Factors associated with anastomotic recurrence after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients

The impact of surgical volume on outcomes in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients receiving definitive surgeries

Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who receive cancer surgeries from higher-volume providers may have better outcomes. However, the definitions of surgical volume may affect the results. We aim to analyze the effects of different definitions of surgical volume on patient outcomes. We conducted a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan that enrolled all patients who underwent definitive surgery for newly diagnosed CRC. We used three common definitions of surgical volume: total volume means the total surgical number conducted by the same provider during the study period; cumulative volume was calculated as the number of operations the surgeon performed before the index procedure; annual volume was calculated as the number of times the surgeon had been responsible for surgery during the index year. In this study, we included 100,009 newly diagnosed CRC patients, including 55.8% males, of median age 66 years at diagnosis (range 20-105 years). After adjustment for the patient and provider characteristics, we found that CRC patients receiving definitive surgery by higher-volume providers had better outcomes, especially where surgeon volume may play a more important role than hospital volume. The cumulative volume could predict the 5-year mortality of the study cohort better than the total and annual volume.

Novel and Innovative Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Uncommon Resections, Local Interventions for Pelvic Reoccurrence, and Intraoperative Radiation Therapy

The frequency of recurrent rectal cancer has dropped significantly with improved surgical approaches and adjunctive therapies. These recurrences have proven challenging to obtain R0 resection with salvage operations. Meticulous planning, clear understanding of anatomy with imaging, and multispecialty support have become essential in local control and long-term survival with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Technical considerations and prognosis indicators along with role of intraoperative radiation or boost radiation are discussed within.

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence after radical surgical treatment

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Recurrence of rectal cancer affects from 4% to even 50% of patients after surgical treatment. The incidence may be influenced by numerous factors depending on the patient, the characteristics of the tumor and the type and quality of the surgical technique used.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence, identify potential risk factors and role of patient surveillance after primary resection of rectal cancer.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> The study comprised patients operated on due to recurrence of rectal cancer at the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery of Medical University of Lodz between 2014 and 2020, who were in the follow-up program at the hospital's outpatient clinic after the primary surgery. Risk factors for disease recurrence were sought by analyzing the characteristics of the primary tumor, treatment history and postoperative care.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Twenty-nine patients were included in the study, the majority (51.7%) of the patients were men. The largest group was represented by patients with stage II and III disease. The most frequently performed primary surgery was low anterior resection (LAR) (62.8%). 35% of patients received neoadjuvant treatment prior to primary surgery. We demonstrated that the lack of neoadjuvant treatment before primary surgery increases the risk of cancer recurrence nine times. Higher stage of disease at the point of primary surgery is associated with nearly seven times the risk of recurrence compared to stage I disease.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Optimal preoperative staging, reasonable neoadjuvant treatment, proper surgical technique and precise follow-up regimen are essential for further improvement of rectal cancer outcomes.</br>.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

The Impact of Narrow and Infiltrated Distal Margin After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer on Patients' Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered imperative for good prognosis. In this article, the authors systematically reviewed all published literature with specific Mesh terms until the end of year 2019. Thereafter, retrieved articles were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis was conducted comparing local recurrence among 1-cm, 5-mm, and narrow (< 1-mm)/infiltrated margins. Thirty-nine articles were included in the study. Macroscopic distal margin < 1 cm carried a higher incidence of recurrence for those who did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, without affecting neither estimated overall nor disease-free survival. Less than 5-mm margin after radiation therapy is accepted oncologically. Infiltrated margins and narrow margins (< 1 mm) microscopically are associated with higher incidence of local recurrence and shorter overall and disease-free survival. Surgeons should aim at 1-cm safety margin in radiotherapy-naïve patients and microscopic free margin > 1 mm for those who received neoadjuvant therapy. The cost/benefit of reoperation for patients with infiltrated margins is still inadequately studied.

Is a Distal Resection Margin of ≤ 1 cm Safe in Patients with Intermediate- to Low-Lying Rectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is generally accepted that the distal resection margin of intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer should be greater than 2 cm and at least 1 cm in special cases. This study intends to investigate whether a distal resection margin ≤ 1 cm affects tumor outcomes for patients with intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Sixteen studies included data for distal resection margins ≤ 1 cm (1684 cases) and > 1 cm (5877 cases), and 5 studies included survival data. Meta-analysis was used to compare the local recurrence rate and long-term survival of patients with distal resection margins > or ≤ 1 cm.

