Salvage of pelvic recurrence of colorectal cancer

Improving Surgical Outcomes in Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: Comparison of Prone Sacrectomy With Anterior Cortical Sacrectomy Techniques

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of changing our sacrectomy approach from prone to anterior on surgical and oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND

In patients with advanced pelvic malignancy involving the sacrum, pelvic exenteration (PE) with en-bloc sacrectomy is the only potential curative option but morbidity is high. Over time sacrectomy techniques have evolved from prone sacrectomy (PS) to abdominolithotomy sacrectomy (ALS, ≤S3) and high anterior cortical sacrectomy (HACS, >S3) to optimize surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective, single institution analysis of prospectively collected data for patients undergoing PE with en-bloc sacrectomy between 1994 and 2021 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 363 patients were identified and divided into PS (n=77, 21.2%), ALS (n=247, 68.0%), and HACS (n=39, 10.7%). Indications were: locally advanced (n=92) or recurrent (n=177) rectal cancer, primary other (n=31), recurrent other (n=60), and benign disease (n=3). PS resulted in longer operating time ( P <0.01) and more blood loss ( P <0.01). Patients with HACS had more major nerve (87.2%) and vascular (25.6%) resections ( P <0.01). Vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap repair was less common following HACS (7.7%) than ALS (25.5%) and PS (27.3%) ( P =0.040). R0 rate was 80.8%, 65.8%, and 76.9% following ALS, PS, and HACS, respectively ( P =0.024). Wound-related complications and re-operations were significantly reduced following ALS and HACS compared with PS.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing our practice from PS to an anterior approach with ALS or HAS has been safe and improved overall surgical and perioperative outcomes, while maintaining good oncological outcomes. Given the improved perioperative and surgical outcomes, it would be important for surgeons to learn and adopt the anterior sacrectomy approaches.

Precision oncotherapy based on liquid biopsies in multidisciplinary treatment of unresectable recurrent rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Third line innovative systemic treatments and loco-regional chemotherapy by hypoxic pelvic perfusion (HPP) have both been proposed for the treatment of unresectable not responsive recurrent rectal cancer (URRC). In the present study, we have compared the safety and efficacy of HPP/target therapy, using drug regimens selected by liquid biopsy precision oncotherapy, to third-line systemic therapy based on tissue specimens precision oncotherapy.

Methods

HPP/target therapy regimens were selected based on precision oncotherapy, including assays for chemosensitivity and viability, and qRT-PCR for tumor-related gene expression. In the control group, systemic third-line and further lines of therapy were defined according to clinical and biological parameters.

Results

From 2007 to 2019, 62 URRC patients were enrolled, comprised of 43 patients in the HPP/target-therapy group and 19 patients in the systemic therapy control group. No HPP related complications were reported and the most common adverse events were skin and bone marrow toxicity. In the HPP/target-therapy group, the ORR was 41.8% whereas in the systemic therapy control group was 15.8%. DCR of the HPP/target-therapy group was significantly improved over the systemic therapy group (P = 0.001), associated with a PFS of 8 vs 4 months (P = 0.009), and OS of 20 vs 8 months (P = 0.046).

Conclusions

The present data indicate that in URCC patients, the integration of HPP/target-therapy and precision oncotherapy based upon liquid biopsy is as effective and efficacious as third-line treatment in local disease control and, therefore, deserves to be further assessed and compared to conventional systemic treatments in future prospective randomized trials.

Population-based study of surgical treatment with and without tumour resection in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies of treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are lacking. The aim was to investigate the surgical treatment of patients with LRRC at a national population-based level.

METHODS

All patients undergoing abdominal resection for primary rectal cancer between 1995 and 2002 in Sweden with LRRC as a first event were included. Detailed information about treatment, complications and outcomes was collected from the medical records. The patients were analysed in three groups: patients who had resection of the LRRC, those treated without tumour resection and patients who received best supportive care only.

