Continent urinary diversion and low-rectal anastomosis in patients undergoing exenterative procedures for recurrent gynecologic malignancies

Pelvic exenteration in gynecologic cancer: complications and oncological outcome

Introduction

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is indicated in cases of unresponsive, recurrent pelvic cancer or for palliative intent. Despite the fact that the surgery is associated with a high rate of morbidity, it is currently the only real option that can effect a cure.

Material and methods

Patients who underwent PE between January 2011 and July 2017 in our centre were retrospectively reviewed. Data related to surgery, complications and outcomes were recorded.

Results

Twenty-three patients were included. PE was performed due to recurrent gynaecological cancer, persistence of disease and after first diagnosis in 19 (82%), 2 (9%) and 2 patients (9%), respectively. Total PE was performed in 15 cases (65%), followed by anterior PE in 5 cases (22%) and posterior PE in 3 cases (13%). Early grade II, III and IV complications occurred in 15 (65%), 5 (22%) and 2 patients (9%), respectively. No mortality was observed within 30 days. Medium-late grade II, III, IV and V complications occurred in 15 (65%), 11 (48%), 3 (13%) and 2 cases (9%), respectively. Two patients died after > 30-day period from surgery-related complications. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 48 months after PE was 41.6% and 30.8% respectively.

Conclusions

PE provides about a 40% 4-year survival chance in a selected group of patients. The early-complications rate and 30-day mortality were acceptable. Nevertheless, the medium-late complication grades II–V were 65, 48, 18 and 9%, respectively. We must focus on identifying those patients who could potentially benefit most from PE.

Pelvic exenterations for gynecologic cancers: A retrospective analysis of a 30-year experience in a cancer center

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to report a 30-year experience of PE for gynecologic malignancies in a cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at Institut Paoli-Calmette including patients who underwent PE for gynecologic malignancies. Four periods were evaluated: P1 before 1992, P2 between 1993 and 1999, P3 between 2000 and 2006 and P4 after 2006. The study evaluated the number of PE performed during each period, the type of PE, its level, indication, location of the primary tumor, patient age, previous radiotherapy ≥45 Gy, the rate of "curative" PE and exenteration-related reconstructive techniques. 90-day post-operative mortality and morbidity using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v 4.03 were reported.

RESULTS

277 PE were performed. The number of PE performed for recurrences rose during the study period (p = 0.042), PE performed for central tumors increased during P3 (64.4%) and P4 (67.4%) (p < 0.0001) and administration of radiotherapy ≥45 Gy was more frequent (p < 0.0001). The rate of "curative" PE increased (p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, "curative" PE were correlated with PE type, central locations and study period. Pelvic filling was progressively more frequently performed (p = 0.002). 90-day complication rate was 56.3%. In multivariate analysis there was a significant difference in distribution of CTCAE grade 3-4-5 morbidity depending on the period. Overall survival (OS) improved during the 2 last periods (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

A better selection of eligible patients for PE, namely through improvement in imaging techniques, has enabled to raise the rate of curative PE.

[Curative pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical carcinoma in the era of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. A systematic review]

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to assess the preoperative management in case of recurrent cervical cancer, to assess patients for a surgical curative treatment.

METHODS

English publications were searched using PubMed and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

In the purpose of curative surgery, pelvic exenteration required clear margins. Today, only half of pelvic exenteration procedures showed postoperative clear margins. Modern imaging (RMI and Pet-CT) does not allow defining local extension of microcopic disease, and thus postoperative clear margins. Despite the same generic term of pelvic exenteration, there is a wide heterogeneity in surgical procedures in published cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Because clear margins are required for curative pelvic exenteration, but are not predictable by preoperative assessment. The larger surgery, i.e. the infra-elevator exenteration with vulvectomy, could be the logical surgical choice to increase the rate of clear margins and therefore, recurrent cervical carcinoma patient survival.

[Continent urinary diversion following anterior exenteration]

BACKGROUND

Quality of life after anterior or total exenteration is determined, among other factors, by the type of urinary diversion. There are two different types of urinary diversion: incontinent diversion (ureterocutaneostomy, ileal conduit, and colonic conduit) and continent diversions (continent cutaneous pouch, orthotopic neobladder, and rectal reservoir).