RESULTS

The local recurrence rate in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (9.5%) was 2.3% higher than that in the > 1-cm margin group (7.2%) according to a fixed-effects model (RR [95% CI] 1.42 [1.18, 1.70], P < 0.001). The overall survival results of the five 1-cm margin studies showed an HR (95% CI) of 0.96 (0.75, 1.24) (P = 0.78). Subgroup analysis showed that the local recurrence rate in the subgroup with perioperative treatment was 1.2% lower in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (8.3%) than in the > 1-cm margin group (9.5%) (RR [95% CI] 0.97 [0.63, 1.49], P = 0.90). In the surgery alone subgroup, the local recurrence rate was 4.7% higher in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (12.4%) than in the > 1-cm group (7.7%) (RR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.09, 2.83], P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer undergoing surgery alone, a distal resection margin ≤ 1 cm may be not safe.

Intraoperative adverse events as a risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer after resection surgery

AIM

Failure to achieve a radical resection as well as intraoperative rectal perforation are important risk factors for local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, but the importance of other intraoperative adverse events for the prognosis is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events during rectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether these were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was undertaken, including all patients in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, who had undergone primary resection surgery for rectal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Data were retrieved from the registry and through review of the medical records.

RESULTS

In total, 1208 patients were included in the study of whom 78 (6%) developed local recurrence during the follow-up period of at least 5 years. Intraoperative adverse events were common and occurred in 62/78 (79%) of patients with local recurrence compared to 604/1130 (53%) of patients without local recurrence. In multivariate analysis intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer, as were nonradical resection, a high pathological T stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, type of surgery and refraining from rectal washout during anterior resection and Hartmann's procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer and could possibly be used together with other known risk factors to select patients for intensified postoperative surveillance.

Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery

Background

Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined.

Methods

Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity‐score matching on baseline features was performed.

Results

Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5‐year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity‐score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5‐year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusions

When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.

Impact of the distal resection margin on local recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and rectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer

We aimed to evaluate whether a short distal resection margin (< 1 cm) was associated with local recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by curative surgery were divided into two groups based on the distal resection margin (≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm). In total, 507 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up duration was 48.9 months. The 3-year local recurrence rates were 2% and 8% in the ≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that a distal resection margin of < 1 cm was a significant risk factor for local recurrence (P = 0.008). Subgroup analysis revealed that a distal resection margin of < 1 cm was not an independent risk factor for local recurrence in the ypT0-1 group. However, among patients with tumor stages ypT2-4, the cumulative 3-year incidences of local recurrence were 2.3% and 9.8% in the ≥ 1 cm and < 1 cm groups, respectively (P = 0.01). A distal resection margin of < 1 cm might influence local recurrence rates in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy, especially in patients with tumor stages ypT2-4.

Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing right hemicolectomy using laparoscopic or robotic approaches and perform a cost analysis. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomies at a public and private hospital in NSW/QLD from January 2015 to June 2018. Cost analysis was calculated using actual and estimated costs by the local health district. A total of 101 patients were identified. 59 (58%) had Robotic resection, of which 44 (75%) had an intra-corporeal anastomosis. There were no demographic or oncological differences between the two groups. The robotic group had a significantly earlier time to bowels opening (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.001). The robotic group had a lower rate of ileus (2% vs 14%, p = 0.02) and complications (5% vs 33%, p = 0.006). The mean lymph node harvest was higher in the robotic group (18 vs 14, p = 0.001). The operative time was longer in the robotic group (110 vs 97 min, p = 0.021). The total instrument costs of robotic surgery were A$2565.37 compared with $1507.50 for laparoscopic surgery. The cost of bed days was A$1167.00/day. The average difference in cost of care was calculated as A$1276.13 and A$464.43 less in the robotic with intra-corporeal and extra-corporeal anastomosis, respectively. Patients have significantly faster return to bowel function and shorter length of stay after Robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and experience fewer complications. This difference in length of stay may make robotic right hemicolectomies more cost effective.

