Oncological outcome after incidental perforation in radical rectal cancer surgery

Advanced endoscopic resections in the treatment of malignant colorectal lesions: Are early oncological outcomes impacted?

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists on the impact of advanced endoscopic resections on early oncological outcomes of malignant colorectal lesions, especially in the presence of perforation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections and had adenocarcinoma was performed. The primary endpoint was cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

63 patients were included. Mean age was 64.6 years with 58.7% of the patients being male. Mean BMI was 30.2 kg/m² 12 patients underwent advanced endoscopic resections followed by surveillance, 5 patients had conversion to surgery due to intra-procedural perforation, and 5 patients due to incomplete resection. 41 patients underwent salvage surgery following a median of 5.4 weeks of initial endoscopic resection. Neither local nor distant recurrence was observed within a median follow-up of 21.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic procedures do not have negative impact on the early oncological outcomes of patients with malignant colorectal lesions, even in the presence of perforation.

Rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer has no impact on the oncological outcome

AIM

Intraoperative rectal washout is performed to eliminate exfoliated intraluminal cancer cells and thereby decrease the risk of local recurrence. Rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological outcome after rectal washout in abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer and to find evidence as to whether rectal washout should be performed or not.

METHOD

Data for all patients registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who underwent elective surgery with abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer (TNM Stages I-III) between 2007 and 2013 were analysed using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

No significant differences were shown between the rectal washout group and the no rectal washout group for local recurrence [10/265 (3.8%) vs. 87/2160 (4.0%), p = 0.84], distant metastasis [51/265 (19.2%) vs. 476/2160 (22.0%), p = 0.29] or overall recurrence [53/265 (20.0%) vs. 505/2160 (23.4%), p = 0.21]. In multivariable analysis, rectal washout did not significantly affect the oncological outcome in terms of local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall recurrence or 5-year overall or relative survival.

CONCLUSION

Our results do not support routine rectal washout during abdominoperineal resection in order to improve the oncological outcome.

Early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after organ preservation failure in rectal cancer does not worsen postoperative outcomes compared to primary TME: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

While oncological outcomes of early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after local excision (LE) have been well studied, the impact of LE before TME on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to compare early sTME with a primary TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with the random-effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

We retrieved eleven relevant articles including 1728 patients (350 patients in the sTME group and 1438 patients in the TME group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (OR = 0.90, 95%CI [0.21 to 3.77], p = 0.88), morbidity (OR = 1.19, 95%CI [0.59 to 2.38], p = 0.63), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.34, 95%CI [0.61 to 2.94], p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (OR = 1.38, 95%CI [0.50 to 3.83], p = 0.53), hospital stay (MD = 0.23 day, 95%CI [- 1.63 to 2.10], p < 0.81), diverting stoma rate (OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.44 to 1.09], p = 0.11), abdominoperineal resection rate (OR = 1.47, 95%CI [0.91 to 2.37], p = 0.11), local recurrence (OR = 0.94, 95%CI [0.44 to 2.04], p = 0.88), and distant recurrence (OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.52 to 1.48], p = 0.62). sTME was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD = 25.62 min, 95%CI[11.92 to 39.32], p < 0.001) lower number of harvested lymph nodes (MD =  - 2.25 lymph node, 95%CI [- 3.86 to - 0.65], p = 0.006), and higher proportion of incomplete TME (OR = 0.25, 95%CI [0.11 to 0.61], p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

sTME is not associated with increased postoperative morbidity, mortality, or local recurrence. However, the operative times are longer and yield a poor specimen quality.

Impact of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection on short- and long-term outcome of subsequent laparoscopic gastrectomy for pT1 gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and oncological safety of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) prior to additional gastrectomy for early gastric cancer (EGC) are still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of non-curative ESD on short- and long-term outcomes of subsequent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for pathological T1 (pT1) EGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 422 patients who underwent LG for pT1 EGC between January 2007 and December 2017 at our center. Eighty-five of these patients underwent ESD with curative intent before surgery. Using propensity-score matching for sex, age, body mass index, American society of anesthesiologists score, history of previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, mucosal/submucosal infiltration, histology, lymph node metastasis, extent of lymph node dissection, operative method, lymphatic invasion, and venous invasion, the clinicopathologic and survival data of these patients were compared.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 60 (range 2-168) months. Using propensity-score matching from a total of 422 patients, 75 patients were selected in the Non-ESD and the ESD cohorts each. There were no significant differences in terms of characteristics and clinicopathological findings between the two groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity (13.3% vs. 17.3%; P = 0.497) and mortality (1.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.316). Both the 5-year overall survival ratio (88.8% vs. 86.9%; P = 0.757) and 5-year disease-specific survival ratio (97.1% vs. 98.4%; P = 0.333) were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Short- and long-term outcomes of LG in patients with pT1 EGC are not related to preoperative ESD history. Even for non-curative resections, ESD prior to surgery is feasible in terms of oncological and surgical outcomes in pT1 EGC.