RESULTS

Invasive bladder cancer and advanced or recurrent gynecological tumors are the main indications for continent urinary diversion in women. In patients with non-irradiated bladder cancer, an orthotopic neobladder (except those with tumor invasion of the bladder neck or urethra) or a rectal reservoir is an option. In patients who had received preoperative radiotherapy, non-irradiated bowel segments should be used for urinary diversion (e.g., the transverse colon). In patients with planned postoperative radiation, the urinary diversion should be outside the radiation field.

CONCLUSION

Advantages and disadvantages of all types of urinary diversion should be objectively discussed with the patient. Especially exenteration for advanced or recurrent gynecological cancers should be performed in centers with a multidisciplinary team (gynecologist, urologist, radiotherapist, and in cases with complete exenteration the gastrointestinal surgeon).

Morbidity after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: a retrospective multicentric study of 230 patients

OBJECTIVE

Our study purpose was to evaluate morbidity and postoperative mortality in patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary or recurrent gynecological malignancies.

METHODS

We identified 230 patients who underwent PE, referred to the gynecological oncology units of 4 institutions: Charitè University in Berlin, Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, S. Orsola-Malpighi University in Bologna, and Catholic University in Rome and in Campobasso.

RESULTS

The median age was 55 years. The tumor site was the cervix in 177 patients, the endometrium in 28 patients, the vulva in 16 patients, and the vagina in 9 patients. Sixty-eight anterior, 31 posterior, and 131 total PEs were performed in 116 women together with hysterectomy. A total of 82.6% of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean operative time was 446 (95-970) minutes, and the median hospitalization was 24 (7-210) days. We noted a major complication rate of 21.3% (n = 49). We registered 7 perioperative deaths (3%) calculated within 30 days. The operation was performed within clear margins in 166 patients (72.2%). The overall mortality rate depending on tumor site at the end of the study was 75% for vulvar cancer, 57.6% for cervical cancer, 55.6% for vaginal cancer, and 53.6% for endometrial cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an important effort for surgeons and for patients, PE remains a therapeutic option with an acceptable complication rate and postoperative mortality. A strict selection of patients is mandatory to reach adequate surgical and oncologic outcomes.

[Rectal cancer: situation where a referral center is needed]

One of the objectives of the French strategic plan for cancer 2009-2013 is to structure the need for referral surgery, particularly for low rectal carcinoma. However, low rectal cancer is not the only situation in the field of rectal surgery where expert unit are needed for the referral of appropriate patients. We developed the multidisciplinary strategies for low rectal cancer, advanced rectal cancer, recurrent rectal cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Optimal management of these difficult situations can give a chance of long term survival while a non-optimal management could jeopardise the future of patients by changing a potentially curable disease into an incurable one.

Low Colorectal Anastomosis After Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Malignancies: Risk Factors Analysis for Leakage

Objective:

To study risk factors for low colorectal anastomotic leak after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies.

Methods:

Data from 60 patients, 32 with ovarian cancer and 28 with nonovarian cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration with colorectal anastomosis (CRA) were retrospectively analyzed.

Results:

Overall rate of CRA leak was 20%. The CRA leak was associated with type of tumor (3% for the ovarian cancer and 40.8% for the nonovarian cancer,P= 0.004), CRA height (<5 cm vs ≥5 cm, 75% vs 6.3%;P= 0.001), and previous radiotherapy (RT; 53.3% vs 8.9%;P= 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that only previous RT and CRA height were associated with the CRA leak. Rectosigmoid wall involvement (81.8% vs 27%;P= 0.001) and mesorectum infiltration (69.2% vs 21.7%;P= 0.001) were more frequent among patients with ovarian cancer patients.

Conclusion:

Previous RT and CRA at or less than 5 cm from the anal verge pose a high risk for CRA leak. In these cases, a definitive colostomy should be recommended.

Pelvic exenteration: ten-year experience at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan

OBJECTIVES

Analyze morbidity and survival after pelvic exenteration (PE) of gynecological malignancies.

METHODS

We reviewed 106 consecutive patients with gynecologic malignancies who underwent PE from June 1996 to April 2007 at the Division of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Milan.

