Close distal margins do not increase rectal cancer recurrence after sphincter-saving surgery without neoadjuvant therapy

Close distal margin is associated with locoregional rectal cancer recurrence: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The importance of the radial margin for rectal cancer resection is well understood. However, surgeons have deemphasized the distal margin, accepting very close distal margins to perform sphincter-preserving surgery. We hypothesized that distal margins < 1 cm would be an independent risk factor for locoregional recurrence. The objective was to determine whether close distal margins are associated with increased locoregional recurrence risk.

METHODS

This was a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study conducted at six academic medical centers including patients who received low anterior resection surgery for primary rectal cancer between 2007 and 2018.

RESULTS

Of 556 low anterior resection patients, the rate of close distal margin was 12.8% (n = 71), and the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% (n = 28). The locoregional recurrence rate for close distal margin cases was 9.9% (n = 7) compared to 4.3% (n = 21) for distal margins ≥1.0 cm. In multivariable analysis, the only factor significantly associated with locoregional recurrence was close distal margin (adjusted odds ratio: 2.80, confidence interval: 1.08-7.25, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal cancer patients with close distal margins (<1 cm) following low anterior resection had a significantly higher risk for locoregional recurrence. Therefore, the decision to perform low anterior resection with margins < 1 cm should be taken with caution.

Validation of Urdu Version of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) Score

Patients subjected to low anterior resection for rectal cancers experience a constellation of symptoms of disordered bowel function which leads to a detriment in the quality of life. The LAR syndrome (LARS) score is a self-administered questionnaire to identify and assess disordered bowel function after resective surgery. The objective of this study was to validate the Urdu version of the LARS score. The translation process was carried out in a fashion outlined by the original authors of the LARS score after obtaining proper permission. The validation of the translated version included the assessment of its reliability, convergent and discriminant validities, internal consistency, and confirmatory analyses. A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study with a 95% power of study. The translated questionnaire was initially administered to a random subgroup of patients to verify the adequacy and degree of comprehension of questions. Then reproducibility was investigated by a test-retest procedure. An analysis was then done to determine the correlation between Urdu LARS score and a quality of life related question that was included along with the questionnaire. The Urdu version of the LARS score demonstrates a high convergent validity in terms of its correlation with self-reported quality of life. It also demonstrated its efficacy to discriminate between clinical variables expected to differ with regards to LARS. There was almost perfect agreement in the test and retest values demonstrating good reliability across all instruments. The Urdu version of the LARS score has proven to be a reliable and a valid tool for measuring LARS in the Urdu speaking population of the Indian subcontinent.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-023-01801-0.

Impact of Microscopically Positive (≤1 mm) Distal Margins on Disease Recurrence in Rectal Cancer Treated by Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The adequate distal resection margin is still controversial in rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a distal margin of ≤1 mm on locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS).

METHODS

Among 255 patients treated with nCRT and surgery at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, 83 (32.5%) had a distal margin of ≤1 mm and 172 (67.5%) had a distal margin of >1 mm. Survival analyses were performed to assess the impact of distal margin on 5-year LRRFS, as well as Cox survival analysis. The role of distal margin on survival was analyzed according to different tumor regression grades (TRGs).

RESULTS

The overall 5-year LRRFS rate was 77.6% with a distal margin of ≤1 mm vs. 88.3% with a distal margin of >1 mm (Log-rank p = 0.09). Only stage ypT4 was an independent predictor of worse LRRFS (HR 15.14, p = 0.026). The 5-year LRRFS was significantly lower in TRG3-5 patients with a distal margin of ≤1 mm compared to those with a distal margin of >1 mm (68.5% vs. 84.2%, p = 0.027), while no difference was observed in case of TRG1-2 (p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-responder rectal cancers after nCRT still require a distal margin of >1 mm to reduce the high likelihood of local relapse.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment outcomes of patients with involved resection margin after rectal cancer surgery: A nationwide population-based cohort study in South Korea

BACKGROUND

The involvement of resection margins after rectal cancer surgery by malignant tumors is a negative prognostic factor. Therefore, it is important to analyze treatment outcomes and establish adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service collects data from medical institutions in South Korea. We reviewed the database of this prospectively collected cohort for patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 5,620 patients, 113 (2.0%) were diagnosed with resection margin involvement after surgery. The resection margins of patients with mid-rectal cancer, pathologic stage III, mucinous/signet ring cell carcinoma, and undergoing emergency surgery were more frequently involved. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was a significant preventive factor for resection margin involvement (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.87; p = 0.012). The OS of patients with adjuvant treatment was better than that of patients without adjuvant treatment (5-year overall survival [OS]: 62.8% vs. 46.3%, p = 0.02). The administration of chemoradiotherapy was also significantly associated with better OS (hazard ratio = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.77; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Efforts to acquire wider resection margins are necessary for patients with mid-rectal cancer, pathologic stage III, mucinous/signet ring cell carcinoma, and emergency surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was a significant preventive factor for involved resection margin. Patients with resection margin involvement showed better OS after adjuvant treatment than those without adjuvant treatment. The adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was helpful to prevent the worse prognosis of these patients.

Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.

Transanal surgery: A tool in the colorectal anastomotic leakage

The treatment of anastomotic leakage after oncological surgery for rectal cancer is a surgical challenge. The goal of this study is to show how transanal surgery combined with the abdominal approach is a very useful tool to decide on individualized treatment depending on the degree of dehiscence and to assist us in its local management. We present three cases of patients with colorectal anastomotic dehiscence. In two, we demonstrate the treatment of acute colorectal leakage and how transanal surgery allows us to confirm its viability and rule out any underlying ischemia. Furthermore, it facilitates good drainage of the adjacent collection as well as the placement of a vacuum system, if necessary, and its subsequent replacements. The last case is a delayed dehiscence with chronic presacral sinus, and its treatment by transanal access for fenestration.

Impact of Length of Distal Margin on Outcomes Following Sphincter Preserving Surgery for Middle and Lower Third Rectal Cancers

Outcomes of sphincter preserving surgery for distal rectal cancers improve with clear circumferential resection and distal resection margin. However, the extent of distal resection margin after a complete mesorectal excision is often a cause for debate. We evaluated the outcome of middle and lower third rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter preservation with variable distal resection margin at our center. Patients with biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma within 10 cm from anal verge undergoing sphincter preserving resections were included. Patients with positive circumferential resection margin were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of distal resection margin (< 6 mm, 6-10 mm, > 10 mm) and oncological outcomes were compared. The median age of 242 patients was 50 years and 44 (18.2%) were high-grade tumors. Preoperative chemoradiation was used in 185 (75.2%) patients. Median distal resection margin was 20 mm. Patients in < 10 mm group had a significantly higher proportion of lower third (68.3% vs 39.8%, p = 0.004) and chemoradiation-treated tumors (85.4 vs 74.6%, p = 0.001). A significantly higher percentage required an intersphincteric resection in the < 10 mm group (53.7% vs 14.4%, p = 0.0001). Significantly higher percentage tumors were pT3 in > 10 mm group (45.3% vs. 31.7%) (p = 0.05). The median follow-up was 23 months. There was no difference in the overall, loco-regional, and distant recurrence rates between the three groups. A subcentimeter distal resection margin does not influence loco-regional or distant recurrence rates following sphincter preserving surgery for middle and lower third rectal adenocarcinoma.

Totally-laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer: are outcomes different?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer has superior short-term benefits compared to open surgery. When operative conditions do not favour a totally-laparoscopic (TL) approach, a hybrid operation can be performed. In this laparoscopic-assisted (LA) approach, mobilization and vessel ligation are performed laparoscopically, with total mesorectal excision and distal transection performed either partially or totally in an extra-corporeal fashion. We compared short-term post-operative and oncological outcomes of both approaches.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2009 and December 2014 was retrospectively analysed. Demographics, post-operative and oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 174 patients, 97 were completed by TL, 62 by LA and the remaining 15 were converted to open. Baseline demographics were similar. LA group compared to TL group had bulkier rectal cancers (6.75 cm³ versus 4.50 cm³ , P = 0.04) which were lower (6 cm versus 7 cm from anal verge, P = 0.02). They were of a more advanced tumour grade and had greater incidence of lymphovascular invasion. Yet, post-operative outcomes such as time to diet, pain scores, hospitalization duration, wound-related and anastomotic complications, 30-day morbidity and mortality were similar. There was no difference in oncological adequacy, including circumferential resection margins, distal margins, lymph node harvest and 2-year local recurrence rates.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection enables minimally invasive rectal surgery to be performed despite unfavourable tumour factors and technical challenges; and compares favourably with TL approach in terms of short-term outcomes and oncological safety.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 2 hospitals.

PATIENTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The oncologic outcomes of the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective study; bias may exist.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Factors associated with low anterior resection syndrome after surgical treatment of rectal cancer

AIM

To assess factors independently associated with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) following resection or rectal cancer.

METHOD

Cross-sectional study carried out in two acute-care teaching hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. Patients who had undergone sphincter preserving low anterior resection with curative intent, with total or partial mesorectal excision (with and without protective ileostomy) between January 2001 and December 2009 completed a self-administered questionnaire to assess bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. Predictors of LARS were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 329 patients (response rate 57.7%). Six cases of incomplete questionnaires were excluded. The study population included 184 patients (66.8% men) with a mean age of 63 years. There were 44 (23.9%) patients with no LARS, 36 (19.6%) with minor LARS and 104 (56.2%) with major LARS. In the univariate analysis, total mesorectal excision (P = 0.0008), protective ileostomy (P = 0.002), preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy (P = 0.0000), postoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.0046) and age (P = 0.035) were significantly associated with major LARS, whereas in the multivariate analysis, total mesorectal excision (odds ratio [OR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-4.65), preoperative radiotherapy (OR 4.33, 95% CI 2.03-9.27) and postoperative radiotherapy (OR 9.52, 95% CI 1.74-52.24) were independent risk factors for major LARS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the risk of having major LARS increases with total mesorectal excision and both neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiotherapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Continuous Effect of Radial Resection Margin on Recurrence and Survival in Rectal Cancer Patients Who Receive Preoperative Chemoradiation and Curative Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

To elucidate the proper length and prognostic value of resection margins in rectal cancer patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 1476 rectal cancer patients staging cT3-4N0-2M0 were analyzed. All patients received radiation dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Total mesorectal excision was performed 4 to 8 weeks after radiation therapy.