Comparison of long-term recurrence-free survival between primary surgery and endoscopic resection followed by secondary surgery in T1 colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to investigate whether endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) before surgery (secondary surgery) unfavorably affects long-term recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared with surgery without prior endoscopic resection (primary surgery).

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent radical surgery for T1 CRC with high-risk histologic features at a tertiary referral hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2016. The primary outcome was RFS. We performed 2 types of propensity score (PS) analyses to control for confounders.

RESULTS

Of 852 patients, 388 underwent primary surgery and 464 secondary surgery. During the median follow-up period of 57.0 months (range, 41.0-63.0), cancer recurred in 18 patients (2.1%). The 5-year RFS rates did not differ between the primary and secondary surgery groups (97.0 vs 98.5%, P = .194). Further analyses of RFS rates according to nodal stages and number of high-risk histologic features showed no difference between groups. Moreover, RFS rates were not different between the groups after PS matching. In multivariable Cox proportional regression analysis, baseline serum carcinoembryonic antigen level was an independent risk factor for cancer recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.464; 95% confidence interval, 1.242-1.725; P < .001) but prior endoscopic resection of T1 CRC was not (P = .201). Both PS analyses consistently showed no increase in cancer recurrence risk in the secondary surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed no additional cancer recurrence risk by endoscopic resection before surgery of T1 CRC with high-risk histologic features.

Intraoperative complications during laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Intraoperative complication during laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is a common complication occurring in 11% to 15% of the cases. They are probably underestimated because not systematically reported. The most frequent intraoperative complications are haemorrhage (3-7%), tumour perforation (1-4%), bowel injury (1-3%), ureter injury (1%), urogenital injury (2%), other organ injury (<1%), and anastomotic complications (1%). The mechanisms, management and prevention of vascular port injury, inferior mesenteric artery bleeding, small bowel and colon perforation, ureteral and urethral injury, pelvic nerve damage, tumour perforation and anastomotic failure are described. This review underlines the necessity to prevent intraoperative complication to avoid operative death and severe side-effects.

Is extralevator abdominoperineal resection necessary for low rectal carcinoma in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy era?

Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically.Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma.Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2).Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.

Outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision are not compromised by prior transanal minimally invasive surgery

AIM

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is used increasingly often as an organ-preserving treatment for early rectal cancer. If final pathology reveals unfavourable histological prognostic features, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is recommended. This study is the first to investigate the results of cTME after TAMIS.

METHOD

Data were retrieved from the prospective database of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital. Completion TME patients were case matched with a control group of patients undergoing primary TME (pTME). Primary and secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2017, 20 patients underwent cTME and were compared with 40 patients undergoing pTME. There were no significant differences in operating time (238 min vs 226 min, P = 0.53), blood loss (137 ml vs. 158 ml, P = 0.88) or complications (45% vs 55%, P = 0.07) between both groups. There was no 90-day mortality in the cTME group. The mesorectal fascia was incomplete in three patients (15%) in the cTME group compared with no breaches in the pTME group (P = 0.083). There were no local recurrences in either group. In three patients (15%), distant metastases were detected after cTME compared with one patient (2.5%) in the pTME group (P = 0.069). After cTME patients had a 1- and 5-year disease-free survival of 85% compared with 97.5% for the pTME group (P = 0.062).

CONCLUSION

Completion TME surgery after TAMIS is not associated with increased peri- or postoperative morbidity or mortality compared with pTME surgery. After cTME surgery patients have a similar disease-free and overall survival when compared with patients undergoing pTME.

Impact of rectal perforation on recurrence during rectal cancer surgery in a national population registry

BACKGROUND

Incidental perforation in rectal cancer surgery is considered a risk factor for poorer oncological outcome. Most studies emanate from the era before total mesorectal excision when staging, neoadjuvant treatment and surgical technique were suboptimal. This study assessed the impact of incidental perforation on oncological outcome in a cohort of patients with optimized management.