RESULTS

PE was performed for cancer of the cervix (62 patients), vagina (21 patients), vulva (9 patients), endometrium (9 patients), ovary (4 patients) and 1 uterine sarcoma. Mean age was 53.6 (30-78) years. 97% of the patients received radiotherapy before PE and 3 patients had PE as primary treatment. We performed 53 anterior, 48 total and 5 posterior PE. Median operation time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were respectively 490 (200-780) minutes, 1240 (300-6500) ml and 21.6 (11-55) days. No residual tumor was left in 93% of the patients. Median follow-up was 22.3 (1.6-117) months. There were no post-operative deaths (<30 days from surgery) nor intra-operative mortality. Total morbidity rate was 66%; 48% of patients had early complications (<30 days after PE) whereas 52 patients (48.5%) had late complications; 70% of these occurred to the urinary tract and 25% were due to bowel occlusions or fistulas. Overall survival was 52%, 35%, 19% and 16% respectively for cervical, endometrial, vaginal and vulvar cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

PE is a feasible technique with no post-operative mortality and high percentage of long-survivors, although the morbidity rate still remains significantly high. Careful patient selection, pre- and post-operative care and optimal surgical skills in a Gynecologic Oncologic Center are the cornerstones to further improve quality of life and survival for these patients.

Primary pelvic exenteration in cervical cancer patients

Despite the reports of a number of leading institutions concerning the use of primary exenteration, there are differences in regard to definition, indications, and interpretation of results of this treatment approach to cervical cancer. In this paper we present our own experience with 41 cervical cancer patients treated with primary exenteration at St. Stephen Hospital Budapest. We explore some important unsettled aspects (definition, indications, and quality of life consequences) of this treatment modality in view of our own experience and the literature. Between January 1993 and June 2006, 2540 invasive cervical cancer patients were seen at the gynecologic oncology service of the St. Stephens Hospital Budapest. Two hundred twelve (8%) of these patients were surgically explored with the plan of an exenterative surgery. Exenteration was the primary treatment in 41 (25%) of 166 completed exenterations; these 41 cases included 2 cases of supralevator total exenteration, 9 cases of supralevator anterior exenteration, and 30 cases of partial supralevator anterior exenteration. In the 2 total exenteration patients, anal function was restored with a low rectal anastomosis, with a temporary defunctioning colostomy in 1 patient. Urethral function was restored in 9 out of 11 supralevator exenteration cases with the Budapest pouch bladder replacement technique. In the remaining 2 cases, a Bricker conduit was used for urinary diversion. There was no operation-related mortality in this cohort of patients. An external fecal or urinary stoma was avoided in 38 (93%) out of the 41 primary exenteration patients; in 1 patient a temporary defunctioning colostomy was used; and in 2 patients a permanent ileal conduit was created. In 9 patients (22%), complications (ileus and peritonitis, occlusion of the femoral artery, stricture of the implanted ureter, and postoperative ureterovaginal fistula) necessitated surgical intervention. A quality of life study revealed the need for prolonged self-catheterization, partial (mainly night time) incontinence, and lymphedema in 7 patients. We consider and suggest that an en bloc resection of part(s) of the urinary bladder and/or the rectum with the uterine cervix should be considered an exenteration (partial exenteration). A 50% survival rate of a select group of stage IVA cervical cancer patients treated with primary exenteration can be considered significant, but cannot be considered superior to that of chemoradiation therapy. The same applies when considering treatment-related mortality and complications that require operative interventions. Low rectal anastomosis and orthotopic bladder replacement with a relative low risk of fistula formation in non-irradiated patients constitute a strong quality of life argument in favor of primary exenteration in a select group of stage IVA cervical cancer patients.

Indications for primary and secondary exenterations in patients with cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Fifty years after the introduction of exenterative surgery in gynecologic oncology, the indication for primary and secondary exenteration is controversially discussed in cervical cancer patients. In addition, the term "palliative exenteration" is not precisely defined. We evaluate the role of primary exenteration in patients with stage IVA cervical cancer and the role of secondary palliative exenteration.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed surgical and oncologic data of 55 patients who underwent exenterative surgery in the Department of Gynecology at the University of Jena between February 1998 and January 2004. Primary surgery was performed in 20 patients with laparoscopically confirmed stage IVA cervical cancer, while 35 patients with recurrent cervical cancer underwent secondary exenteration. Fifty-one had total, 3 posterior and 1 anterior exenteration. Survival was analyzed in relation to the patient's age, indication (primary versus secondary, curative versus palliative), previous therapy (operation, radiation, chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy), histology, resection margins, pelvic nodal involvement, time interval from primary therapy to recurrence, type of exenteration and adjuvant therapy. Early and late postoperative complications as well as perioperative mortality were reviewed.