RESULTS

The recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years showed a significant difference between 3 groups: patients with circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≤1 mm, CRM 1.1 to 5 mm, and CRM >5 mm (46.2% vs 68.6% vs 77.5%, P<.001). Patients with CRM ≤1 mm showed a significantly higher cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (P<.001) and distant metastasis (P<.001) at 5 years compared with the other 2 groups. Patients with CRM 1.1 to 5 mm showed a significantly higher cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (P<.001), but not locoregional recurrence (P=.192), compared with those with CRM >5 mm. Distal resection margin (≤5 vs >5 mm) did not show any significant difference in cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (P=.310) and distant metastasis (P=.926).

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer patients with CRM ≤1 mm are a high-risk group, with the lowest RFS. Patients with CRM 1.1 to 5 mm may be at intermediate risk, with moderately increased distant recurrence. Distal resection margin was not significantly associated with RFS in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT and total mesorectal excision.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared.

RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group.

CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.

Perineural Invasion is a Strong Prognostic Factor in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Perineural invasion (PNI) is a possible route for metastatic spread in various cancer types, including colorectal cancer (CRC). PNI is linked to poor prognosis, but systematic analyses are lacking. This study systematically reviews the frequency and impact of PNI in CRC. A literature search was performed using PubMed database from inception to January 1, 2014. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. A quality assessment was performed on the basis of modified REMARK criteria. Endpoints were local recurrence (LR), 5-year disease-free survival (5yDFS), 5-year cancer-specific survival (5yCSS), and 5-year overall survival (5yOS). Meta-analysis was performed in terms of risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). In this meta-analysis, 58 articles with 22,900 patients were included. PNI was present in 18.2% of tumors. PNI is correlated with increased LR (RR 3.22, 95% CI, 2.33-4.44) and decreased 5yDFS (RR 2.35, 95% CI, 1.66-3.31), 5yCSS (RR 3.61, 95% CI, 2.76-4.72), and 5yOS (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.61). In multivariate analysis PNI remains an independent prognostic factor for 5yDFS, 5yCSS, and 5yOS (HR 2.35, 95% CI, 1.97-3.08; HR 1.91, 95% CI, 1.50-2.42; and HR 1.85, 95% CI, 1.63-2.12, respectively). We confirmed the strong impact of PNI for LR and survival in CRC. The prognostic value of PNI is similar to that of well-established prognostic factors as depth of invasion, differentiation grade, lymph node metastases, and lymphatic and extramural vascular invasion. Therefore, PNI should be one of the factors in the standardized reporting of CRC and might be considered a high-risk feature.

Pathologic processing of the total mesorectal excision

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the current optimal surgical treatment for patients with rectal carcinoma. A complete TME is related to lower local recurrence rates and increased patient survival. Many confounding factors in the patient's anatomy and prior therapy can make it difficult to obtain a perfect plane, and thus a complete TME. The resection specimen can be thoroughly evaluated, grossly and microscopically, to identify substandard surgical outcomes and increased risk of local recurrence. Complete and accurate data reporting is critical for patient care and helps surgeons improve their technique.

Association between a close distal resection margin and recurrence after a sphincter-saving resection for t3 mid- or low-rectal cancer without radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To maintain the patient's quality of life, surgeons strive to preserve the sphincter during rectal cancer surgery. This study evaluated the oncologic safety of a sphincter-saving resection with a distal resection margin (DRM) <1 cm without radiotherapy in T3, mid- or low-rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 327 patients who underwent a sphincter-saving resection for proven T3 rectal cancer located <10 cm from the anal verge and without radiotherapy between January 1995 and December 2011. The oncologic outcomes included the 5-year cancer-specific survival, the local recurrence, and the systemic recurrence rates.

RESULTS

In groups A (DRM ≤1 cm) and B (DRM >1 cm), the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were 81.57% and 80.03% (P = 0.8543), the 5-year local recurrence rates were 6.69% and 9.52% (P = 0.3981), and the 5-year systemic recurrence rates were 19.46% and 23.11% (P = 0.5750), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the close DRM itself should not be a contraindication for a sphincter-saving resection for T3 mid- or low-rectal cancer without radiotherapy. However, a prospective randomized controlled trial including the effect of adjuvant therapy will be needed.