METHODS

Data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry for patients undergoing R0 abdominal surgery for TNM stage I-III rectal cancer between 2007 and 2012, with 5-year follow-up, were analysed. Multivariable analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 6176 patients were analysed (208 with and 5968 without perforation). The local recurrence rate was increased after perforation (7·2 per cent (15 of 208) versus 3·2 per cent (188 of 5968); P = 0·001), but there were no differences in rates of distant metastasis (16·3 per cent (34 of 208) versus 19·8 per cent (1183 of 5968); P = 0·215) and overall recurrence (20·7 per cent (43 of 208) versus 21·0 per cent (1256 of 5968); P = 0·897). The 5-year overall survival rate was lower after perforation (66·4 versus 75·5 per cent; P = 0·002), but the 5-year relative survival rate was no different (79·9 versus 88·2 per cent; P = 0·083). In multivariable analysis, perforation was a risk factor for local recurrence (hazard ratio 2·10, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 3·72; P = 0·011), but not for the other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Incidental perforation remains a significant risk factor for LR, even with optimized management of rectal cancer. This must be considered when discussing adjuvant treatment and follow-up.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: what the radiologist should know

Despite advances in surgical techniques and chemoradiation therapy, recurrent rectal cancer remains a cause of morbidity and mortality. After successful treatment of rectal cancer, patients are typically enrolled in a surveillance strategy that includes imaging as studies have shown improved prognosis when recurrent rectal cancer is detected during imaging surveillance versus based on development of symptoms. Additionally, patients who experience a complete clinical response with chemoradiation therapy may elect to enroll in a "watch-and-wait" strategy that includes imaging surveillance rather than surgical resection. Factors that increase the likelihood of recurrence, patterns of recurrence, and the imaging appearances of recurrent rectal cancer are reviewed with a focus on CT, PET CT, and MR imaging.

Critical and Challenging Issues in the Surgical Management of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer

Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the "bottom-to-up" approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma

AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended.

Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE

It is difficult to predict the presence of histological risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) before endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, endoscopic therapy is propagated to obtain adequate histological staging. We examined whether secondary surgery following endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC does not have a negative effect on patients' outcomes compared with primary surgery.

DESIGN

Patients with T1 CRC with one or more histological risk factors for LNM (high risk) and treated with primary or secondary surgery between 2000 and 2014 in 13 hospitals were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional data were collected from hospital records, endoscopy, radiology and pathology reports. A propensity score analysis was performed using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to correct for confounding by indication.

RESULTS

602 patients were eligible for analysis (263 primary; 339 secondary surgery). Overall, 34 recurrences were observed (5.6%). After adjusting with IPW, no differences were observed between primary and secondary surgery for the presence of LNM (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93; p=0.940) and recurrence during follow-up (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; p=0.954). Further adjusting for lymphovascular invasion, depth of invasion and number of retrieved lymph nodes did not alter this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support an increased risk of LNM or recurrence after secondary surgery compared with primary surgery. Therefore, an attempt for an en-bloc resection of a possible T1 CRC without evident signs of deep invasion seems justified in order to prevent surgery of low-risk T1 CRC in a significant proportion of patients.

How Should Imaging Direct/Orient Management of Rectal Cancer?

Modern rectal cancer management is dependent on preoperative staging, and radiological assessment is a crucial part of this process. Imaging must provide sufficient information to guide preoperative decision-making that is reliable and reproducible. Different methods have been used for local staging; however, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown to be the most reliable tool for this purpose. MRI offers prognostic information about the patients and guides the decision between neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision alone. Also, not only the initial staging but also restaging by MRI can provide significant information regarding tumor response that is essential when considering alternative approaches.

The importance of rectal washout for the oncological outcome after Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer: analysis of population-based data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

During rectal cancer surgery the bowel may contain viable, exfoliated cancer cells, a potential source for local recurrence (LR). The amount and viability of these cells can be reduced using intraoperative rectal washout, a procedure that reduces the LR risk after anterior resection. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of washout on oncological outcome when performed in Hartmann's procedure (HP) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A national cohort study on data for patients registered from 1995 to 2007 in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry was carried out. The final analysis included patients belonging to TNM stages I-III who had undergone R0 HP with a registered 5-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 patients were analysed (686 washout and 502 no washout). No differences were detected between the washout group and the no washout group concerning rates of LR [7% (49/686) vs. 10% (49/502); p = 0.13], distant metastasis (DM) [17% (119/686) vs. 18% (93/502); p = 0.65], and overall recurrence (OAR) [21% (145/686) vs. 24% (120/502); p = 0.29]. For both groups, the 5-year cancer-specific survival was below 50%. In multivariate analysis, washout neither decreased the risk of LR, DM, or OAR nor increased overall or the cancer-specific 5-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcome did not improve when washout was performed in HP for rectal cancer.

