Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) versus laparoscopic TME for MRI-defined low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcomes

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular mid and low rectal cancer trends. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between LaTME and TaTME of mid and low rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of LaTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Articles included searching through the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of science for articles on LaTME and TaTME. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380067).

RESULTS

There are 8761 participants included in 33 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent LaTME had no statistical difference in operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay, over complications, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, anastomotic stenosis, wound infection, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, major low anterior resection syndrom, lymph node yield, loop ileostomy, and diverting ileostomy. There are similarities between LaTME and TaTME for 2-year DFS rate, 2-year OS rate, distant metastasis rat, and local recurrence rate. However, patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rates (RR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; I2 = 10.6%, P = .019) but TaTME had less end colostomy (RR 1.96; 95% CI: 1.19-3.23; I2 = 0%, P = .008).

CONCLUSION

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the differences in safety and effectiveness between LaTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer through meta-analysis. Patients who underwent LaTME had less anastomotic leak rate but TaTME had less end colostomy. There is no difference in other aspects. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99 mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32 mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30 days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

Tumour, narrow pelvis and surgery specific factors for total mesorectal excision quality and morbidity following rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Pelvic anatomy is critical in challenging rectal resections. This study investigated how pelvic anatomy relates to total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, anastomotic leakage rate, and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective rectal cancer resection from 2008 to 2017 in an Austrian institution were retrospectively reviewed regardless of the surgical approach. CT scans were analysed for pelvic measurements and volumes. The primary outcomes of interest were the correlation between pelvic dimensions and the TME quality and anastomotic leakage. Subanalysis was done by surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, transanal TME). Secondary outcomes were overall and disease-free survivals.

RESULTS

Among 154 eligible patients, 112 were included. The angle between pubic symphysis and promontory significantly correlated with worse TME grades (TME grade 1: mean(s.d.) 102.7(5.7)°; TME grade 2: 92.0(4.4)°; TME grade 3: 91.4(3.6)°; P < 0.001). A significantly lower distance between tumour and circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in grade 3 resections, whereas no difference appeared in grade 1 and grade 2 resection (TME grade 1: mean(s.d.) 11.92(9.4) mm; TME grade 2: 10.8(8.1) mm; TME grade 3: 3.1(4.1) mm; P = 0.003). The anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher in case of a lower CRM (patients with anastomotic leakage: mean(s.d.) 6.8(5.8) mm versus others: 12.6(9.8) mm, P = 0.027), but not associated with pelvimetry measurements. The transanal TME (TaTME) subgroup displayed a wider angle between the pubic symphysis and promontory, younger age and improved TME quality compared to others (respectively, mean TME grades in TaTME versus open versus laparoscopic: 1.0 ± 0.0, 1.5 ± 0.7 and 1.3 ± 0.5, P = 0.013). Finally, oncological survival was not impacted by pelvic measurements or worse TME quality.

CONCLUSION

The angle between the pubic symphysis and promontory and the distance between tumour and CRM were associated with worse TME grades. The anastomotic leakage was associated with a lower CRM but not with pelvimetric measures.

Excision of malignant and pre-malignant rectal lesions by transanal endoscopic microsurgery in patients under 50 years of age

BACKGROUND

The most common technique for treating benign and early malignant rectal lesions is transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Local excision is an acceptable technique for high-risk and elderly patients, but there are hardly any data regarding young patients.

AIM

To describe TEM outcomes in patients under 50 years of age.

METHODS

We collected demographic, clinical, and pathological data from all patients under the age of 50 years who underwent the TEM procedure at Hasharon Rabin Medical Center from January 2005 to December 2018.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 26 patients under the age of 50 years underwent TEM procedures. Their mean age was 43.3 years. Eleven (42.0%) were male. The mean operative time was 67 min, and the mean tumor size was 2.39 cm, with a mean anal verge distance of 8.50 cm. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded. The median length of stay was 2 d. Seven (26.9%) lesions were adenomas with low-grade dysplasia, four (15.4%) were high-grade dysplasia adenomas, two were T1 carcinomas (7.8%), and three were T2 carcinomas (11.5%). No residual disease was found following endoscopic polypectomy in two patients (7.8%), but four (15.4%) had other pathologies. Surgical margins were negative in all cases. Local recurrence was detected in one patient 33 mo following surgery.

