	98.2	0.87	(0.79–0.97)	102 (16.5)	35.0	0.90	(0.73–1.11)	
Event rates per 1000 patient years. Low-risk prostate cancer was defined as T1–T2a tumours, with Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ug/L. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer was defined as T2b–T2c tumours and/or Gleason 7 and/or PSA 10–19 ug/L. High risk prostate cancer was defined as T3–T4 tumours and/or Gleason 8 + and/or PSA > 20 ug/L. Metastatic PC was defined as either “distant metastases” (defined as PSA ≥ 100 ug/mL or M1) or “regionally metastatic” (defined as N1 and/or T4 and/or PSA 50–99 ug/mL). The following variables were included in the propensity score matching: age at index bowl resection, rectal cancer stage, preoperative RT, preoperative CRT, intraoperative colon/rectal perforation, perioperative bleeding (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), and local radical resection

CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, PC prostate cancer, PSA prostate-specific antigen, RT radiotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy

Similar estimates were obtained when baseline variables were included in multivariable Cox models instead of propensity scores (Supplemental Table 2).

Discussion

In this population-based study utilizing data from two national registries, men who underwent rectal cancer surgery with a history of PC lived longer and had fewer rectal cancer recurrences compared with those without a prior PC diagnosis. This trend was observed for both low or intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Notably, the majority of these patients had non-restorative surgery, and surprisingly, the frequency of permanent stoma did not differ between men with and without a previous PC diagnosis.

This contradicts results from several recent cohort studies. Guandalino et al. (2015) reported data on post-operative outcomes of 84 men with mid or low rectal cancer, including 8 who had received external beam RT (EBRT) for prostate cancer. Their multivariate analysis indicated that EBRT significantly decreased the overall survival (OS) and local recurrence free survival after rectal cancer surgery [20]. In a study from 2018, Feinberg et al. reported data of 7096 men who underwent rectal cancer surgery. Of these, 229 had a history of PC with worse 5-year OS rates in men with a history of PC with or without RT [21]. Lakis et al. (2019) reported data from the French GRECCAR group, comparing men with rectal cancer with and without previous PC treatment. Their results show significant increase in local recurrence and worse disease-free survival and overall survival for men with previous PC treatment [22].

The present study is the largest to date on the topic, including over 13,000 men treated for rectal cancer, of whom 1130 had a previous PC diagnosis. A previous study on post-operative complications in the current cohort, published in 2018, found a lower frequency of anastomotic insufficiency in men previously treated with RT for PC compared to previous studies. Additionally, there were no significant difference in 30-day re-operation, overall complications or surgical complications between those who received RT for PC and those who received RT for rectal cancer [13]. These results are consistent with the current findings, indicating comparable overall survival for men with non-metastatic history of PC and similar or lower risk of rectal cancer recurrence compared to men without a prior PC diagnosis.

As expected, fewer men with a previous PC diagnosis received neoadjuvant RT, and the rectal cancer recurrence was even lower in men with previous PC where radiotherapy was omitted compared with men with no PC. The improved overall survival in rectal cancer patients with a history of PC may be explained by selection bias, where men fit enough to survive PC and its treatment, live long enough to develop rectal cancer and remain healthy enough to qualify for surgery with bowel resection, which are likely to be the fittest individuals in the PC group. The improved survival even with respect to previous PC diagnosis might also be reflected by the nationwide implementation of TME surgery and centralization of rectal cancer surgery in Sweden [23, 24].

The analysis was not stratified by PC treatment due to incomplete data on RT for PC in the early years of the register. Instead, the analysis was stratified by PC risk category, where intermediate-risk PC and high-risk PC were used as proxies, as 19% and 25%, respectively, of men in these categories receive RT as a standard treatment, and the majority received external beam radiotherapy with a smaller proportion receiving brachytherapy [7]. Unfortunately, we did not have access to cancer-specific mortality data. However, there was no difference in rectal cancer recurrence in patients having preoperative radiotherapy with respect to previous PC diagnosis, and the recurrence rate was even improved in patients who did not receive preoperative radiotherapy and had a diagnosis of PC compared with those with no PC diagnosis. This strengthens the findings that a prior PC diagnosis does not have a significant negative impact on recurrence rates in this cohort.

Strengths of this study include the combination of two nationwide high-quality registers including more than 1100 men with rectal cancer previously treated for PC, and the propensity score matching process effectively balanced the baseline characteristics between the groups. Additionally, the SCRCR demonstrates high validity in registering recurrences and maintains a complete registration of all death dates. Limitations include the lack of cancer-specific data analysis, the potential risk for selection bias and residual confounding and small numbers in some PC risk categories. The impact of selection on generalizability of results, indicated by an imbalance in distribution of baseline variables, should be considered. Furthermore, the variabilities in radiotherapy treatment modalities, such as the proportion of patients receiving external beam radiotherapy versus brachytherapy, could influence the observed outcomes and warrants further investigation. The results must be interpreted with the understanding that the proportion of patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision in Sweden during the study period was approximately 35%, regardless of whether patients had a prior PC diagnosis or not.

