Multivisceral resections for rectal cancer

Overview of radiation therapy for treating rectal cancer

A major outcome of importance for rectal cancer is local control. Parallel to improvements in surgical technique, adjuvant therapy regimens have been tested in clinical trials in an effort to reduce the local recurrence rate. Nowadays, the local recurrence rate has been reduced because of both good surgical techniques and the addition of radiotherapy. Based on recent reports in the literature, preoperative chemoradiotherapy is now considered the standard of care for patients with stages II and III rectal cancer. Also, short-course radiotherapy appears to provide effective local control and the same overall survival as more long-course chemoradiotherapy schedules and, therefore, may be an appropriate choice in some situations. Capecitabine is an acceptable alternative to infusion fluorouracil in those patients who are able to manage the responsibilities inherent in self-administered, oral chemotherapy. However, concurrent administration of oxaliplatin and radiotherapy is not recommended at this time. Radiation therapy has long been considered an important adjunct in the treatment of rectal cancer. Although no prospective data exist for several issues, we hope that in the near future, patients with rectal cancer can be treated by using the best combination of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy in near future.

Health-related quality of life after surgery for advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: a nationwide prospective study

AIM

Advances in the treatment of rectal cancer have made it possible to perform complex rectal cancer surgery (COMP-RCS) in patients with primary advanced rectal cancer penetrating beyond the total mesorectal excision planes and in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to examine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) before and during the first 2 years after COMP-RCS.

METHOD

Between 2001 and 2008, 180 patients were treated with COMP-RCS at Aarhus University Hospital. HRQoL was assessed preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after surgery using three questionnaires. The results were compared with those for patients treated with standard rectal cancer surgery (STAN-RCS) and with data from the general Danish population (NORM-data).

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-two (68%) patients responded to the questionnaires. Of these 80 (66%) with disease-free survival for 2 years after surgery were included in the main analysis. The lowest level of functioning and the highest degree of symptoms were reported preoperatively. The majority of the HRQoL scales improved or remained stable during the first postoperative year; a decrease was observed for body image only. One year after surgery, HRQoL in patients treated with COMP-RSC was comparable to that for patients treated with STAN-RCS. Lower levels were found for physical and emotional role functioning, compared with NORM-data.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with COMP-RCS experienced improvement in HRQoL in the first year after surgery. One year after surgery, HRQoL was similar to that of patients treated with STAN-RCS. Compared with NORM-data, lower levels were found for physical and emotional role functioning.

Oncologic results after multivisceral resection of clinical T4 tumors

BACKGROUND

Standard operative management of colorectal cancer (CRC) with adherent adjacent organs is en bloc resection to obtain clear resection margins. We analyzed early and long-term outcomes after multivisceral resection for clinically suspected T4 CRC and identified factors predicting survival.

METHODS

All patients operated on for clinically suspected T4 CRC between 2000 and 2010 were identified retrospectively. Data concerning demographics, surgery, pathologic examination and oncologic outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two patients underwent partial or total en bloc resection of ≥1 adherent organ. An R0 resection was achieved in 136 patients (89.5%). Malignant invasion of the adherent organ was histologically confirmed in 98 patients (64.5%). Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 77.4% and 58.1%, respectively. On univariate analysis, margin positivity, pT4 stage, and lymph node invasion were predictors of a worse disease-free survival. The presence of liver metastases and concomitant hepatectomy were both factors of poor overall and disease-free survival. On multivariate analysis, resection of ≥2 adjacent organs was a predictor of better overall survival. This finding may be explained by the significantly higher rate of tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI) in the group with resection of multiple organs.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic outcome of multivisceral resection for clinically suspected colorectal T4 tumors was good, especially in MSI patients and patients without liver metastases. The number of organs requiring resection should not contraindicated radical surgery as in this study it was associated with a good prognosis.

Multicenter Evaluation of Rectal cancer ReImaging pOst Neoadjuvant (MERRION) Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of reimaging rectal cancer post-CRT (chemoradiotherapy) with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the pelvis for local staging and computed tomography of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis (CT TAP) to identify distant metastases.

BACKGROUND

The success of neoadjuvant CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer has changed an already complex management algorithm. There is no consensus whether patients should be restaged before surgery.

METHODS

Data from 5 institutions with prospectively maintained databases including patients who received neoadjuvant CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer were acquired. Only patients who had been staged pre- and post-CRT with MR imaging and CT TAP were included. MR findings were correlated with histopathological stage using weighted κ (kappa) statistics to test agreement, where a κ value of less than 0.5 was deemed unacceptable.

RESULTS

A total of 285 patients fulfilled the criteria for the study; 84% had American Joint Committee for Cancer stage 3 disease pre-CRT, and the remainder had stage 2 disease. Fourteen patients did not proceed to surgery post-CRT-2 were observed as "complete responders," and the remainder either had unresectable disease or were unfit for surgery. MR imaging could not predict T stage (κ = 0.212) or nodal involvement (κ = 0.336). Most pertinently, MR imaging was unable to detect a complete pathological response (κ = 0.021), nor could it discriminate T4 disease (κ = 0.445). CT TAP restaging altered management in 6.7% of patients, who had metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

MR reimaging using standard protocols is of limited value in determining surgical approaches; a better modality of local restaging is required.

Indications and outcome of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The outcome of pelvic exenteration was compared in patients with locally advanced primary (LAP) cancer and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC).

BACKGROUND

There are few reports comparing the results of pelvic exenteration for primary advanced rectal cancer and RRC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration between 2006 and 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The main endpoints were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS).