RESULTS

The overall cumulative survival of all patients after exenteration was 36.8% at 5 years with 52.5% in the primary group and 26.7% in the recurrent one (p=0.0472). Complications were noted in 56.9% of patients, most commonly fistulas or gastrointestinal complications. Operative mortality was 5.5%. Survival correlated significantly with the time interval between primary treatment and recurrence (within 1-2 years 16.8% five-year survival, 2-5 years 28%, >5 years 83.2%, p=0.0105) as well as with curative or palliative intention (2-year survival rate of 60% in patients with curative intent, 10.5% in those with palliative intent, p=0.0001) and with tumor-free resection margins (2-year survival of 10.2% for positive margins, 5-year survival of 55.2% for negatives ones, p=0.0057). The age, the type of exenteration, the histologic type and the metastatic spread to pelvic lymph nodes had no significant influence on long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

In patients with histopathologically confirmed stage IVA cervical cancer primary, exenteration is a valid alternative to primary chemoradiation. In patients with persistent or recurrent tumor limited to the pelvis, secondary exenteration should be offered in the absence of other therapeutic options. Palliative and curative attempts can best be differentiated by the resection margin status.

Pelvic exenteration for gynaecological tumours: achievements and unanswered questions

Pelvic exenteration has been used for 60 years to treat cancers of the lower and middle female genital tract in radiated pelves. The mainstay for treatment success in terms of locoregional control and long-term survival is resection of the pelvic tumour with clear margins (R0). New ablative techniques based on developmentally derived surgical anatomy and laterally extended endopelvic resection have raised the number of R0 resections done, even for tumours that extend to the pelvic side wall, which were traditionally judged a contraindication for exenteration. Although mortality has fallen to less than 5%, treatment-related severe morbidity of pelvic exenteration still exceeds 50%, possibly because of compromised healing of irradiated tissue and use of complex reconstructive techniques. The benefits of exenteration for patients who have advanced primary disease or recurrent tumours after surgery, versus those who have chemoradiotherapy, are not proven by results of controlled trials, but can be assumed from retrospective data. Comparative findings are missing, and arguments are unconvincing to favour pelvic exenteration over less extensive treatments and best supportive care for palliation of cancer symptoms in most patients.

Is En-Bloc Resection of Locally Recurrent Rectal Carcinoma Involving the Urinary Tract Indicated?

BACKGROUND

This study investigated morbidity, mortality, and long-term survival after multimodality management of locally recurrent rectal carcinoma involving the urinary tract.

METHODS

A total of 82 patients (63 males) were identified during 1987 to 2000. Data sources were a prospectively collected database of intraoperative radiotherapy, institutional tumor registry, and chart review. The median follow-up was 3.3 years and lasted until death or for at least 2 years on all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 20 (24%) of 82 patients had resection of urogenital tract structures without reconstruction. Sixty-two patients (76%) underwent reconstruction with ileal conduit (43%), ureteroneocystostomy (15%), or miscellaneous (18%). The mean number of fixation sites was 2.8 (SD, 1.5), and the mean number of organs at least partially resected was 2.6 (SD, 1.3). Eighty percent of patients underwent intraoperative radiotherapy among adjuvant treatments. Postoperative mortality was 2% (2 of 82), and morbidity was 39% (32 of 82), most frequently consisting of neuropathy and urinary leak (6% each). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 82%, 45%, and 19%, respectively. The median survival was 2.6 years. The number of sites involved was the only survival predictor at multivariate analysis (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multimodality approach for locally recurrent rectal carcinoma involving the urinary tract carries acceptable morbidity, mortality, and potential for long-term survival. The number of fixation sites correlates with a poorer prognosis.

Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic malignancy: Survival and morbidity analysis of the 45-year experience at UCLA

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively assess the outcome of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for recurrent or persistence gynecologic malignancy and the clinical features associated with outcome and survival.

METHODS

A review was conducted of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration over a 45-year period (1956-2001) at the UCLA Medical Center. Numerous clinical variables were analyzed, including time to relapse, type of exenteration and reconstructive operation, early (<60 days) and late (>60 days) morbidity, and survival. Variables were analyzed by chi-square and life-table analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (ages 26-74 years) had persistent cervical and vaginal (67) and uterine (8) cancer. Forty-six patients underwent total exenteration, 23 anterior, and 6 posterior. Sixty-nine (92%) patients underwent urinary diversion or neocystoplasty, 54 (72%) patients had a simultaneous neovagina created, and 43 of 52 (83%) patients who had a low colon resection had a primary reanastomosis. Twenty-nine patients died from recurrent malignancy, 28 were alive without disease, 11 were alive with disease, and 7 died from other causes at last follow-up. Survival for patients with cervical and vaginal cancer was 73% at 1 year, 57% at 3 years, and 54% at 5 years. Survival for patients with uterine cancer was 86% at 1 year, 62% at 3 and 5 years. The most frequent early morbidity was urinary tract infection, wound infection, and intestinal fistula; the most frequent late morbidity was urinary tract infection and intestinal obstruction.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenteration in patients with recurrent cervical and vaginal malignancy is associated with a durable > 50% 5-year survival. Simultaneously performed pelvic reconstructive operations with a continent urinary diversion, the creation of a neovagina, and the reanastomosis of the colon with the formation of a J-pouch is now our standard; and these operations tend to improve the outcome of patients. Based on our initial experience, recurrent uterine corpus cancer in young women (< 55 years) should be included as an indication for the surgery.

Conversion of an incontinent urinary conduit to a continent urinary reservoir (Miami Pouch)

OBJECTIVE

External urinary or gastrointestinal appliances can impair a patient's quality of life. We report on the feasibility of converting an incontinent colonic urinary diversion to a continent urinary reservoir (Miami Pouch).

CASE

We describe the case of a 66-year-old white female with a history of stage Ib(2) cervical cancer treated by radical abdominal hysterectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy. The patient developed severe radiation cystitis with a neurogenic bladder and bilateral ureteral obstruction. After failing conservative management, a urinary diversion with a transverse colon conduit was performed. The patient remained without evidence of disease for 2 years and led an active lifestyle with regular tennis games. After 7 months of an external appliance for the urinary conduit, the patient presented to the University of Miami for conversion to a continent urinary mechanism which would not require an appliance. We performed an exploratory laparotomy, conversion of a transverse colon conduit to a continent ileo-colonic urinary reservoir (Miami Pouch). There were no postoperative complications. The patient remains disease-free and performs self-catheterization with no need for an external appliance. The patient has been able to resume an active life including sports.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful conversion of an incontinent urinary conduit to a continent urinary reservoir is possible in a select case resulting in a perceived improvement of quality of life.

Continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir (Miami pouch): the University of Miami experience over 15 years

OBJECTIVE

A patient with a recurrent central pelvic malignancy after radiation will require urinary diversion as part of the reconstructive phase of the pelvic exenteration. The aim of our study was to assess the result of our 15-year experience with a continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir, which is known as the Miami pouch.

STUDY DESIGN

Since 1988, all patients who received a continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, were included in the study. Parameters that were evaluated during the study period include functional outcomes, early and late perioperative complications, and their treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were identified from February 1988 to December 2002. Seventy-eight patients (87%) had a recurrent central pelvic malignancy, and 82 patients (91%) received radiation before the Miami pouch procedure. The non-reservoir-related morbidities were fever (76%), wound complication (30%), pelvic collection (12%), ileus/small bowel obstruction (12%), and postoperative death (11%). The most common reservoir-related complications were urinary infection (40%), ureteral stricture (20%), and difficulty with self-catheterization (18%). In our study, the overall complication rate that was related directly to the Miami pouch was 53%. Conservative treatment resolved>80% of these cases. The rate of urinary continence that was achieved in our patients was 93% during our 15-year experience with the Miami pouch.