RESULTS

In all, 426 patients were included in the study. Of these, 149 (35·0 per cent) underwent tumour resection, 193 (45·3 per cent) had treatment without tumour resection and 84 (19·7 per cent) received best supportive care. Abdominoperineal resection was the most frequent surgical procedure, performed in 65 patients (43·6 per cent of those who had tumour resection). Thirteen patients had total pelvic exenteration. In total, 63·8 per cent of those whose tumour was resected had potentially curative surgery. After tumour resection, 62 patients (41·6 per cent) had a complication within 30 days. Patients who received surgical treatment without tumour resection had a lower complication rate but a significantly higher 30-day mortality rate than those who underwent tumour resection (10 versus 1·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·002). Of all patients included in the study, 22·3 per cent had potentially curative treatment and the 3-year survival rate for these patients was 56 per cent.

CONCLUSION

LRRC is a serious condition with overall poor outcome. Patients undergoing curative surgery have an acceptable survival rate but substantial morbidity. There is room for improvement in the management of patients with LRRC.

Influence of the level of sacrectomy on survival in patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Exenterative surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer may involve partial sacrectomy to achieve complete resection. High sacrectomy is technically challenging, and can be associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the level of sacrectomy on the survival of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing exenterative abdominosacrectomy between July 2006 and June 2016. High sacrectomy was defined as resection at or above the junction of S2-S3; low sacrectomy was below the S2-S3 junction. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Predictive factors were determined using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 345 patients were identified, of whom 91 underwent high sacrectomy and 254 low sacrectomy. There was no difference in 5-year overall survival (53 versus 44·1 per cent; P = 0·216) or cancer-specific survival (60 versus 56·1 per cent; P = 0·526) between high and low sacrectomy. Negative margin rates were similar for primary and recurrent disease: 65 of 90 (72 per cent) versus 97 of 153 (63·4 per cent) (P = 0·143). Level of sacrectomy was not a significant predictor of mortality (P = 0·053). Positive resection margin and advancing age were the only significant predictors for death, with hazard ratios of 2·78 (P < 0·001) and 1·02 (P = 0·020) respectively.

CONCLUSION

There was no survival difference between patients who underwent high or low sacrectomy. In appropriately selected patients, high sacrectomy is feasible and safe.

Locally advanced rectal cancer: management challenges

Between 5% and 10% of patients with rectal cancer present with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), and 10% of rectal cancers recur after surgery, of which half are limited to locoregional disease only (locally recurrent rectal cancer). Exenterative surgery offers the best long-term outcomes for patients with LARC and locally recurrent rectal cancer so long as a complete (R0) resection is achieved. Accurate preoperative multimodal staging is crucial in assessing the potential operability of advanced rectal tumors, and resectability may be enhanced with neoadjuvant therapies. Unfortunately, surgical options are limited when the tumor involves the lateral pelvic sidewall or high sacrum due to the technical challenges of achieving histological clearance, and must be balanced against the high morbidity associated with resection of the bony pelvis and significant lymphovascular structures. This group of patients is usually treated palliatively and subsequently survival is poor, which has led surgeons to seek innovative new solutions, as well as revisit previously discarded radical approaches. A small number of centers are pioneering new techniques for resection of beyond-total mesorectal excision tumors, including en bloc resections of the sciatic notch and composite resections of the first two sacral vertebrae. Despite limited experience, these new techniques offer the potential for radical treatment of previously inoperable tumors. This narrative review sets out the challenges facing the management of LARCs and discusses evolving management options.

Surgical options for locally recurrent rectal cancer--review and update

Locally recurrent rectal tumours in the pelvis are found in about 6% following treatment for rectal cancer. This type of tumour can cause serious local complications and symptoms. The aim of modern surgical oncology is to offer a curative treatment option embedded in an interdisciplinary network of specialities to the patient. Due to advancements in surgical techniques and procedures, especially regarding surgical reconstruction, the possibilities of a curative treatment regarding recurrent cancers have been expanded and established. To aim for a curative treatment one must introduce a multimodal therapy including radio- and chemotherapy, and a radical oncological surgery with en bloc resection of the tumour and affected surrounding organs to achieve a R0-resection.