RESULTS

Of 100 exenterative operations, 55 were for LAP cancer and 45 for RRC. Exenteration of 1 pelvic compartment was required in 30 cases, 2 compartments in 49 cases, and 3 of 4 compartments in 21 cases. R0, R1, and R2 resections were achieved in 78, 15, and 7 cases, respectively. R0 rates were significantly higher in LAP cancer than in RRC (91% vs 62%, P = 0.001). Three-year DFS for R0, R1, and R2 resections was 67%, 49%, and 0%, respectively (P < 0.001). For R0 resections only, DFS in LAP cancer was 76% and 57% in RRC (P = 0.212). On multivariate analysis, a positive resection margin (hazard ratio, 4.04; P < 0.001) and positive lymph node staging (hazard ratio, 2.43; P = 0.022) were significant predictors of reduced DFS. Three-year LRFS for R0 resection was 86% for LAP cancer and 84% for RRC (P = 0.817). On multivariate analysis, only a positive resection margin was a significant predictor of reduced LRFS (hazard ratio, 5.48; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection margin status is more important than primary or recurrent cancer in predicting long-term outcome.

Laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: initial results from a single center

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, a combination of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy has yielded improvements in the survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy comprise a challenging and rarely reported surgical procedure.

METHODS

Between November 2004 and February 2010, 29 patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to colorectal cancer. Of the 29 patients, 15 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 14 underwent open surgery.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis with a primary tumor was more common in the laparoscopic group, and the Gilly stage of peritoneal carcinomatosis was found more frequently in the open group. Complication rate and hospital stay were less in the laparoscopic group. However, the outcomes for the patients undergoing the combined treatment were similar between the two groups with respect to completeness of cytoreduction, operation morbidity, and overall survival. The laparoscopic group had a cytoreduction completeness of 86.7 % and an operative morbidity of 13.3 %. Operative mortality occurred for one patient after open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy can be performed safely for selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer to a limited extent. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and larger numbers of patients are warranted to confirm the study findings.

Clinical review: surgical management of locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer

AIM

Recurrent and locally advanced colorectal cancers frequently require en bloc resection of involved organs to achieve negative margins. The aim of this review is to evaluate the most current literature related to the surgical management of locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A literature review was performed on the electronic databases MEDLINE from PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for publications in the English language from January 1993 to July 2013. The MeSH search terms 'locally advanced colorectal cancer', 'recurrent colorectal cancer' and 'surgical management' were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1,470 patients with recurrent or locally advanced primary colorectal cancer were included in 22 studies. Surgical removal of the tumour with negative margins (R0) offers the best prognosis in term of survival with a 5-year survival of up to 70 %. MVR is needed in approximately 10 % with the most commonly involved organ being the bladder. The mean post-operative morbidity is 40 %, mainly relating to superficial surgical site infection, pelvic collections and delayed wound healing. Most patients will undergo radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy pre- or post-operatively. The mean 5-year overall survival for R0 resection is 50 % for recurrent and locally advanced primary tumours while survival following R1 or R2 is 12 and <5 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal therapy and extended surgery to achieve clear margins offers good prognosis to patients with recurrent and locally advanced colorectal cancers.

Experts reviews of the multidisciplinary consensus conference colon and rectal cancer 2012: science, opinions and experiences from the experts of surgery

The first multidisciplinary consensus conference on colon and rectal cancer was held in December 2012, achieving a majority of consensus for diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Delphi Method. This article will give a critical appraisal of the topics discussed during the meeting and in the consensus document by well-known leaders in surgery that were involved in this multidisciplinary consensus process. Scientific evidence, experience and opinions are collected to support multidisciplinary teams (MDT) with arguments for medical decision-making in diagnosis, staging and treatment strategies for patients with colon or rectal cancer. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative treatment for colon and rectal cancer. Standardizing treatment is an effective instrument to improve outcome of multidisciplinary cancer care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. In this article, a review of the following focuses; Perioperative care, age and colorectal surgery, obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting, surgical anatomical considerations, total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery and training, surgical considerations for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), surgery in stage IV colorectal cancer, definitions of quality of surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery, preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, and how about functional outcome after surgery?

Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes

BACKGROUND

The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority.

METHODS

Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus.

RESULTS

The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management.

CONCLUSION

The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes

BACKGROUND

The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority.

METHODS

Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus.

RESULTS

The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management.

CONCLUSION

The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Laparoscopic treatment of advanced colonic cancer: a case-matched control with open surgery

AIM

The safety, feasibility and oncological results of laparoscopic resection for advanced colon cancer were evaluated.

METHOD

Seventy consecutive patients with a histologically proven T4 colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic (LPS) right or left colectomy were matched for comorbidity on admission (American Society of Anesthesiologists score), tumour stage and grading with 70 patients who underwent open colectomy over a 10-year period. Short- and long-term outcome measures were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate was 7.1%. Less intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.01), a trend toward a longer operation time (P = 0.09) and a lower peri-operative blood transfusion rate (P = 0.06) were observed in the LPS group. A similar number of lymph nodes were retrieved (P = 0.37) and the R1 resection rate (P = 0.51) was no different in the two groups. The overall mortality rate was 1.4%. The overall morbidity rate was 21.4% (15/70 patients) in the LPS group and 27.5% (19/70 patients) in the open group (P = 0.42), with anastomotic leakage rates of 7.1% and 4.2% (P = 0.32). Length of stay was shorter after LPS (P = 0.009). Five-year overall survival rate (P = 0.18) and disease-free survival rate (P = 0.20) did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic treatment of T4 colon cancer is safe and feasible and provides a similar surgical and oncological outcome compared with the open technique.