CONCLUSION

Among young adult patients, TEM for benign rectal lesions has excellent outcomes. It may also offer a balance between the efficacy of complete oncologic resection and postoperative quality of life in the treatment of rectal cancer. In some cases, it may be considered an alternative to radical surgery.

Delineation and detection of breast cancer using novel label-free fluorescence

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) plays a crucial role in clinical pathology analysis and ensuring precise surgical margins to prevent recurrence.

METHODS

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) technology offers high sensitivity to tissue biochemistry, making it a potential tool for noninvasive BC identification. In this study, we utilized hyperspectral (HS) imaging data of stimulated BC specimens to detect malignancies based on altered fluorescence characteristics compared to normal tissue. Initially, we employed a HS camera and broadband spectrum light to assess the absorbance of BC samples. Notably, significant absorbance differences were observed in the 440-460 nm wavelength range. Subsequently, we developed a specialized LIF system for BC detection, utilizing a low-power blue laser source at 450 nm wavelength for ten BC samples.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed that the fluorescence distribution of breast specimens, which carries molecular-scale structural information, serves as an effective marker for identifying breast tumors. Specifically, the emission at 561 nm exhibited the greatest variation in fluorescence signal intensity for both tumor and normal tissue, serving as an optical predictive biomarker. To enhance BC identification, we propose an advanced image classification technique that combines image segmentation using contour mapping and K-means clustering (K-mc, K = 8) for HS emission image data analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory work presents a potential avenue for improving "in-vivo" disease characterization using optical technology, specifically our LIF technique combined with the advanced K-mc approach, facilitating early tumor diagnosis in BC.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).

Background

Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.

Results

In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.

Conclusions

cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

Background

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.

Methods

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).

Results

There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I²⁼84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I²⁼48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I²⁼0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I²⁼25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I²⁼31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I²⁼16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I²⁼7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I²⁼1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I²⁼0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I²⁼0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I²⁼0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I²⁼39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I²⁼0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I²⁼0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I²⁼19.0%, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

Meta-analysis of transanal vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of low rectal cancer: Importance of appropriate patient selection

BACKGROUND

Achieving a clear resection margins for low rectal cancer is technically challenging. Transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) was introduced in order to address the challenges associated with the laparoscopic approach in treating low rectal cancers. However, previous meta-analyses have included mixed population with mid and low rectal tumours when comparing both approaches which has made the interpretation of the real differences between two approaches in treating low rectal cancer difficult.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) and laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, R0 resection, completeness of mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin (DRM), harvested lymph nodes, and operation time were the investigated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We included twelve comparative studies enrolling 969 patients comparing TaTME (n = 969) and LaTME (n = 476) in patients with low rectal tumours. TaTME was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative complications (OR: 0.74, P = 0.04), anastomotic leak (OR: 0.59, P = 0.02), and conversion to an open procedure (OR: 0.29, P = 0.002) in comparison with LaTME. Moreover, the rate of R0 resection was significantly higher in the TaTME group (OR: 1.96, P = 0.03). Nevertheless, TaTME and LaTME were comparable in terms of rate of intraoperative complications (OR: 1.87; P = 0.23), completeness of mesoractal excision (OR: 1.57, P = 0.15), harvested lymph nodes (MD: -0.05, P = 0.96), DRM (MD: -0.94; P = 0.17), CRM (MD: 1.08, P = 0.17), positive CRM (OR: 0.64, P = 0.11) and procedure time (MD: -6.99 min, P = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that for low rectal tumours, TaTME is associated with better clinical and short term oncological outcomes compared to LaTME. More randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings and to evaluate long term oncological and functional outcomes.

Transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum as a viable approach to achieve total mesorectal excision in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer near the anus: a study of short- and long-term outcomes of 123 consecutive patients from a single Japanese institution

Background

In rectal cancer (RC) surgery, the complexity of total mesorectal excision (TME) in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery (lap-SPS) for RC near the anus has been a critical issue. Recently, technical assistance via the anus for complete TME has been receiving attention. This study aimed at clarifying the transanal down-to-up dissection viability for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus.

Methods

We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes of a total of 123 consecutive patients undergoing either a transanal rectal dissection (TARD) under direct vision mobilizing the most difficult portion of TME via the anus or the transanal TME by using an endoscopic system (TaTME) for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus between January 2006 and February 2021.

Results

A total of 123 consecutive patients (83 men) with a median age of 66 years (range 33–86 years) were included. TARD and TaTME were performed for 50 (40.7%) and for 73 (59.3%) patients, respectively. Preoperative treatment was performed for 40 (32.5%) patients, resulting in a complete pathological response in 5 (12.5%) patients. Intersphincteric resection was performed significantly more in the TARD group (p<0.001). Although the TaTME group needed a longer operative time at the transanal portion (p<0.001), the median blood loss was lower (p<0.001). Postoperative complications with the Clavien–Dindo classification grade ≧2 developed in 52 (42.3%) patients. Urinary dysfunction and stoma-related complications were found most frequently. More patients needing medication for urinary dysfunction were found in the TARD group, but a significant difference was not observed (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p=0.526). The quality of TME was good for almost all patients. Recurrence developed in 18 (14.6%) patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in 123 patients were 95.8% and 88.8%, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that a transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum might be a viable approach in lap-SPS for RC near the anus. Further studies are needed to examine the differences between TARD and TaTME.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate.

RESULTS

Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (TaTME) versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Studies have reported positive short-term and histopathological results of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for mid-low rectal cancer. The long-term oncological outcomes are diverse, and concerns regarding the high local recurrence (LR) rate of TaTME have recently increased. We retrospectively analyzed 298 consecutive patients who underwent Laparoscopic TME (LapTME) or TaTME between January 2015 and December 2019. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was performed with patients matched for demographics and stage. After PSM, 63 patients were included in each group. The TaTME group had a longer mean operative time (394 vs. 333 min, p < 0.001). The blood loss, diverting stoma rate, and conversion rate were similar. Postoperatively, TaTME and LapTME had compatible complications, recovery, and hospital stay. A similar specimen quality was detected in both groups. After a mean follow-up period of 41−47 months, TaTME had less LR than LapTME (9.5% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.031). The 3-year overall survival was 80.3% in the TaTME group and 73.6% in the LapTME group (p = 0.331). The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 72.0% in the TaTME group and 56.6% in the LapTME group (p = 0.038). In conclusion, better DFS and fewer LR events were observed after TaTME; thus, TaTME can be considered a safe and feasible approach in patients with low rectal cancer.

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261125.

Transanal total mesorectal excision combined with intersphincteric resection has similar long-term oncological outcomes to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) or intersphincteric resection (ISR) has recently proven to be a valid and safe surgical procedure for low rectal cancer. However, studies focusing on the combination of these two technologies are limited. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative results, long-term oncologic outcomes, and anorectal functions of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing taTME combined with ISR, by comparing with those of patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (laAPR).

Methods

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 200 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laAPR (n = 100) or taTME combined with ISR (n = 100) between September 2013 and November 2019 were included. Patient demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, oncological outcomes, and anal functional results were analysed.