Submucosal dissection has advantages over full-thickness transanal endoscopic microsurgery in selected rectal lesions

BACKGROUND

To establish the incidence of unsuspected malignancy in lesions excised through transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and examine the justification for full-thickness excision of all lesions thought to be benign pre-operatively.

METHODS

Demographic, operative and pathology data of all patients undergoing TEM at a single institution were collected in a prospectively maintained database. Follow-up data were collected with a focus on polyp recurrence rates and outcome in patients found to harbour malignancy. For lesions thought to be benign pre-operatively, a submucosal excision was routinely performed.

RESULTS

TEM was attempted in 156 cases between June 1999 and April 2013. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 66.8 (2.1) years, with 111 males. Mean tumour size was 4.1 (1.6) cm, and mean height from anal verge was 10.4 (2.1) cm. In nine cases, the procedure was unable to be completed and in eight cases a deliberate full-thickness excision was performed. In 139 patients with a presumed benign lesion, mean operating time was 53.4 min. A total of 17 (12.2%) were found to harbour an unsuspected malignancy. Recurrent polyp was seen in 14 (11.7%) of 122 cases of benign pathology (mean follow-up 24.5 months) and was managed by endoscopic means in 10 patients. Mean length of stay was 1.2 days and complications occurred in 7% of cases. No patient with an unsuspected malignancy has developed recurrent disease (mean follow-up 43 months).

CONCLUSION

Submucosal TEM can result in low complication rates, short duration of surgery, short hospital stay and satisfactory recurrence rates when performed for presumed benign rectal tumours.

Extralevator vs conventional abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term morbidity and long-term oncologic benefits of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (CAPR) for patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Electronic search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Korean Journal, and J-EAST database from 2007 until August 2015 was carried out. We considered randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies comparing ELAPE with CAPR to be eligible, if they included patients with rectal cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 1 randomized controlled trials and 10 nonrandomized comparative studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 1,736 patients in the ELAPE group and 1,320 in the CAPR group. The ELAPE was associated with a significantly lower intraoperative perforation rate. There were no differences regarding the circumferential margin involvement, R0 resections, and local recurrence rate. There was less blood loss in ELAPE patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The ELAPE significantly lowered the intraoperative perforation rate, with no benefits regarding circumferential resection margin involvement and local recurrence rate.

Analysis of the prognostic factors for low rectal cancer with the pT1-2NxM0 stage after abdominoperineal resection

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to explore the factors influencing local recurrence and survival for low rectal cancer with pT1-2NxM0 stage after an abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

Data of 429 patients confirmed to have pT1-2NxM0 after APR were reviewed.

RESULTS

The recurrence rate in patients with intraoperative perforation, less than 12 lymph nodes (LNs) harvested, T2 staging, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 25.1, 19.9, 9.5, and 26.1% compared with 6.9, 7.0, 0, and 5.8% in patients with no perforation, 12 or more LNs harvested, T1, and negative CRM. The 5-year survival rate in patients with age of at least 70, perforation, less than 12 LNs harvested, T2, and positive CRM was 71.1, 60.8, 58.8, 69.9, and 46.0%, but 73.4, 73.5, 73.8, 89.4, and 75.0% in patients with age less than 70, no perforation, 12 or more LNs harvested, T1, and negative CRM. Meanwhile, patients with N0, N1, and N2 had a survival rate of 90.7, 69.9, and 63.9%. Multivariate analysis showed that perforation (P<0.001), number of LNs harvested (P<0.001), T staging (P<0.001), differentiation (P=0.045), and CRM status (P=0.002) were associated with local recurrence, whereas age of the patients (P=0.023), N staging (P<0.001), differentiation (P=0.011), and CRM status (P=0.004) were associated with survival.

CONCLUSION

APR was affected by patients' age, operation performer, perforation, number of LNs harvested, T staging, N staging, differentiation, and CRM status. Perforation, number of LNs harvested, T staging, differentiation, and CRM status were independent factors for recurrence; meanwhile, age of the patients, N staging, differentiation, and CRM status were independent factors influencing survival.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM

Evaluation of surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is necessary to inform clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The standards of outcome reporting after CRC surgery have not previously been considered.