CONCLUSION

The Miami pouch is a good alternative for continent urinary diversion during exenteration or radiation-induced damage. The rate of major complications that require aggressive surgical intervention is acceptable. Most postoperative complications (80%) can be corrected with the use of conservative techniques that are associated with fewer deaths than reoperation and thus should be used first. The technique is simple and effective in women who are at high risk, who have undergone previous radiation therapy, and who have a high rate of functional success and is a profound advantage for a woman's psychosocial well-being.

Pelvic exenteration and reconstruction

For the past six decades, pelvic extenteration has been utilized in the treatment of localized central pelvic recurrences after chemo/radiotherapy. The radicality of the procedure that includes resection of the bladder, vulva/vagina, and rectum, although with curative intent, results in comprehensive changes for the patient. For this reason, all patients should undergo extensive psychosocial counseling to prepare them for the changes in body image and lifestyle. Extirpation of the pelvic viscera has undergone a number of modifications since Brunschwig first described it in 1948 to maximize survivability and minimized anatomical distortion. Most of the advancements have been focused on the reconstructive phase after pelvic exenteration. A few select patients can be free of any external appliances such as a colostomy bag with utilization of a low colorectal anastomosis, and can maintain sexual intimacy with creation of a neovagina. In addition, reconstruction of the pelvic floor with omental flaps, dura mater grafts and myocutaneous flaps have decreased postoperative morbidity. In this article, we provide a review of pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology, emphasizing preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques and their postoperative management.

Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer relapse

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy classically reduces morbidity and invasiveness. To decrease the operative morbidity associated with exenteration, we considered the possibility of performing a total pelvic exenteration by the laparoscopic approach.

CASE

A 34-year-old woman presented with a cervical cancer relapse. The bladder, uterus, vagina, ovaries, and rectum were mobilized en bloc from the pelvic sidewall. We used vascular endoscopic staplers for the control of sigmoid vessels and anterior branches of internal iliac vessels. The specimen was removed through the vulva. A colo-anal anastomosis and an ileal-loop conduit for urinary tract diversion were made. The operative time was 9 h. The postoperative course was uneventful. Specimen margins were free of disease.

CONCLUSION

With laparoscopic surgical knowledge and new endoscopic staplers, laparoscopic pelvic exenteration procedure is feasible.

Contemporary outcomes of total pelvic exenteration in the treatment of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Total pelvic exenteration is performed infrequently in selected patients with locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer. We reviewed our contemporary experience with pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer to identify selection criteria and prognostic factors for long-term survival.

METHODS

Between 1991 and 2000, 55 patients (males, 29; median age, 62 years) undergoing total pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer were identified from a prospective database. Clinicopathologic variables were evaluated as prognostic indicators of long-term survival by log-rank test and multivariate Cox regression.

RESULTS

Indications for surgery were recurrent colorectal cancer in 71 percent and primary colorectal cancer in 29 percent. Of 39 patients with recurrent colorectal cancer, 85 percent had previous radiotherapy, and 64 percent had previous abdominoperineal resection. At the time of pelvic exenteration, 49 percent of patients received intraoperative radiation, and 20 percent required sacrectomy. Complete resection with negative margins was achieved in 73 percent. Perioperative mortality after pelvic exenteration was 5.5 percent, and complications included perineal wound infection (40 percent), pelvic abscess (20 percent), abdominal wound infection (18 percent), and cardiopulmonary events (18 percent). Median disease-specific survival for all patients was 48.9 (range, 3.2-105.6) months. Univariate analysis identified five factors associated with decreased survival: male gender, recurrent colorectal cancer, previous abdominoperineal resection, positive surgical margin, and administration of intraoperative radiation. On multivariate analysis, only previous abdominoperineal resection was an independent predictor of unfavorable outcome (P < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Total pelvic exenteration can be performed safely in highly selected patients with colorectal cancer and can result in significantly prolonged survival. Less satisfactory outcomes are observed in patients whose indication for pelvic exenteration is recurrent colorectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection.

