Extended lymphadenectomy for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Rectal Cancer: Are 12 Lymph Nodes the Limit?

Lymph node dissection is a crucial element of oncologic rectal surgery. Many guidelines regard the removal of at least 12 lymph nodes as the quality criterion in rectal cancer. However, this recommendation remains controversial. This study examines the factors influencing the lymph node yield and the validity of the 12-lymph node limit. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection or abdominoperineal amputation between 2000 and 2010 were analyzed. In total, 20,966 patients from 381 hospitals were included. Less than 12 lymph nodes were found in 20.53% of men and 19.31% of women (p = 0.03). The number of lymph nodes yielded increased significantly from 2000, 2005 and 2010 within the quality assurance program for all procedures. The univariate analysis indicated a significant (p < 0.001) correlation between lymph node yield and gender, age, pre-therapeutic T-stage, risk factors and neoadjuvant therapy. The multivariate analyses found T3 stage, female sex, the presence of at least one risk factor and neoadjuvant therapy to have a significant influence on yield. The probability of finding a positive lymph node was proportional to the number of examined nodes with no plateau. There is a proportional relationship between the number of examined lymph nodes and the probability of finding an infiltrated node. Optimal surgical technique and pathological evaluation of the specimen cannot be replaced by a numeric cut-off value.

Efficacy and Safety of Radical Resection of Rectal Cancer Combined with Selective Lateral Lymph Node Dissection in the Treatment of Low Rectal Cancer under Meta-analysis

Rectal cancer mostly occurs in the middle and low position in China, and many anatomical evidence has confirmed that Lateral Lymph Node Metastasis (LLNM) exists in middle and low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic surgery can penetrate into the pelvic cavity and magnify and narrow the visual field, which is helpful for lymph node dissection and vascular nerve protection, while it has minimally invasive characteristics and is considered to be more suitable for LLND. Relevant articles published from January 2000 to May 2022 are searched using "Rectal cancer, Lateral lymph node dissection, Radical resection of rectal cancer, Low rectal cancer, Laparoscopic therapy, Treatment of rectal cancer" as test terms, analyzed and assessed using Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata software to assess the risk bias of included references, and heterogeneity among each study is evaluated using Q test and heterogeneity (I2). The experimental results show that there is no heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 8.46%). The heterogeneity of lymphatic metastasis in the included literature is evaluated, and the results show that there is heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 52.06%).

Extended Lymphadenectomy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The surgical treatment of advanced low rectal cancer remains controversial. Extended lymphadenectomy (EL) is the preferred option in the East, especially in Japan, while neoadjuvant radiotherapy is the treatment of choice in the West. This review was undertaken to review available evidence supporting each of the therapies.

Methods

All studies looking at EL were included in this review. A comprehensive search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was defined as 5-year overall survival, with secondary outcomes including 3-year overall survival, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival, length of operation, and number of complications.

Results

Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant publication bias. There was statistically significant difference in 5-year survival for patient who underwent EL (odds ratio, 1.34; 95 confidence interval, 0.09–0.5; P=0.006). There were no differences noted in secondary outcomes except for length of the operations.

Conclusion

There is evidence supporting EL in rectal cancer; however, it is difficult to interpret and not easily transferable to a Western population. Further research is necessary on this important topic.

Review of incomplete macroscopic resections (R2) in rectal cancer: Treatment, prognosis and future perspectives

Colorectal cancer is one of the most prevalent tumours, but with improved treatment and early detection, its prognosis has greatly improved in recent years. However, when the tumour is locally advanced at diagnosis or if there is local recurrence, it is more difficult to perform a complete tumour resection, and there may be a residual macroscopic tumour. In this paper, we review the literature on residual macroscopic tumour resections, concerning both locally advanced primary tumours and recurrences, evaluating the main problems encountered, the treatments applied, the prognosis and future perspectives in this field.

Prognostic Value of Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLD) for locally advanced rectal cancer remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of LPLD in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for publications comparing radical resection plus LPLD (LPLD group) with single radical resection (non-LPLD group) for locally advanced rectal cancer. A total of 15 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria and were assessed. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used where indicated, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

LPLD significantly increased grade 3-4 postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR]1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.02; P = 0.03) compared with non-LPLD. There were no significant differences in 5-y overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05; P = 0.17), 5-y disease-free survival (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.60-2.09; P = 0.73), local recurrence (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53-1.51; P = 0.68) or distant recurrence (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.12; P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that LPLD significantly increased grade 3-4 postoperative complications but did not increase 5-y overall survival or 5-y disease-free survival compared with single radical resection for locally advanced rectal cancer. Furthermore, it did not decrease the local recurrence or distant recurrence rates. Thus, more multicenter large-scale randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further explore whether the long-term survival benefits of LPLD truly exist.

Pulmonary metastasectomy: limits to credibility

Lung metastases are a common site of spread for many malignant tumours. Pulmonary metastasectomy has been practiced for many years for sarcomas and is now becoming increasingly frequently advocated for patients with many other tumours, especially colorectal cancer. In this article we argue that this procedure is one framed by therapeutic opportunity and not supported by strong evidence. It is potentially harmful and may not be effective. Our argument is based on several important issues: (I) the vagueness of the concept of “oligometastases” and its biological implausibility; (II) the flaws in the often-cited observational evidence, especially selection bias; (III) the lack of any reliable randomised trial evidence of improved survival but evidence of harm; (IV) the failure of strategies to detect metastases earlier to influence overall survival. The introduction of stereotactic radiotherapy and image-guided thermal ablation have made the urge to treat lung metastases stronger but without any good evidence to justify their use. We acknowledge the problems of carrying out randomised trials when there is a clear lack of equipoise in the clinical teams involved but believe that there is an ethical need to do so. Many patients are probably being given false hope of cure or prolonged survival but are at risk of harm from pulmonary metastasectomy or ablation. It is possible that a few patients may benefit but without better evidence we do not know which, if any, do.