METHOD

Systematic literature searches identified randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of CRC surgery. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorized into broad groups (outcome domains) and examined for a definition (an appropriate textual explanation or a supporting citation). Outcome reporting was considered inconsistent if results of the outcome specified in the methods were not reported. Outcome reporting was compared between randomized and nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS

Of 5644 abstracts, 194 articles (34 randomized and 160 nonrandomized studies) were included reporting 766 different clinical outcomes, categorized into seven domains. A mean of 14 ± 8 individual outcomes were reported per study. 'Anastomotic leak', 'overall survival' and 'wound infection' were the three most frequently reported outcomes in 72, 60 and 44 (37.1%, 30.9% and 22.7%) studies, respectively, and no single outcome was reported in every publication. Outcome definitions were significantly more often provided in randomized studies than in nonrandomized studies (19.0% vs 14.9%, P = 0.015). One-hundred and twenty-seven (65.5%) papers reported results of all outcomes specified in the methods (randomized studies, n = 21, 61.5%; nonrandomized studies, n = 106, 66.2%; P = 0.617).

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting in CRC surgery lacks consistency and method. Improved standards of outcome measurement are recommended to permit data synthesis and transparent cross-study comparisons.

MR imaging for rectal cancer: the role in staging the primary and response to neoadjuvant therapy

Pre-operative staging is an essential aspect of modern rectal cancer management and radiological assessment is central to this process. An ideal radiological assessment should provide sufficient information to reliably guide pre-operative decision-making. Technical advances allow high-resolution imaging to not only provide prognostic information but to define the anatomy, helping the surgeon to anticipate potential pitfalls during the operation. The main imaging modality for local staging of rectal cancer is Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), as it defines the tumour and relevant anatomy providing the most detail on the important prognostic factors that influence treatment choice. In addition, there is an emerging role for MRI in the assessment of the response to neoadjuvant therapy. This article is an evidence-based review of rectal cancer staging focusing on post-treatment assessment of response using MRI. The discussion extends into the implications for reliably assessing response and how this may influence future rectal cancer management.

Multicenter study of outcome in relation to the type of resection in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A surgical teaching and auditing program has been implemented to improve the results of treatment for patients with rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the treatment and outcome in patients resected for rectal cancer, focusing on differences relating to the type of resection.

DESIGN

This was an observational study.

SETTINGS

The study took place throughout the network of hospitals that compose the National Health Service in Spain.

PATIENTS

This study included a consecutive cohort of 3355 patients from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. The data of patients who were operated on electively, with curative intent, by anterior resection (n = 2333 [69.5%]), abdominoperineal excision (n = 774 [23.1%]), and Hartmann procedure (n = 248 [7.4%]) between March 2006 and May 2010 were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical, pathologic, and outcome results were analyzed in relation to the type of surgery performed.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up time of 37 months (interquartile range, 30-48 months), bowel perforations were found to be more common in the Hartmann procedure (12.6%) and abdominoperineal groups (10.1%) than in the anterior resection group (2.3%; p < 0.001). Involvement of the circumferential resection margin was also more common in the Hartmann (16.6%) and abdominoperineal groups (14.3%) than in the anterior resection group (6.6%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed a negative influence on local recurrence, metastasis, survival for advanced stage, intraoperative perforation, invaded circumferential margin, and Hartmann procedure. However, abdominoperineal excision did not significantly influence local recurrence (HR, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.571-1.563; p = 0.825).

LIMITATIONS

The main weakness of this study was the voluntary nature of registration in the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project.

CONCLUSIONS

Although bowel perforation and involvement of the circumferential resection margin were more common after abdominoperineal excision than after anterior resection, this study did not identify abdominoperineal excision as a determinant of local recurrence in the context of 3 years of median follow-up.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of conventional versus extended abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) was originally described with levator ani removal for rectal cancer. An even wider, more aggressive extralevator resection for APE has been proposed. Although some surgeons are performing a very wide 'extralevator APE (ELAPE)', there are few data to recommend it routinely. This multicentre study aimed to compare outcomes of APE and ELAPE.

METHODS

A multicentre propensity case-matched analysis comparing two surgical approaches (APE and ELAPE) was performed. All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection of a rectal tumour were considered for the analysis. Tumour height was defined by magnetic resonance imaging measurement and patients with stage II-III tumours had neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and intraoperative tumour perforation were the main outcome measures. A logistic regression model was used to study the relationship between the surgical approaches and outcomes.

RESULTS

From January 2008 to March 2013 a total of 1909 consecutive patients underwent APE or ELAPE, of whom 914 matched patients (457 in each group) formed the cohort for analysis. Intraoperative tumour perforation occurred in 7.9 and 7.7 per cent of patients during APE and ELAPE respectively (P = 0.902), and there was CRM involvement in 13.1 and 13.6 per cent (P = 0.846). There were no differences between APE and ELAPE in terms of postoperative complication rates (52.3 versus 48.1 per cent; P = 0.209), need for reoperation (7.7 versus 7.0 per cent; P = 0.703), perineal wound problems (26.0 versus 21.9 per cent; P = 0.141), mortality rate (2.0 versus 2.0 per cent; P = 1.000) and local recurrence rate at 2 years (2.7 versus 5.6 per cent; P = 0.664).