Dual modal spectroscopic tissue scanner for colorectal cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Margin status is an important prognostic factor for treating colorectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of a multimodal spectroscopic tissue scanner for real-time cancer diagnosis without tissue staining.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Diffuse reflectance spectra (DRS) and fluorescence spectra (FS) of < 1-mm-sized paired cancer and normal mucosa tissue were acquired using custom-built spectroscopic tissue scanners. For FS, we analyzed wavelengths and intensities at peaks and highest intensities near (± 1.25 nm) the known fluorescence spectral peaks of collagen (380 nm), reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH, 460 nm), and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD, 550 nm). For DRS, we performed a similar analysis near the peaks of strong absorbers, oxyhemoglobin (oxyHb; 414 nm, 540 nm, and 576 nm) and deoxyhemoglobin (deoxyHb; 432 nm and 556 nm). Logistic regression analysis for these parameters was performed in the testing set.

RESULTS

We acquired 17,735 spectra of cancer tissues and 9438 of normal tissues from 30 patients. Intensity peaks of representative normal spectra for FS and DRS were higher than those of representative cancer spectra. Logistic regression analysis showed wavelength and intensity at peaks, and the intensities of the peak wavelength of NADH, FAD, deoxyHb, and oxyHb had significant coefficients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.927. The scanner had 100%, 64.3%, and 85.3% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The spectroscopic tissue scanner has high sensitivity and accuracy and provides real-time intraoperative resection margin assessments and should be further investigated as an alternative to frozen section.

Development of the 'PREDICT' score through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive parameters for locoregional recurrence after total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Despite robust management techniques, locoregional recurrence rates of rectal cancer are still significant. Although offering intensive follow-up has been shown to be beneficial in the early detection, it can be resource consuming. Having a robust knowledge of risk factors of locoregional recurrence will help in identification of patients who actually need intensive follow-up programs. This review aimed to identify the factors that can predict locoregional recurrence after Total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane for relevant articles with no date restrictions while language was restricted to English. We only included articles that had either provided Hazards ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) or provided enough data that allowed calculation of HR/OR specifically for rectal cancer. Articles were deemed eligible if they included patients undergoing (TME).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (18,605 patients) published between 2002 and 2019 were included. A total of 699 patients developed locoregional recurrence at a median time of 25.2 months after surgery. There were eight significant predictors evaluated by more than one study; T3-T4 stage, circumferential resection margin, lymphovascular invasion, mucinous histology, N1-N2 stage, positive distal resection margin, Tumor < 5 cm from anal verge, and lack of neoadjuvant radiotherapy. A scoring system was developed based on the weight and pooled OR/HR of each predictor.

CONCLUSION

Using predictive factors identified in our review in context of scoring system may help in the early detection of locoregional recurrence after TME. This may help in tailoring the application of intensive follow-up programs.

Clinical factors affecting the distal margin in rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

In rectal cancer surgery, an insufficient distal margin (DM) is associated with a high risk of local recurrence, whereas an excessive DM will cause low anterior resection syndrome, impairing quality of life. This study aimed to identify the factors that affect the distance between the colorectal resection site and the tumor to optimize achieving the correct DM.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were 219 patients who underwent resection for primary rectal cancer in our department between January 2006 and July 2014. According to Japanese guidelines, DM (rDM) was based on the tumor location, but the pathological DM (pDM) was measured from surgical specimens. The patients were divided into two groups: the pDM-less-than-rDM group (pDM < rDM) and the pDM-greater-or-equal-to-rDM group (pDM ≥ DM). The factors associated with the DM in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

In the pDM < rDM group, the tumor distance from the anal verge was shorter (p = 0.001) and significantly more patients underwent laparotomy (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

The DM tended to be shorter than that planned by the surgeon in patients with lower rectal cancers and those treated by laparotomy,; therefore, when performing rectal resection, care must be taken to ensure that the pDM is not shorter than the rDM.

Photodynamic therapy as salvage therapy for residual microscopic cancer after ultra-low anterior resection: A case report

BACKGROUND

The rate of positive resection margins (R1) in patients with low rectal cancer is substantial. Recommended remedies such as extended resection or chemoradiotherapy have their own serious drawbacks. It has been reported that photodynamic therapy (PDT) as a remedial treatment for esophageal cancer. Colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer has many similarities, however, PDT as a salvage therapy for rectal cancer is rare.