Extended lateral pelvic sidewall excision (ELSiE): an approach to optimize complete resection rates in locally advanced or recurrent anorectal cancer involving the pelvic sidewall

BACKGROUND

Complete pathological resection of locally advanced or recurrent rectal and anal cancer is regarded as one of the most important determinants of oncological outcome. Disease in the lateral pelvic sidewall has been considered a contraindication for pelvic exenteration surgery owing to the significant likelihood of incomplete resection.

METHODS

We describe a novel technique (ELSiE) to resect disease involving the lateral pelvic sidewall. Patient demographics, post-operative histology, length of hospital stay and complications were collected from prospectively maintained electronic patient database.

RESULTS

During 2011-2013, six patients underwent pelvic exenteration surgery with the ELSiE approach. All patients had R0 resection. Three patients required sciatic nerve excision. Four patients developed post-operative complications although no major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with locally advanced and recurrent cancer involving the lateral pelvic sidewall may be rendered suitable for potentially curative radical resection with a modification in the approach to the lateral pelvic sidewall. Our pilot series seems to indicate that our novel technique (ELSiE) is feasible, safe and yields high rates of complete pathological resection.

Sacral resection with pelvic exenteration for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic cancer: a single-institution experience of 100 sacrectomies

BACKGROUND

Recurrent and advanced primary pelvic cancers present a complex clinical issue requiring multidisciplinary care and radical extended surgery. Sacral resection is necessary for tumors that invade posteriorly but is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the morbidity and survival associated with pelvic exenteration involving sacrectomy for advanced pelvic cancers at a single institution.

DESIGN

This study used patient demographics, operative and pathologic reports, and prospective survival data to determine factors affecting patient outcomes.

SETTINGS

Data were collected for patients who had operations between July 1998 and April 2012 at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred patients underwent pelvic exenteration with a sacrectomy for advanced pelvic cancers. Sacrectomy was performed for 18 primary and 61 recurrent rectal cancers, 17 anal cancers, and 4 other cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This study looked at postoperative major and minor morbidity rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates after sacral resection. It compared the outcomes of high sacrectomy (at or above S2) versus low sacrectomy.

RESULTS

Clear margins were achieved in 72 of 100 patients. The overall complication rate was 74% (43% major and 67% minor) with no 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Estimated overall and disease-free survival rates after curative resection were 38% and 30% at 5 years. Involved margins (p = 0.006), lymph node involvement (p = 0.008), and anterior organ invasion (p = 0.008) had a negative impact on patient survival. High sacrectomy increased the incidence of neurologic deficit postoperatively (p = 0.04) but did not alter the rate of R0 resection or patient survival.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective data were required to analyze patient morbidity, as well as operative and pathologic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This series supports sacral resection for curative surgery in advanced pelvic cancers, achieving excellent R0 and long-term survival rates. Cortical bone invasion and high sacrectomy were not contraindications to surgery and had acceptable outcomes.

[Limitations of surgery for rectal cancer]

This article presents and summarizes different treatment options for rectal cancer. The aim of this article is an historical review of treating primary and recurrent rectal cancer, highlighting the development and advancement in surgical and multimodal therapy. Limitations, specifically regarding recurrent rectal cancer are discussed and reviewed. A R0 resection can almost always be achieved in primary rectal cancer. In recurrent rectal cancer a R0 resection with extended surgical resection can be achieved in up to 70 % of the cases. In addition, surgical therapy plays a crucial role in the case of metastatic disease but should be incorporated into a multimodal network. The analysis of tumor genetics and predictive parameters will lead to the emergence of new treatment concepts shifting the limits of the current gold standard. Oncological long-term survival and improving the quality of life are the main focal points.