CONCLUSION

ELAPE does not improve rates of CRM involvement, intraoperative tumour perforation, local recurrence or mortality.

Oncologic colorectal resection after endoscopic treatment of malignant polyps: does endoscopy have an adverse effect on oncologic and surgical outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Early colorectal cancer is increasingly treated by endoscopic removal. In cases of incomplete resection or high-risk carcinoma, additional surgery is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of subsequent oncologic surgery after endoscopic resection of colorectal cancer, the rate of lymph node metastasis, residual cancer, and morbidity and mortality rates of the operation. Any eventual adverse effect of the prior endoscopic therapy on the surgical and oncologic outcome was assessed.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-six consecutive patients with incomplete endoscopic treatment and need for additional surgery between 2004 and 2011.

INTERVENTION

The data of these patients were compared with those of a group of patients with surgery for early colorectal cancer during the same period without prior endoscopic resection as the control group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rate of lymph node metastasis and residual cancer, perioperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The lymph node metastasis rate after oncologic resection was 8.6%, and the residual cancer rate was 41%. Risk factors for residual cancer were macroscopic incomplete resection (P < .0001), positive resection margins (P = .03), and piecemeal resection (P = .004). No mortality was observed. Perioperative morbidity, mortality, and oncologic outcome were not significantly different in the group with prior endoscopic resection compared with the primarily operated group.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment of malignant polyps does not worsen surgical and oncologic outcomes in cases of subsequent surgery. Because mortality and morbidity are low, oncologic resection generally should be done in the presence of risk factors for residual cancer.

Intra-operative perforation: a risk factor for prognosis of low rectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection

This study was designed to explore the influence of intra-operative perforation on prognosis of low rectal cancer after APR and to investigate the risk factors of perforation. Perforation is not scarce during the procedure of abdominoperineal resection (APR). There is no consensus on perforation rate and related risk factor for APR. Data of 925 patients who received APR for low rectal cancer between January 2000 and August 2008 were reviewed. The intra-operative perforation rate was 7.4 % (68/925). The recurrence rate was 28.6 % in patients with intra-operative perforation compared with 6.8 % in patients with no perforation (P < 0.001); 5-year survival rate in patients with perforation was 41.4 and 66.3 % in patients with no perforation. Univariate analysis showed that intra-operative perforation affected recurrence rate and survival significantly (P < 0.001, P < 0.001); multivariate analysis revealed that intra-operative perforation was an independent prognostic factors for recurrence (RR: 3.087, P < 0.001), while not for survival (RR: 1.331, P = 0.051). Patients aged more than 70 years, T3 tumor and treated by general surgeon had higher perforation rate (P = 0.001, P = 0.004, P = 0.008). Intra-operative perforation affected the prognosis of low rectal cancer after APR significantly. Elderly patient aged more than 70 years, T3 tumor and general surgeon who performed operation were three risk factors of increased perforation rate.

Future directions in surgery for colorectal cancer: the evolving role of transanal endoscopic surgery

SUMMARY 

The morbidity associated with radical surgery for rectal cancer has launched a revolution in increasingly less-invasive methods of resection, including a recent resurgence in transanal endoscopic surgical approaches. The next evolution in transanal surgery for rectal cancer is natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). To date, 14 series of transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer have been published (n = 76). Overall, the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 8 and 28%, respectively, compare favorably to those expected from laparoscopic and open TME. Short-term follow-up after NOTES TME has yielded no cancer recurrence in average-risk patients. High-risk patients have cancer recurrence rates similar to those after laparoscopic TME. Overall, these early data support transanal NOTES TME as a safe and viable alternative to conventional TME. Advances in instrumentation, surgical expertise and neoadjuvant treatment may expand current indications for NOTES even further.

Validity of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry for patients treated with major abdominal surgery between 1995 and 1997

BACKGROUND

Founded in 1995, the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry (SRCR) is frequently used for rectal cancer research. However, the validity of the registry has not been extensively studied. This study aims to validate a large amount of registry data to assess SRCR quality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study comprises 906 patients treated with major abdominal surgery registered in the SRCR between 1995 and 1997. SRCR data for 14 variables were scrutinized for validity against the medical records. Kappa's and Kendall's correlation coefficients for agreement between SRCR data and medical records data were calculated for 13 variables.