CASE SUMMARY

Here, we describe a 56-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital due to a 6-mo history of hemafecia, which had been aggravated for 1 mo. Colonoscopy revealed a 3 × 4 cm ulcerated mass in the rectum 4 cm from the anus. Preoperative pathological examination showed villous adenoma, moderate-to-high-grade dysplasia, good differentiation, and invasion of the mucosal muscle. The patient had R1 after ultra-low anterior resection, but he refused extended resection and experienced severe liver function impairment after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. Ultimately, the patient underwent PDT to remove R1. After five years of follow-up, there was no liver function impairment, recurrence, metastasis, sexual dysfunction, or abnormal defecation function.

CONCLUSION

This is the first case worldwide in which R1 of rectal cancer were successfully treated by PDT.

Rectal cancer MRI: protocols, signs and future perspectives radiologists should consider in everyday clinical practice

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows to non-invasively evaluate rectal cancer staging and to assess the presence of “prognostic signs” such as the distance from the anorectal junction, the mesorectal fascia infiltration and the extramural vascular invasion. Moreover, MRI plays a crucial role in the assessment of treatment response after chemo-radiation therapy, especially considering the growing interest in the new conservative policy (wait and see, minimally invasive surgery). We present a practical overview regarding the state of the art of the MRI protocol, the main signs that radiologists should consider for their reports during their clinical activity and future perspectives.

Teaching Points

• MRI protocol for rectal cancer staging and re-staging.

• MRI findings that radiologists should consider for reports during everyday clinical activity.

• Perspectives regarding the development of latest technologies.

[The Short-term Outcome and Safety of Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection in Very Elderly Patients]

Background/Aims

Due to the recent increase in elderly population, laparoscopic surgery is more frequently performed in the elderly. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery between the very elderly group (VEG), categorized as those with age over 80 years and the elderly group (EG), categorized as those with age 65 to 79 years.

Methods

We retrospectively compared 48 very elderly patients with 96 elderly patients (1:2 matched) who underwent laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancers at our institution between March 2010 and December 2014. The clinicopathologic parameters, surgical characteristics and short term outcomes were compared.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in clinicopathologic characteristics between VEG and EG. Postoperative pain score (7 points vs. 6 points, p=0.264), time to first flatus (3 days vs. 3 days, p=0.335), hospital stay (15 days vs. 16.5 days, p=0.361), complication rates (47.9% vs. 26.0%, p=0.147) and major complication rate (25% vs. 20.8%, p=0.681) were not statistically different between the two groups. Before surgery, VEG had higher rate of neurologic underlying disease, such as dementia or cerebrovascular disease, than EG (25.0% vs. 7.3%, p=0.007).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in the clinicopathologic characteristics, short-term outcomes, and complication rates for laparoscopic colorectal resection between VEG and EG, except delirium. Age over 80 years may be relevant for the application of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

Anastomotic Recurrence After Curative Resection for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

A precise understanding of anastomotic recurrence (AR) permits efficient surveillance and treatment strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with AR undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer (CRC), compare colonic with rectal tumors and investigate the risk factors related to AR.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective cohort of 9024 patients who underwent curative surgery for CRC between 2000 and 2010 was enrolled. Patients were classified into AR group (n = 53) or non-AR group (n = 8971) and were also characterized by tumor location.

RESULTS

The AR group was independently associated with old age (p = 0.046), advanced N stage (p = 0.003), the rectum (p = 0.001), a large tumor (p = 0.001) and mucinous differentiation (MU) (p = 0.026). In colon cancers, the AR group (n = 20) was independently associated with MU (p = 0.022) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (p = 0.001). In rectal cancers, the AR group (n = 33) was independently associated with N2 stage (p = 0.007) and a large tumor (p < 0.001). AR is a burden to patients and physicians because these tumors have a poor prognosis and more advanced pathologic stages than the primary tumors. However, N0 stage and curative resection of an AR tumor (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively) were found to be independently associated with improved survival in a Cox regression model.

CONCLUSION

AR is independently associated with the rectum. In colon cancers, MU and LVI are independent risk factors for AR. In rectal cancers, a large tumor and N2 stage are independent risk factors for AR. Although AR shows a poor prognosis, early detection and curative resection may lead to an improved survival.

A Distal Resection Margin of ≤1 mm and Rectal Cancer Recurrence After Sphincter-Preserving Surgery: The Role of a Positive Distal Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

There is little information about the prognostic value of a microscopically positive distal margin in patients who have rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the influence of a distal margin of ≤1 mm on oncologic outcomes after sphincter-preserving resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 2 hospitals.