Colorectal function preservation in posterior and total supralevator exenteration for gynecologic malignancies: an 89-patient series

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze our experience with colorectal function preservation at the time of pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

Between January 1980 and December 2001, 201 pelvic exenterations for gynecologic malignancies were performed in our hospital. Ninety-eight were supralevator exenterations and 89 were selected for this study because low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA) was performed. There were locally advanced or recurrent cancers including 50 cervical, 28 ovarian, 11 endometrial, and 3 vaginal malignancies and 5 pelvic sarcomas.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (44%) had a history of previous irradiation. There were were 50 posterior and 39 total exenterations. A diverting stomy and/or pelvic filling were performed respectively in 44 (49.4%) and 26 (29%) cases. The postoperative mortality rate was 4.5% (4/89). Seventeen patients experienced a colorectal anastomotic fistula (AF). AF occurred significantly more frequently in irradiated patients (14/17 = 82%). The mortality rate related to AF was 6% (1/17). Ultimately the functional colorectal anastomosis rate was 71.9%, respectively 61.5 and 80% in irradiated and nonirradiated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal function preservation in supralevator exenteration for gynecologic malignancies can be achieved safely in a majority of patients. In irradiated patients a systematically diverting stomy may result in a low mortality rate.

Functional outcomes and complications of continent urinary diversions in patients with gynecologic malignancies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with continent urinary diversions in patients with gynecologic malignancies and evaluate the presentation and management of early and late complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent a continent urinary diversion on the Gynecologic Oncology Service at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center during the period January 1988 to March 2001. We analyzed our data to evaluate potential risk factors for complications. Renal status, conduit integrity, and overall patient outcomes were also studied.

RESULTS

We identified 40 patients who underwent a continent urinary diversion using an ileocolonic segment (Miami pouch technique). All patients had a history of gynecologic malignancies. The median age at the time of the procedure was 50 years (range 24 to 76 years), and the median weight was 69.6 kg (range 47 to 125 kg). A total of 39 patients (98%) had a history of radiotherapy. Continent urinary diversion was performed as part of an anterior pelvic exenteration in 12 patients (30%), in conjunction with a total pelvic exenteration in 18 patients (45%), and as the main procedure in 10 patients (25%). The median estimated blood loss was 2100 ml (range 200 to 8500 ml). The median length of hospitalization was 19.5 days (range 7 to 56 days). A total of 24 patients (60.0%) had a postoperative complications unrelated to the reservoir. Complications directly related to the continent urinary diversion were seen in 26 (65.0%) of 40 patients. None of the patients in this study group developed chronic renal failure, and there were no perioperative deaths. At last evaluation, 36 (90%) of 40 patients reported normal continent conduit function.

CONCLUSIONS

Continent urinary diversion using an ileocolonic segment is a reasonable alternative to the ileal and transverse colon conduit in bladder reconstruction in patients undergoing radical pelvic surgery. The routine use of postoperative total parenteral nutrition, the chronic use of antibiotics after discharge from the hospital, and the routine use of imaging studies remain controversial. In this group of patients, the majority of complications may be successfully managed conservatively.

Recurrent cervical cancer

There are limited treatment options for patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma. Because of low response rates and a negligible impact on long-term survival, the use of chemotherapy in patients with unresectable recurrent disease should be considered palliative. Generally, radiation therapy in previously irradiated patients is considered palliative. For patients who develop recurrent disease after definitive surgery who have not received prior radiation therapy, salvage radiation therapy is the treatment of choice. Similarly, patients who have received definitive primary radiation therapy are candidates for surgical resection of their recurrence. However, there are specific criteria for surgical resection. Radical hysterectomy may be an option for the very rare patient with a small (<2 cm) centrally located recurrence in the cervix or vaginal fornices. However, for most patients, pelvic exenteration remains the only therapeutic option that offers the possibility of long-term survival. Patients who are candidates for exenteration are those with central local recurrences that have not extended to the pelvic sidewalls. The introduction of high-dose-rate intraoperative radiation therapy (HDR-IORT) combined with radical surgical resection has widened the scope of patients who may be offered surgery. Patients who in the past may not have been surgical candidates may benefit from radical surgical resection combined with HDR-IORT. All patients who are surgically fit and have undergone previous radiation therapy should be considered for surgical resection for centrally located recurrences. Patients whose recurrences extend close to the pelvic sidewalls should be referred to centers where HDR-IORT is available.