With an ageing population and an increasing incidence of cancer in younger population, the likelihood of encountering men who develop both prostate and rectal cancers is expected to rise. This underscores the importance of this work in the clinical decision-making when managing these individuals.

Conclusion

The data from this nationwide study indicates that men undergoing rectal cancer surgery with a previous diagnosis of prostate cancer do not experience an increased risk of rectal cancer recurrence or overall mortality compared with men without a previous history of prostate cancer.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Acknowledgements

We thank Folke Folkvaljon for statistical help and writing assistance with the statistical part of the “Methods” section.

Author contributions

Maziar Nikberg and Kenneth Smedh designed the study. Maziar Nikberg and Ingvar Sverrisson analysed and interpreted data. Ingvar Sverrisson wrote the main manuscript text. All authors edited, revised and approved the manuscript to be published.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University. This study was supported by a research grant from the County of Västmanland, Sweden (Grant number: LTV-968237). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis of data, the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Data availability

The data that was used and analysed for this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Declaration of AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing

None declared

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

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

1. Cancer. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen. cited 2023–12–01. Available from https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/statistik-och-data/statistik/statistikdatabasen [Internet]
2. Erlandsson J Holm T Pettersson D Berglund A Cedermark B Radu C Optimal fractionation of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer (Stockholm III): a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial Lancet Oncol 2017 18 3 336 346 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30086-4 28190762
Erlandsson J, Holm T, Pettersson D, Berglund A, Cedermark B, Radu C et al (2017) Optimal fractionation of preoperative radiotherapy and timing to surgery for rectal cancer (Stockholm III): a multicentre, randomised, non-blinded, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 18(3):336–34628190762 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30086-4
3. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B, Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study G (2001) The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer 92(4):896–902
4. Potosky AL Legler J Albertsen PC Stanford JL Gilliland FD Hamilton AS Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 92 19 1582 1592 10.1093/jnci/92.19.1582 11018094
Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD, Hamilton AS et al (2000) Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(19):1582–159211018094 10.1093/jnci/92.19.1582
5. Fridriksson JO Folkvaljon Y Nilsson P Robinson D Franck-Lissbrant I Ehdaie B Long-term adverse effects after curative radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy: population-based nationwide register study Scand J Urol 2016 50 5 338 345 10.1080/21681805.2016.1194460 27333148
Fridriksson JO, Folkvaljon Y, Nilsson P, Robinson D, Franck-Lissbrant I, Ehdaie B et al (2016) Long-term adverse effects after curative radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy: population-based nationwide register study. Scand J Urol 50(5):338–34527333148 10.1080/21681805.2016.1194460
6. Robinson D Garmo H Lissbrant IF Widmark A Pettersson A Gunnlaugsson A Prostate cancer death after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy: a nationwide population-based observational study Eur Urol 2018 73 4 502 511 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.039 29254629
Robinson D, Garmo H, Lissbrant IF, Widmark A, Pettersson A, Gunnlaugsson A et al (2018) Prostate cancer death after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy: a nationwide population-based observational study. Eur Urol 73(4):502–51129254629 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.039
7. Beckmann K Garmo H Nilsson P Franck Lissbrant I Widmark A Stattin P Radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care in Sweden 1998–2016 Acta Oncol 2020 59 5 549 557 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1730003 32122185
Beckmann K, Garmo H, Nilsson P, Franck Lissbrant I, Widmark A, Stattin P (2020) Radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care in Sweden 1998–2016. Acta Oncol 59(5):549–55732122185 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1730003
8. Birgisson H, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B, Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial G (2005) Adverse effects of preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer: long-term follow-up of the Swedish rectal cancer trial. J Clin Oncol 23(34):8697–705
9. Birgisson H Pahlman L Gunnarsson U Glimelius B Late adverse effects of radiation therapy for rectal cancer - a systematic overview Acta Oncol 2007 46 4 504 516 10.1080/02841860701348670 17497318
Birgisson H, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B (2007) Late adverse effects of radiation therapy for rectal cancer - a systematic overview. Acta Oncol 46(4):504–51617497318 10.1080/02841860701348670
10. Wallis CJ Mahar AL Choo R Herschorn S Kodama RT Shah PS Second malignancies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2016 352 i851 10.1136/bmj.i851 26936410
Wallis CJ, Mahar AL, Choo R, Herschorn S, Kodama RT, Shah PS et al (2016) Second malignancies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 352:i85126936410 10.1136/bmj.i851
11. Hilal L Wu AJ Reyngold M Cuaron JJ Navilio J Romesser PB Radiation therapy for de novo anorectal cancer in patients with a history of prostate radiation therapy Front Oncol 2022 12 975519 10.3389/fonc.2022.975519 36185296