Results

Patients in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group had less intraoperative blood loss (79.6 ± 72.6 vs 107.3 ± 65.1 mL, P = 0.005) and a lower rate of post-operative complications (22.0% vs 44.0%, P < 0.001) than those in the laAPR group. The overall local recurrence rates were 7.0% in both groups within 3 years after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 86.3% in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group and 75.1% in the laAPR group (P = 0.056), while the 3-year overall survival rates were 96.7% and 94.2%, respectively (P = 0.319). There were 39 patients (45.3%) in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group who developed major low anterior resection syndrome, whereas 61 patients (70.9%) had good post-operative anal function (Wexner incontinence score ≤ 10).

Conclusion

We found similar long-term oncological outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laAPR and those undergoing taTME combined with ISR. Patients receiving taTME combined with ISR had acceptable post-operative anorectal function.

A pilot study on preoperative vascular anatomy and clinical application in rectal cancer resection

AIM

To assess the utility of preoperatively evaluating the vascular anatomy using multisection spiral computed tomography angiography (CTA) and image fusion technology in the treatment of obese patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomised prospective study included 56 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the fusion imaging group (preoperative CTA and image fusion reconstruction [n=28]) and the control group (not performed CTA and image fusion reconstruction before the operation [n=28]). Duration of surgery was defined as the primary endpoint, and the volume of bleeding, the number of lymph node dissections, conversion to laparotomy, time to recovery of postoperative flatus, length of hospitalisation as well as perioperative complications were defined as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the duration of surgery in the image fusion group was shorter, bleeding volume was reduced, and the number of lymph node dissections was greater (p<0.05); however, there was no significant differences between the two groups regarding time to postoperative flatus recovery, conversion to laparotomy, length of hospitalisation, and perioperative complications (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative assessment of the vascular anatomy was an effective method and avoided some invisible risks during surgery, and resulted in a better therapeutic effect.

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has the potential advantages for patients with low rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify the pathologic outcomes between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in rectal cancer.

METHODS

The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with English language restriction. The primary endpoint was circumferential margin (CRM), and the secondary endpoints were distal resection margin (DRM), mesorectal excision quality, and harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Our research identified 1090 articles, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The positive CRM was lower in the TaTME than the LaTME (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.98; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the positive CRM between the TaTME and LaTME published after 2016 (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.12; P = 0.19), prospective study (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 0.51, 14.24; P = 0.24), respective study (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.55, 1.04; P = 0.09), BMI > 26 (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.58; P = 0.98), or sample size > 100 (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.23; P = 0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference observed between the TaTME and LaTME in terms of DRM, mesorectum incompleteness, and harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The TaTME is associated with lower positive CRM compared to the LaTME and similar pathologic outcomes including DRM, harvested lymph node, and mesorectal excision quality.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.

METHODS

We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.

RESULTS

This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Limitations and Concerns with Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was developed to overcome the technical challenges of a minimally invasive (ultra-) low anterior resection. This new technique has recently come under careful scrutiny as technical pitfalls were reported, in specific relation to the transanal approach. Patients are at risk for urologic lesions. Moreover, carbon dioxide embolism is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The benefit of TaTME from an oncological point of view has neither been clarified. Hypothetically, better visualization of the lower rectum could lead to better dissection and total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens, resulting in better oncologic results. Up until now, retrospective multicenter reports seem to show that short-term oncologic results are not inferior after TaTME as compared with after laparoscopic TME. Alarming reports have however been published from Norway suggesting a high incidence and particular multifocal pattern of early local recurrence. In this article, a balanced overview is given of the most important technical pitfalls and oncological concerns arising with this new procedure.

Total mesorectal excision laparoscopic versus transanal approach for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Total mesorectal excision (TME) performed for the first time by Held through an open approach, it has become the standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME.

Material and methods

In this meta-analysis, we included all comparative studies, prospective and retrospective, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer, a comparison between TaTME and LaTME. A search was performed through MEDLINE and Cochrane Database. 846 records were identified.