RESULTS

For 11 variables, concerning the tumor, neoadjuvant therapy, the surgical procedure, local radicality and TNM stage, data were missing in 5% or less of the registrations; for the remaining three variables, anastomotic leakage, local and distant recurrence, data were missing in 13-38%. For the variables surgery performed or not and type of surgical procedure, no data were missing. Erroneous registrations were found in less than 10% of all variables; for the variables preoperative chemotherapy and surgery performed or not, all registrations were correct. For the variables concerning neoadjuvant therapy, local radicality according to the surgeon as well as the pathologist and distant metastasis, the false-positive or -negative registrations were equally distributed, and for the variables rectal washout, rectal perforation, anastomotic leakage and local recurrence there was a discrepancy in distribution. The correlation coefficient for 12 variables ranged from 0.82 to 1.00, and was 0.78 for the remaining variable.

CONCLUSION

The validity of the SRCR was good for the initial three registry years. Thus, research based on SRCR data is reliable from the beginning of the registry's use.

The outcome of rectal cancer after early salvage TME following TEM compared with primary TME: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows locally complete resection of early rectal cancer as an alternative to conventional radical surgery. In case of unfavourable histology after TEM, or positive resection margins, salvage surgery can be performed. However, it is unclear if the results are equivalent to primary treatment with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome between patients who underwent early salvage resection with TME after TEM, and those who underwent primary TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

From 1997 to 2011, early salvage surgery with TME after TEM was performed in 25 patients in our institution. These patients were compared with 25 patients who underwent primary TME, matched according to gender, age (±2 years), cancer stage and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed retrospectively. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and oncological outcome were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the results between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups in median operating time (P = 0.39), median blood loss (P = 0.19) or intraoperative complications (P = 1.00). The 30-day mortality was 8 % (n = 2) among patients who underwent salvage TME after TEM, and no patients died in the primary TME group (P = 0.49). There was no significant difference between two groups of patients in the median number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.34), median circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P = 0.99) or the completeness of the mesorectal fascia plane. No local recurrences occurred among the patients with salvage TME, and there were 2 patients (8 %) with local recurrences among the patients with primary TME (P = 0.49). Distant metastasis occurred in one patient (4 %) after salvage TME and in 3 patients (12 %) with primary TME (P = 0.61). The median follow-up time was 25 months (3-126) for patients who underwent salvage TME and 19 months (3-73) for patients after primary TME.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in outcome between patients with rectal cancer undergoing salvage TME after TEM, those undergoing primary TME. In selected patients, TEM can therefore be chosen as a primary treatment, since failure of treatment and subsequent conventional resection appears not to compromise the outcome.

Transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision combined with single-port laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Rectal dissection using a conventional multiport laparoscopic approach involves risks due to technical difficulties, particularly in patients with a low tumor, a narrow pelvis, or obesity.

OBJECTIVE

We describe a technique of transanal endoscopic low and middle rectal dissection with subsequent coloanal anastomosis via single-port laparoscopy, with the aim of reducing technical problems, increasing safety, and improving cosmesis after resection of rectal cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was an observational study conducted in a large, tertiary care cancer center in France.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma requiring total mesorectal excision with a coloanal anastomosis were evaluated for eligibility to undergo the procedure. Patients were selected if they had 1 or more of the following risk factors: narrow pelvis, a voluminous prostate, or obesity.

INTERVENTION

After an anal mucosectomy, the rectal wall was circumferentially transected above the external sphincter and a transanal trocar was introduced. The dissection of the mesorectum was completely performed via endoscopy up to the Douglas rectovesical pouch. A single port was inserted at the future site of the transient ileostomy, and a left colectomy and a lymphadenectomy were performed. The upper rectum dissection enabled joining the transanal rectal plane of dissection. Then the splenic flexure was completely mobilized and the specimen was extracted through the site of the future ileostomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and histopathologic variables (margins, number of harvested lymph nodes, grade of the mesorectal fascia dissection) were recorded, and the quality of the surgical plane was assessed. The Cleveland Clinic Florida (Wexner) fecal incontinence questionnaire was administered after ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

Four consecutive male patients with rectal cancer in a narrow pelvis were treated with this new approach. No conversion (by laparotomy or multiport laparoscopy) was necessary. The pathologic variables were satisfactory and the Wexner scores indicated no severe incontinence after ileostomy closure. The postoperative follow-up was uneventful except for an anastomotic fistula which developed in 1 patient and was treated without reoperation.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by the small number of patients and the fact that no women and no obese patients were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal resection via the transanal approach combined with single-port laparoscopic assistance may be easier and safer than the traditional approach, especially in male patients who have a narrow pelvis. More data are needed in order to draw conclusions concerning oncologic results and before selecting the most appropriate indications for this technique.