PATIENTS

A total of 6574 patients underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer from January 1999 to December 2014; 97 (1.5%) patients with a distal margin of ≤1 mm were included in this study. For comparative analyses, patients were matched with 194 patients with a negative distal margin (>1 mm) according to sex, age, BMI, ASA score, neoadjuvant treatment, tumor location, and stage.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The oncologic outcomes of the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Perineural and lymphovascular invasion rates were significantly higher in patients with a positive distal margin (54.6% vs 28.9%; 67.0% vs 42.8%; both p < 0.001) compared with to patients with negative distal margin. Comparison between microscopically positive and negative distal margin showed worse oncologic outcomes in patients with a microscopically positive distal margin, including 5-year local recurrence rate (24.1% vs 12.0%, p = 0.005); 5-year distant recurrence rate (35.5% vs 20.2%, p = 0.011); 5-year disease-free survival (45.5% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001); and 5-year OS (69.2% vs 79.7%, p = 0.004). Among the 97 patients with a microscopically positive distal margin, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was higher in patients who received adjuvant therapy (52.0% vs 30.7%, p = 0.089).

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective study; bias may exist.

CONCLUSIONS

A distal margin of 1 mm is associated with worse oncologic results. Our data indicate the importance of achieving a clear distal margin in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Adjuvant therapy should be used in these patients to reduce recurrence. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A408.

10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Only few studies have compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) for rectal cancer with follow-up longer than 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes after LTME and OTME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME or OTME. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

Between April 1994 and August 2005, a total of 153 LTME patients and 154 OTME patients were included. Similarly, 10-year OS and DFS after LTME and OTME were observed: 76.8 versus 70.6 % (P = 0.138) and 69.1 versus 67.6 % (P = 0.508), respectively. Conversion to OTME did not adversely affect OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between LTME and OTME. No significant differences were observed in local recurrence rates after LTME and OTME (6.5 vs. 7.8 %, P = 0.837). Median time until local recurrence was 24.5 (range, 12-56) months after LTME and 22 (6-64) months after OTME (P = 0.777). Poor tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node ratio of 0.25 or more were the independent predictors of poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study with long follow-up did not show significant differences between the two groups in OS and DFS.

Role of intraoperative frozen section for assessing distal resection margin after anterior resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT), shorter distal safety margins (DSMs) and stapled or intersphincteric resections has increased sphincter preservation rates. While intraoperative frozen section (IOFS) is not mandatory, it helps achieve negative distal resection margins (DRMs). Our aim was to audit the role of IOFS for DRM assessment while performing sphincter-saving rectal surgery and to identify those subgroups that would benefit the most from IOFS analysis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between 2009 and 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients who intraoperatively underwent an IOFS for DRM assessment were included in the study. Factors associated with a positive margin on IOFS were analysed. The sensitivity and specificity of IOFS were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 250 patients, who had an anterior resection with an IOFS, 12 had an involved DRM. Of these patients, eight were involved by adenocarcinoma, two by acellular mucin, one by moderate dysplasia and one by adenoma confirmed on paraffin section. Positive margins had a 100 % intervention rate. There were two false negative on IOFS. IOFS had a sensitivity of 85.17 % with a specificity of 100 % and a negative predictive value of 99.16 %. Specimens with a positive IOFS were lower rectal (P < 0.05), poorly differentiated and post LCRT locally advanced tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

IOFS to confirm negative DRM is recommended in lower rectal tumours irrespective of DSM. It can be considered for locally advanced post LCRT poorly differentiated mid rectal tumours and avoided for upper rectal tumours.

Rectal cancer: a review

Rectal cancer is the second most common cancer in large intestine. The prevalence and the number of young patients diagnosed with rectal cancer have made it as one of the major health problems in the world. With regard to the improved access to and use of modern screening tools, a number of new cases are diagnosed each year. Considering the location of the rectum and its adjacent organs, management and treatment of rectal tumor is different from tumors located in other parts of the gastrointestinal tract or even the colon. In this article, we will review the current updates on rectal cancer including epidemiology, risk factors, clinical presentations, screening, and staging. Diagnostic methods and latest treatment modalities and approaches will also be discussed in detail.

The adequacy of the distal resection margin after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

AIM

The study aimed to determine the adequacy of the distal margin in patients having preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by restorative surgery for rectal cancer.