Hilal L, Wu AJ, Reyngold M, Cuaron JJ, Navilio J, Romesser PB et al (2022) Radiation therapy for de novo anorectal cancer in patients with a history of prostate radiation therapy. Front Oncol 12:97551936185296 10.3389/fonc.2022.975519
12. Das P Delclos ME Skibber JM Rodriguez-Bigas MA Feig BW Chang GJ Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for rectal cancer in patients with prior pelvic irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010 77 1 60 65 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.056 19695792
Das P, Delclos ME, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Feig BW, Chang GJ et al (2010) Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for rectal cancer in patients with prior pelvic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77(1):60–6519695792 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.056
13. Sverrisson I Folkvaljon F Chabok A Stattin P Smedh K Nikberg M Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer previously irradiated for prostate cancer Eur J Surg Oncol 2019 45 3 341 346 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.11.015 30503046
Sverrisson I, Folkvaljon F, Chabok A, Stattin P, Smedh K, Nikberg M (2019) Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer previously irradiated for prostate cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 45(3):341–34630503046 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.11.015
14. Kodeda K Nathanaelsson L Jung B Olsson H Jestin P Sjovall A Population-based data from the Swedish colon cancer registry Br J Surg 2013 100 8 1100 1107 10.1002/bjs.9166 23696510
Kodeda K, Nathanaelsson L, Jung B, Olsson H, Jestin P, Sjovall A et al (2013) Population-based data from the Swedish colon cancer registry. Br J Surg 100(8):1100–110723696510 10.1002/bjs.9166
15. Tomic K Sandin F Wigertz A Robinson D Lambe M Stattin P Evaluation of data quality in the national prostate cancer register of Sweden Eur J Cancer 2015 51 1 101 111 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.025 25465187
Tomic K, Sandin F, Wigertz A, Robinson D, Lambe M, Stattin P (2015) Evaluation of data quality in the national prostate cancer register of Sweden. Eur J Cancer 51(1):101–11125465187 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.025
16. Van Hemelrijck M Wigertz A Sandin F Garmo H Hellstrom K Fransson P Cohort profile: the national prostate cancer register of Sweden and prostate cancer data Base Sweden 2.0 Int J Epidemiol. 2013 42 4 956 67 10.1093/ije/dys068 22561842
Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellstrom K, Fransson P et al (2013) Cohort profile: the national prostate cancer register of Sweden and prostate cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol. 42(4):956–6722561842 10.1093/ije/dys068
17. Weiser MR AJCC 8th edition: colorectal cancer Ann Surg Oncol 2018 25 6 1454 1455 10.1245/s10434-018-6462-1 29616422
Weiser MR (2018) AJCC 8th edition: colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 25(6):1454–145529616422 10.1245/s10434-018-6462-1
18. von Elm E Altman DG Egger M Pocock SJ Gotzsche PC Vandenbroucke JP The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies PLoS Med 2007 4 10 e296 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 17941714
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4(10):e29617941714 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
19. Austin PC The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments Stat Med 2014 33 7 1242 1258 10.1002/sim.5984 24122911
Austin PC (2014) The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 33(7):1242–125824122911 10.1002/sim.5984
20. Guandalino M Dupre A Francois M Leroy B Antomarchi O Buc E Previous radiation for prostate neoplasm alters surgical and oncologic outcomes after rectal cancer surgery J Surg Oncol 2015 112 8 802 808 10.1002/jso.24075 26511216
Guandalino M, Dupre A, Francois M, Leroy B, Antomarchi O, Buc E et al (2015) Previous radiation for prostate neoplasm alters surgical and oncologic outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol 112(8):802–80826511216 10.1002/jso.24075
21. Feinberg AE Wallis CJD Nam RK Hameed U Survival and peri-operative outcomes among patients with rectal cancer: the role of prior radiotherapy due to prostate cancer Int J Colorectal Dis 2019 34 1 97 104 10.1007/s00384-018-3175-7 30327874
Feinberg AE, Wallis CJD, Nam RK, Hameed U (2019) Survival and peri-operative outcomes among patients with rectal cancer: the role of prior radiotherapy due to prostate cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 34(1):97–10430327874 10.1007/s00384-018-3175-7
22. Lakkis Z Vernerey D Mege D Faucheron JL Panis Y Tuech JJ Morbidity and oncological outcomes of rectal cancer impaired by previous prostate malignancy Br J Surg 2019 106 8 1087 1098 10.1002/bjs.11176 31074509
Lakkis Z, Vernerey D, Mege D, Faucheron JL, Panis Y, Tuech JJ et al (2019) Morbidity and oncological outcomes of rectal cancer impaired by previous prostate malignancy. Br J Surg 106(8):1087–109831074509 10.1002/bjs.11176
23. Khani MH Smedh K Centralization of rectal cancer surgery improves long-term survival Colorectal Dis 2010 12 9 874 879 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02098.x 19878515
Khani MH, Smedh K (2010) Centralization of rectal cancer surgery improves long-term survival. Colorectal Dis 12(9):874–879. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02098.x19878515 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02098.x
24. Martling A Holm T Rutqvist LE Johansson H Moran BJ Heald RJ Cedermark B Impact of a surgical training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm Br J Surg 2005 92 2 225 229 10.1002/bjs.4834 15609382
Martling A, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Johansson H, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedermark B (2005) Impact of a surgical training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Stockholm. Br J Surg 92(2):225–229. 10.1002/bjs.483415609382 10.1002/bjs.4834