Genomic CGH-assessed structural DNA alterations in rectal carcinoma as related to local recurrence following primary operation for cure

Several factors determine overall outcome and possible local recurrence after curative surgery for rectal carcinoma. Surgical performance is usually believed to be the most pertinent factor, followed by adjuvant oncological treatment and tumor histopathology. However, chromosomal instability is common in colorectal cancer and tumor clones are assumed to differ in aggressiveness and potential of causing local recurrence. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate if genetic alterations in primary rectal carcinoma are predictive of local recurrences. A large clinical database with linked bio-bank allowed for careful matching of two patient groups (R0) resected for rectal carcinoma. One group had developed early, isolated local recurrences and the other group seemed cured after 93 months follow-up. DNA from the primary tumors was analysed with array-CGH (comparative genomic hybridization) including 55,000 genomic probes. DNA from all primary tumors in both groups displayed previously reported and well-recognised DNA aberrations in colorectal carcinoma. Significant copy number gains were confirmed in the 4q31.1-31.22 region in DNA from tumors with subsequent local recurrence. Twenty-two affected genes in this region code for products with high relevance in tumor biology (p53 regulation, cell cycle activity, transcription). DNA from rectal carcinoma displayed well-known aberrations as described for colon carcinoma with no obvious prediction of local rectal recurrence. Gains in the 4q31.1-31.22 DNA region are highly potential for local recurrence despite R0 resection to be confirmed in larger patient materials.

Violation of treatment guidelines -- hazard for rectal cancer patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal trends in treatment and outcome in rectal cancer diagnosed during 1980-2004 at Levanger Hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol for prospective registration of rectal cancer treated with total mesorectal excision including operative strategy, radiotherapy and surveillance was established at Levanger Hospital in 1980. In this study, all rectal cancer patients treated during 1980-2004 were included.

RESULTS

More patients received preoperative radiotherapy during 2000-2004, but otherwise there were no significant differences in presentation or treatment during 1980-2004. The 5-year local recurrence rate after resection with curative intent was 4.5% (0-9.7), 18.7% (10.3-27.1) and 2.2% (0-6.7) in 1980-1989, 1990-1999 and 2000-2004 (p = 0.006), respectively. Out of a total of 23 cases of local recurrence, treatment guidelines, mainly with regard to radiotherapy, were violated in 19 cases. The 5-year overall survival after resection with curative intent was 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55-76) during 1980-1989, 58% (49-68) in 1990-1999 and 71% (59-83) in 2000-2004 (n.s). The 5-year relative survival was 83% (95% CI 69-95) during 1980-1989, 71% (59-81) in 1990-1999 and 84% (69-98) in 2000-2004 (n.s).

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer patients experienced excellent outcomes in the period 1980-1989 and 2000-2004. Due to violations of treatment guidelines, the rate of local recurrence was much too high in the period 1990-1999. This article illustrates the importance of continuous quality assurance in the treatment of rectal cancer to maintain optimized outcomes for the patients.

Intra-operative perforation is an important predictor of local recurrence and impaired survival after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

AIM

Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer is associated with higher rates of local recurrence and poorer survival than anterior resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of conventional abdominoperineal resection in a large national series.

METHOD

The study was based on the Danish National Colorectal Cancer Database and included patients treated with abdominoperineal resection between 1 May 2001 and 31 December 2006. Follow up in the departments was supplemented with vital status in the Civil Registration System. The analysis included actuarial local and distant recurrence, and overall and cancer-specific survival. Risk factors for local recurrence, distant metastases, overall survival and cancer-specific survival were identified using multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1125 patients were followed up for a median of 57 (25-93) months. Intra-operative perforation was reported in 108 (10%) patients. The cumulative 5-year local recurrence rate was 11% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7-13)], overall survival was 56% (95% CI, 53-60) and cancer-specific survival was 68% (95% CI, 65-71). Multivariate analysis showed that perforation, tumour stage and nonradical surgery were independent risk factors for local recurrence; tumour fixation to other organs, perforation and tumour stage were independent risk factors for distant metastases; and risk factors for impaired overall survival and cancer-specific survival were age, tumour perforation, tumour stage, lymph node metastases and nonradical surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative perforation is a major risk factor for local and distant recurrence and survival and therefore should be avoided.