Sacrectomy via the abdominal approach during pelvic exenteration

BACKGROUND

Sacrectomy is sometimes necessary to achieve negative margins in pelvic exenteration procedures. This is typically done with the patient in the prone position. Some of the limitations of the prone approach include its limited access to the lateral pelvic sidewall structures and suboptimal vascular control in comparison with the access and the vascular control of a combined abdominolithotomy approach.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes a technique for performing a low sacrectomy (below the sacroiliac joint) through a transabdominal approach without the need to turn the patient prone intraoperatively.

PROCEDURE

The procedure involves 2 approaches: abdominal and perineal. The abdominal phase incorporates the complete mobilization of both lateral pelvic sidewalls and their neurovascular bundles to the intended lateral margins. The anterior margin is dependent on the extent of tumor resection necessary and may incorporate the vagina, bladder, prostate, or even part of the pubic bone. The perineal phase involves freeing all the muscular and ligamentous attachments of the posterior sacrum up to the level of S2/3. The sacrectomy is completed by using an osteotome transabdominally. It begins in the midline and extends laterally until the ischial spine and incorporates the sacrospinous through to the sacrotuberous ligaments and the whole pelvic floor.

CONCLUSIONS

Transabdominal low sacrectomy is technically feasible and may be associated with numerous practical advantages in comparison with a low sacrectomy performed with the patient in the prone position for involvement of the lower half of the sacrum.

Assessing the impact of a sacral resection on morbidity and survival after extended radical surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To describe the experience of sacrectomy with extended radical resection in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Resections of the bony pelvis, especially the sacrum, are becoming more common as part of extended radical exenterations for patients with recurrent rectal cancer. However, sacrectomy has been shown to carry a significant decrease in survival. Morbidity rates have been associated with the level of the sacrectomy (ie, >S3 junction).

METHODS

An analysis was conducted using prospective data from patients with recurrent rectal cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration involving sacrectomy from July 1998 until June 2011. The impact of the proximal level of sacrectomy [low (≤S3) vs high (≥S2-S3 disc)] was compared.

RESULTS

Of 240 exenteration patients, 79 underwent sacrectomy, with 49 for recurrent rectal cancer. An R0 margin was achieved in 36 (74%) patients. Achievement of clear operative margins (R0) conferred a large and significant benefit for disease-free survival compared with R1 and R2 resections (median 45 months vs 19 and 8 months, respectively; P = 0.045). Complications were reported in 40 (82%) patients, with major and minor complications in 19 (39%) and 38 (78%) patients, respectively. The proximal level of the sacrectomy (high vs low) did not significantly impair the ability to achieve a clear margin and was not associated with an increase in major or minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, single-center series has demonstrated that extended pelvic exenteration involving sacrectomy has excellent R0 margins and survival rates for recurrent rectal cancer. A high sacrectomy has comparable results with a more distal abdominosacral resection.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials comparing the effectiveness of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and radical resection in the management of early rectal cancer

AIM

A systematic analysis was conducted of trials comparing the effectiveness of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) with radical resection (RR) for T1 and T2 rectal cancer.

METHOD

An electronic search was carried out of trials reporting the effectiveness of TEMS and RR in the treatment of T1 and T2 rectal cancers.

RESULTS

Ten trials including 942 patients were retrieved. There was a trend toward a higher risk of local recurrence (odds ratio 2.78; 95% confidence interval 1.42, 5.44; z = 2.97; P < 0.003) and overall recurrence (P < 0.01) following TEMS compared with RR. The risk of distant recurrence, overall survival (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.49, 1.66; z = 0.33; P = 0.74) and mortality was similar. TEMS was associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay and a reduced risk of postoperative complications (P < 0.0001). The included studies, however, were significantly diverse in stage and grade of rectal cancer and the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery appears to have clinically measurable advantages in patients with early rectal cancer. The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to whether TEMS is superior to RR in the management of early rectal cancer. Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.