LAUSR

(95% CI: 74%–89%), and after abdominoperineal resection was 70.2% (95% CI: 57%–83%), showing no significant difference (P 1⁄4 0.136) between the groups who have rectal cancer located less than 4 cm from the anal verge and T1–3 tumors without PCRT. The procedure appears to be acceptable oncologically. Also, Lee et al analyzed prognostic factors for low rectal cancer patients indicating ISR following nCRT and showed both ypT and ypN stages were independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival and ypN stage was for local recurrence-free survival (disease-free survival: ypT stage (3, 4 vs 0, 1, 2) HR1⁄4 2.947, 95% CI1⁄4 1.370–6.339, P1⁄4 0.006, ypN stage (1, 2 vs 0) HR1⁄4 3.282, 95% CI 1⁄4 1.714–6.283, P < 0.001; local recurrence-free survival: ypN stage (1, 2 vs 0) HR 1⁄4 3.487, 95% CI 1⁄4 1.294–9.394, P 1⁄4 0.014). One of good indicators was shown when performing ISR after shrinking and downsizing of rectal cancer by nCRT. However, there are few studies that analyzed the influence of nCRT in the cases where ISR is originally possible. In this research by Habr-Gama et al, among the cases requiring surgery after nCRT, we would like to know how much the ISR was performed and how nCRT affected surgery. Thus, we believe that additional investigation of nCRT influences on surgery, especially ISR results in finding good adaptation of ISR for early very low rectal cancer, for example, whether to do nCRT or not.