Rise and fall of total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 11,366 patients

The role of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) during total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is still controversial. Many reviews were published on prophylactic LLND in rectal cancer surgery, some biased by heterogeneity of overall associated treatments. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a timeline analysis of different treatments associated to prophylactic LLND vs no-LLND during TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS and WOS for publications up to 1 September 2020. We considered RCTs and CCTs comparing oncologic and functional outcomes of TME with or without LLND in patients with rectal cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-four included articles and 29 studies enrolled 11,606 patients. No difference in 5-year local recurrence (in every subgroup analysis including preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), 5-year distant and overall recurrence, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival was found between LLND group and non LLND group. The analysis of post-operative functional outcomes reported hindered quality of life (urinary, evacuatory and sexual dysfunction) in LLND patients when compared to non LLND.

CONCLUSION

Our publication does not demonstrate that TME with LLND has any oncological advantage when compared to TME alone, showing that with the advent of neoadjuvant therapy, the advantage of LLND is lost. In this review, the most important bias is the heterogeneous characteristics of patients, cancer staging, different neoadjuvant therapy, different radiotherapy techniques and fractionation used in different studies. Higher rate of functional post-operative complications does not support routinely use of LLND.

Outcome of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection with total mesorectal excision in treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the gold standard treatment of mid- and low-lying rectal cancer. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has been suggested as an approach to decrease recurrence and improve survival. Our meta-analysis presented here aimed to review the current outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection and total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search querying electronic databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We reviewed articles that reported the outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection combined with total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone. The main outcome measures were local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall and disease free-survival, and complications.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 29 studies of 10,646 patients. Of those patients, 39.4% underwent total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. The median operation time for the lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was significantly longer than total mesorectal excision alone (360 minutes versus 294.7 minutes, P = .02). Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was associated with higher odds of overall complications (odds ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.87, P < .001) and urinary dysfunction (odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-3.67, P = .008) than total mesorectal excision alone. Both groups had similar rates of male sexual dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-2.79, P = .08), anastomotic leakage (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.93, P = .59), local recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.25, P = .79), distant metastasis (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.2, P = .72), overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.056, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.13, P = .13), and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.07, P = .37).

CONCLUSION

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection was not associated with a significant reduction of recurrence rates or improvement in survival as compared with total mesorectal excision alone; however, LPLND was associated with longer operation time and increased complication rate.

The efficacy and safety of lateral lymph node dissection for patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lateral lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer was first reported in the 1950s, since then, there has been an on-going debate about the value of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) in the management of rectal cancer. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of LLND for the patients with rectal cancer. To collect clinical studies for the comparison of LLND and non-LLND in patients with rectal cancer, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to 2019.A total of 26 studies, including 6865 patients were enrolled. Data processing and statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.0 software and Review Manager 5.3 software. Outcome measures included the 5-year survival rate, recurrence rate, perioperative outcomes, urinary function, and male sexual function. Regarding efficacy, our meta-analysis results showed no difference in 5-year disease-free survival rate and local recurrences between the two groups, the Hazard Ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was1.07 and 0.89 to 1.28 (P = 0.496),and the Odds Ratio(OR) and 95% CI were 0.90 and 0.76 to 1.06 (P = 0.208), respectively. Concerning safety, the incidence of urinary dysfunction and male sexual dysfunction was significantly increased in the LLND group (OR = 2.14, 95%CI = 1.21-3.79, P = 0.009), and (OR = 4.19, 95%CI = 1.55-11.33, P = 0.005), respectively. In conclusion, LLND did not improve the long-term prognosis of patients with rectal cancer, and was associated with increased urinary dysfunction and male sexual dysfunction.

Surgical and Survival Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced Primary Rectal Cancer: Results From an International Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze data from an international collaboration, and ascertain prognostic indicators that inform clinical decision-making and practices regarding the role of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC).

BACKGROUND

With improved national screening programs fewer patients present with LARC. Despite this, select cohorts of patients require pelvic exenteration. To date, the majority of outcome data are from single-center series.

METHODS

Anonymized data from 14 countries on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LARC between 2004 and 2014 were accumulated. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The impact of resection margin, nodal status, bone resection, and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) on survival was evaluated using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1291 patients, 778 (60.3%) were male with a median (range) age of 63 (18-90) years; 78.1% received neoadjuvant therapy. Bone resection en bloc was performed in 8.2% of patients (n = 106), and 22.6% (n = 292) had resection combined with flap reconstruction. Negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 79.9%. The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.5%.The median overall survival following R0, R1, and R2 resection was 43, 21, and 10 months (P < 0.001) with a 3-year survival of 56.4%, 29.6%, and 8.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); 37.8% of patients experienced one or more major complication. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the risk of 30-day morbidity (P < 0.012). Multivariable analysis identified resection margin and nodal status as significant determinants of overall survival (other than advanced age).

CONCLUSIONS

Attainment of negative resection margins (R0) is the key to survival. Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival; however, it does so at the increased risk of postoperative morbidity.