Preservation of bowel and urinary continence in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer

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.

Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer in a decision analysis and outcome prediction model

PURPOSE

Reduction of local recurrences has been achieved by radiotherapy, but also by improved surgical technique (total mesorectal excision). Radiotherapy has adverse effects and cannot exceed local dose limits. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy may result in overtreatment. We aimed to define the minimum local benefit that would have to be postulated for radiotherapy in order to bring a benefit to the overall cohort. We hypothesized that saving radiotherapy as treatment for a subset of patients with high-risk tumors and local recurrences improves the outcome of the overall cohort. We sought to simulate preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in theoretical decision analysis model based on published recurrence rates, with overall survival being the primary end point.

METHODS

Computerized literature search for studies published between 1996 and 2011, supplemented by manual review of the retrieved reference lists.

RESULTS

Postoperative radiotherapy evolved as preferred strategy with cure rates of 65.6 % vs. 63.7 % for postoperative and neoadjuvant radiotherapy, respectively, and a decrease of radiation exposure to 42.9 % of the cohort. The system was sensitive to (1) the fraction of stage I cancers included in the cohort, (2) the difference between local recurrence rates (LRR) for neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, or surgery-only approach, and (3) the compliance with the postoperative radiotherapy. If the surgery-only recurrence was set to the published 10 %, 13 %, and 27 %, respectively, adjuvant radiotherapy had to achieve LRR below the threshold values of 6.3 %, 8.5 %, and 18.3 % to reverse the impact of compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy only improves cancer-specific survival of the cohort if there is a large difference in LRR with versus without it. Routine treatment may therefore be inferior to a tailored radiotherapy regimen.

The health-related quality of life in long-term colorectal cancer survivors study: objectives, methods and patient sample

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to describe the complex mixed-methods design of a study conducted to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and ostomy-related obstacles and adjustments among long-term (>5 years) colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with ostomies (cases) and without ostomies (controls). In addition, details are provided regarding the study sample and the psychometric properties of the quantitative data collection measures used. Subsequent manuscripts will present the study findings.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design involved a cross-sectional mail survey for collecting quantitative data and focus groups for collecting qualitative data. The study subjects were individuals identified as long-term CRC survivors within a community-based health maintenance organization's enrolled population. Focus groups comprised of cases were conducted. The groups were divided by gender and HRQOL high and low quartile contrasts (based on the mail survey data).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The modified City of Hope Quality of Life (mCOH-QOL)-Ostomy and SF-36v2 questionnaires were used in the mail survey. An abridged version of the mCOH-QOL-Ostomy was used for the control subjects. Focus groups explored ostomy-related barriers to self-care, adaptation methods/skills, and advice for others with an ostomy.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 52% (679/1308) and 34 subjects participated in focus groups. The internal consistency reliability estimates for the mCOH-QOL-Ostomy and SF-36v2 questionnaires were very acceptable for group comparisons. In addition, evidence supports the construct validity of the abridged version of the mCOH-QOL-Ostomy. Study limitations include potential non-response bias and limited minority participation.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to successfully recruit long-term CRC survivors into this study and the psychometric properties of the quantitative measures used were quite acceptable. Mixed-methods designs, such as the one used in this study, may be useful in identification and further elucidation of common problems, coping strategies, and HRQOL outcomes among long-term cancer survivors.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with advanced rectal cancer

The chance of lymph node involvement in T(3) and T(4) rectal cancers is 20% to 60%, a risk sufficiently high that most clinicians favor mesorectal excision rather than less aggressive approaches. Patients who have a complete clinical response of the primary lesions to neoadjuvant therapy may represent a special case. Total mesorectal excision can be accomplished without sacrifice of the anal sphincters, and continence can be preserved. Evolving understanding of patterns of tumor spread and mechanisms of anal continence have resulted in increased use of continence-preserving procedures. Removal of the anal sphincters seems to be advantageous only if the sphincters are directly involved. A few small series suggest that a segmental sphincter resection could result in good local control and continence preservation, even if the sphincters are involved. Areas of controversy currently include the role of neoadjuvant therapy for high rectal lesions, the role of lateral lymph node dissection, and methods of improving anal continence after rectal resection.

Palliation of colorectal cancer

Patients with advanced incurable colorectal cancer (CRC) face a grim prognosis. The goal of palliative intervention is directed at alleviating disease-related symptoms and improving quality of life. The provision of optimal palliative care for these patients is a compound and demanding process. This dilemma becomes more challenging when patients with advanced metastatic colorectal disease present with an incurable and asymptomatic primary lesion. Treatment options are numerous and include a variety of surgical and nonsurgical interventions. Most data regarding the role of surgery in palliation of CRC are from retrospective, nonrandomized case series. Surgical resection may provide good palliation of symptoms and prevent future tumor-related complications. Metal stents are also able to provide good palliative relief of obstruction and should be used when appropriate. The best palliative care will often require a multidisciplinary approach that involves input from surgical and nonsurgical teams, where treatment plans will be made in accordance with the wishes of the patient and family with a goal of decreasing morbidity and a focus on quality of life.