METHOD

A total of 368 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated for cure at our institution between July 1999 and March 2009 were included in the study. All underwent preoperative CRT and sphincter-sparing surgery. The distal margin and other factors were examined for their effect on recurrence and survival. The median duration of follow-up was 48 months.

RESULTS

The length of distal margin ranged from 0 to 9.0 cm (median 1.5 cm). The pelvic control and disease-free survival rates at 5 years for patients with a margin of ≤ 3 mm were no different from those in whom it was > 3 mm (P = 0.6 and 0.8). The 5-year pelvic control rates between the ≤ 3 mm and > 3 mm groups were 66.7 and 86.2% in patients with a ypT3-4 tumour (P = 0.049) and 70.0 and 89.1% in patients who showed no response to CRT (P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a distal margin of < 3 mm in the surgical specimen after preoperative CRT is associated with a lower rate of pelvic tumour control at 5 years in patients with Stage ypT3-4 tumours or in those who do not respond to CRT.

Post-chemoradiation anastomotic recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer: no increased risk associated with distal margin

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Anastomotic recurrence after radical sphincter-preserving surgery preceded by neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer is an uncommon event that merits further assessment. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of preoperative chemoradiation on the risk of anastomotic recurrence. Based on the initial extension of the tumor, we analyzed whether the distal surgical section was calculated through the virtual initial extension of the rectal tumor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were offered preoperative chemoradiation, sphincter sparing surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy boost.

RESULTS

180 patients were treated with anterior resection (40 %), low anterior resection (45.6 %) and ultra-low anterior resection (14.4 %). With a median follow-up of 41.1 months (0.36-143 months), anastomotic recurrence was diagnosed in 9 patients (5 %). There was no statistical correlation with downstaging (T or N), downsizing effects, or with distance from the lower limit of the residual lesion to the distal margin. Virtual intratumoral surgical section was speculated in 44 patients (3 developed anastomotic recurrence; 6.8 vs 4.8 %, p = 0.482).

CONCLUSION

Anastomotic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation is an infrequent event. Virtual intratumoral surgical sections followed by anastomosis do not contribute to an excessive risk of recurrence. Our findings encourage the development of policies for preservation of the ano-rectal complex in rectal cancer patients.

Altering the therapeutic paradigm towards a distal bowel margin of < 1 cm in patients with low-lying rectal cancer: a systematic review and commentary

AIM

The 1-cm rule of distal bowel clearance in patients with low-lying rectal cancer undergoing anterior resection is based mainly on pathological data showing distal intramural spread. Because clinical data are contradictory, a review that includes only cancers located ≤ 5 or ≤ 6 cm from the anal verge was carried out.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature identified seven studies that presented results in relation to a margin of ≤ 1 cm (n = 293) vs > 1 cm (n = 315). In six studies, pre- or postoperative radiotherapy was implemented, and in one study patients were treated with surgery alone. Three studies, all implementing radiotherapy, reported results related to a margin of ≤ 5 mm (n = 51) vs > 5 mm (n = 125).

RESULTS

In none of the studies were the differences in local recurrence rate between the small and large margin groups statistically significant. The pooled analysis of six studies, in which patients received perioperative radiotherapy, showed a 1.2% [95% confidence interval (Cl) -4.5-7.0%] higher local recurrence rate in the ≤ 1 cm margin group compared with the > 1 cm margin group (P = 0.6). The corresponding figures for the ≤ 5 mm cut-off point were 0.5% (95% CI -7.6-8.7%, P = 0.9). The 5-year local recurrence rate in the only study in which radiotherapy had not been used was 8.6% higher in the ≤ 1 cm margin group compared with the > 1 cm margin group (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Clinical evidence does not support the 1-cm rule in patients with low-lying rectal cancer undergoing pre- or postoperative radiotherapy.

Preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen predicts poor tumor response and frequent distant recurrence for patients with rectal cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision: a multi-institutional analysis in an Asian population

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the significance of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level as a predictor for tumor response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and a prognosticator for survival in Asian patients with advanced rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 345 patients with primary rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative CRT and total mesorectal excision. We analyzed clinicopathological factors that could be associated with pathologically complete response (ypCR) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

A cutoff level of 5 ng/mL (p = 0.002) for CEA was found to be significant for prediction of ypCR. Increased CEA level (p = 0.025) was a significant negative predictor of ypCR after CRT in patients with rectal cancer. The 5-year DFS rate was significantly higher in the CEA ≤5-ng/mL group than in the CEA >5-ng/mL group (73.2 vs. 60.9 %, p = 0.002). This is mainly due to the higher chance of distant recurrence (p = 0.013), not locoregional recurrence (p = 0.732), in the CEA >5-ng/mL group.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated CEA (>5 ng/mL) is a negative predictor of ypCR and has a negative impact on DFS in Asian rectal cancer patients who underwent preoperative CRT and surgery due to an increased chance of distant recurrences.

Sphincter-preserving surgery after preoperative radiochemotherapy for T3 low rectal cancers

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and the effectiveness of preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) and sphincter-preserving procedures for T3 low rectal cancer. Patients with rectal cancer and T3 tumors located within 1-6 cm of the dentate line received preoperative radiochemotherapy. Concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based radiochemotherapy was used. Radical resection with TME and sphincter-preserving procedures were performed during the six to eight weeks following radiotherapy. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The anal function was evaluated using the Wexner score. The clinical response rate was 83.5%, overall downstaging of T classification was 75.3% and pathological complete response was 15.3%. The anastomotic fistula rate was 4.7%. A median follow-up of 30 months showed the local recurrence rate to be 4.7% and the distant metastasis rate to be 5.9%. The three-year overall survival rate was 87%. The degree of anal incontinence as measured using the Wexner score decreased over time, and the anal sphincter function in the majority of patients gradually improved. Preoperative radiochemotherapy was found to improve tumor downstaging, reduces local recurrence, increase the sphincter preservation rate, and is therefore of benefit to patients with T3 low rectal cancer.

Acceptance of a 5-mm distal bowel resection margin for rectal cancer: is it safe?

AIM

Acceptance of a short distal bowel margin results in a higher rate of anterior resection but may compromise oncological safety. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of a 5-mm distal margin.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was carried out of 412 consecutive patients with rectal cancer treated with anterior resection with a negative circumferential resection margin. Radiotherapy was given to 63% of patients with an advanced tumour. The median follow up was 75 months.

RESULTS

Fewer patients in the group with a distal margin of ≤ 5 mm had a tumour with an advanced pT stage compared to patients in the group with a distal margin of > 5 mm (P = 0.033). Two patients were converted to abdominoperineal resection because of a positive 'doughnut', leaving 410 patients, in whom 5.4% (95% CI, 0-11.3%) of the group with a distal margin of ≤ 5 mm had local recurrence at 5 years compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 2.1-6.3%) of the group with a distal margin of > 5 mm (P = 0.726). The corresponding figures for the 5-year overall survival were 82.4% (95% CI, 72.6-92.2%) vs 76.3% (95% CI, 71.8-80.8%) (P = 0.581). All four anastomotic recurrences occurred in the group with a distal margin of > 5 mm.

CONCLUSION

A distal margin of ≤ 5 mm did not compromise oncological safety in patients undergoing preoperative radiation for an advanced rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: actual status

Neoadjuvant (preoperative) concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has become a standard treatment of locally advanced rectal adenocarcinomas. The clinical stages II (cT3-4, N0, M0) and III (cT1-4, N+, M0) according to International Union Against Cancer (IUCC) are concerned. It can reduce tumor volume and subsequently lead to an increase in complete resections (R0 resections), shows less toxicity, and improves local control rate. The aim of this review is to summarize actual approaches, main problems, and discrepancies in the treatment of locally advanced rectal adenocarcinomas.

Is the 1-cm rule of distal bowel resection margin in rectal cancer based on clinical evidence? A systematic review

Background

Distal intramural spread is present within 1 cm from visible tumor in a substantial proportion of patients. Therefore, ≥1 cm of distal bowel clearance is recommended as minimally acceptable. However, clinical results are contradictory in answering the question of whether this rule is valid. The aim of this review was to evaluate whether in patients undergoing anterior resection, a distal bowel gross margin of <1 cm jeopardizes oncologic safety.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature identified 17 studies showing results in relation to margins of approximately <1 cm (948 patients) versus >1 cm (4626 patients); five studies in relation to a margin of ≤5 mm (173 patients) versus >5 mm (1277 patients), and five studies showing results in a margin of ≤2 mm (73 patients). In most studies, pre- or postoperative radiation was provided.

Results

A multifactorial process was identified resulting in selection of favorable tumors for anterior resection with the short bowel margin and unfavorable tumors for abdominoperineal resection or for anterior resection with the long margin. In total, the local recurrence rate was 1.0% higher in the <1-cm margin group compared to the >1-cm margin group (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.6 to 2.7; P = 0.175). The corresponding figures for ≤5 mm cutoff point were 1.7% (95% CI −1.9 to 5.3; P = 0.375). The pooled local recurrence rate in patients having ≤2 mm margin was 2.7% (95% CI 0 to 6.4).

Conclusions

In the selected group of patients, <1 cm margin did not jeopardize oncologic safety.

Can radiotherapy alone be effective for treating anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer? When the patient decides?

Among pelvic recurrences of rectal cancer following surgical resection, anastomotic recurrences are relatively rare; the literature reports an incidence between 2.4% and 12% of all patients who underwent colorectal anastomosis. The authors report the case of a patient already treated for an early rectal cancer who 1 year after surgery developed a 2 cm recurrence at the colorectal anastomosis. As he refused reoperation, he underwent radiation therapy only (54 Gy) with complete remission. After 8 years of follow-up, the patient is free of any further distant or local recurrence. The authors did not find, to the best of their knowledge, in the literature any similar case of a patient with anastomotic rectal recurrence who has been positively treated by radiotherapy only. The authors focus on its diagnostic and therapeutic problems: although surgical reresection is undoubtedly the best therapeutic option, in the case reported here, radiotherapy alone proved effective.

Close distal margin and rectal cancer recurrence after sphincter-preserving rectal resection

PURPOSE

Negative surgical margins are important for local control of rectal cancer treated with sphincter-preserving surgery. However, the association of rectal cancer recurrence with close distal margin is not well established.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a prospective database of patients collected between 1991 and 2003. Included were 627 patients who underwent curative low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer 2 to 12 cm from the anal verge. Three hundred ninety-nine patients received neoadjuvant therapy, 65 received postoperative adjuvant therapy alone, and 163 were treated with surgery alone. Median follow-up was 5.8 years.

RESULTS

On multivariable analysis, overall recurrence was associated with pathologic stage, lymphovascular invasion, and distal margin. Mucosal recurrence was uncommon; only 16 events were recorded, and of those only 8 were at the initial site of isolated tumor recurrence; 7 of the 8 were surgically salvaged. On univariable analysis, mucosal recurrence was associated with close distal margin (5 vs 2% at 5 y) and lymphovascular invasion (7 vs 2%). Pelvic recurrence, other than isolated mucosal recurrence, was associated with distal location (6 vs 4% at 5 y) and lymphovascular invasion (11 vs 4%). Distal margin as a continuous variable was associated with overall recurrence (excluding isolated mucosal recurrence).

CONCLUSIONS

Close distal resection margin identifies patients with increased risk of mucosal and overall cancer recurrence. Although neither causality nor a minimally acceptable margin length can be defined, the data support the importance of achieving a clear distal resection margin in the surgical management of rectal cancer.

Current evidence-based opinions in the management of adenocarcionoma of the rectum

The management of rectal cancer has drastically evolved over the past two decades as a result of implementation of circular stapling devices and the introduction of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In spite of current aggressive multimodality treatments, the recurrence rate remains unacceptably high and the expected 5-year survival in patients who develop recurrent disease is dismal. The management of rectal cancer must involve a multidisciplinary approach. An understanding of the biology of rectal tumours may allow for selection of patients who may have an aggressive phenotype allowing for alterations in the operative and neoadjuvant planning. Efforts to improve local control and survival in rectal cancer are the focus of multiple current clinical and preclinical research efforts. Preoperative chemoradiation for and surgical management of rectal cancer, including the laparoscopic approach are areas of dynamic progression. In the present report, we review the current evidence in the new strategies pertaining to the multimodality approach in the management of rectal cancer.

Management of recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Here we present a concise review on the evaluation and management of locally recurrent rectal cancer, which despite marked reductions in the rate of recurrent rectal cancer remains an important problem.

METHODS

This educational review discusses the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of recurrent rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Despite improvements in both the neoadjuvant and surgical management of rectal cancer, local recurrence is still an important problem, with documented recurrence rates of 4% to 8%. The local management of recurrence requires a team of specialist. Accurate detection and diagnosis followed by chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection may result in 5-year survival rates of up to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Locally recurrent rectal cancer can be successfully managed with multimodal therapy leading to successful palliation and often cure.