Results

Eight relevant studies have been included in this meta-analysis. The studies were from France, Russia, USA, Netherlands, Taiwan, Egypt. The eight studies including 471 patients with middle or low rectal cancer.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for low and middle rectal cancer. TaTME can lead to a high quality of rectal cancer resection specimen.

•

The aim the of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes provided by TaTME than LaTME.

•

We included all comparative studies, which addressed in low and middle rectal cancer.

•

Eight relevant studies have been included.

•

The meta-analysis confirmed safety of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a comparative study of long-term oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is the most recent approach developed to improve pelvic dissection in surgery for mid and low rectal tumors. There are still inconsistencies regarding the technique's oncological results. The aim of this study was to analyze clinical and oncological outcomes of the learning curve of TaTME in comparison to laparoscopic TME (lapTME).

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who had TaTME and lapTME in two Portuguese colorectal units between March 2016 and December 2018 were eligible. Primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Secondary endpoints were clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients underwent TaTME (29 men) and 39 lapTME (27 men) with a median age of 69 and 66 (p = 0.093), respectively. No differences were observed concerning baseline characteristics, emphasizing their comparability. In the TaTME group, there were more hand-sewn anastomosis (0 lapTME versus 7 TaTME, p = 0.018) with significantly less distance to the dentate line (40 mm lapTME versus 20 mm TaTME, p = 0.005) and significantly more loop ileostomies performed (28 lapTME versus 41 TaTME, p = 0.001). There were no differences in post-operative mortality, morbidity, readmissions, and stoma closure. Groups were similar in relation to specimen quality, margins, and resectability; however, TaTME had a significantly higher node yield (14 lapTME versus 20 TaTME, p = 0.002). Finally, no disparities were noted in oncological outcomes, namely local and distant recurrence, 5-year overall survival, and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with the disadvantage of the learning curve of a new technique, TaTME appears to be comparable to lapTME, with similar long-term oncological outcomes. It has, however, a demanding learning curve, significant risk for morbidity and should be used only for selected patients.

Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates

Despite innovative advancements, distally located rectal cancer remains a critical disease of challenging management. The crucial location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin (CRM) that tends to involve the anal sphincter complex and surrounding organs, with a high incidence of delayed anastomotic complications and the risk of the pelvic sidewall or rarely inguinal lymph node metastases. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of other issues beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) performance. For decades, the concept of extralevator abdominoperineal resection to avoid compromised CRM has been introduced. However, the complexity of deep pelvic dissection with poor visualization in low-lying rectal cancer has led to transanal TME. In contrast, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise. Significant tumor regression after NCRT and complete pathologic response also permit applying the watch-and-wait protocol in some cases, now with more solid evidence. This review article will introduce the current surgical treatment options, their indication and technical details, and recent oncologic and functional outcomes. Lastly, the novel characteristics of distal rectal cancer, such as pelvic sidewall and inguinal lymph node metastases, will be discussed along with its tailored and individualized treatment approach.

The role of transanal total mesorectal excision

At inception, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was hypothesized to be a solution for several problems encountered in pelvic surgery, particularly for distal rectal cancer. The transanal part of the procedure is less hampered by patient related factors such as visceral obesity and a narrow bony pelvis and can thus overcome access and visualization problems encountered with a pure abdominal approach. Clearly, as for any new technique, a learning curve needs to be negotiated, ideally without unacceptable harm to patients. Once in experienced hands, TaTME might overcome challenges found in anatomically challenging rectal cancer patients as well as for other indications. The role of TaTME is not to replace, but rather complement its abdominal counterpart.

Anastomotic leakage and chronic presacral sinus after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: A comparative study to laparoscopic TME

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown that there are no significant differences in anastomotic leakage associated with Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) versus laparoscopic TME (lapTME) for rectal cancer; however, little is known about late anastomotic leakage, such as that primarily found in the chronic presacral sinus. We aimed to compare the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and chronic presacral sinus in rectal cancer for taTME and lapTME.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected for patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgery between January 2009 and September 2019. Of the 220 patients included in this study, 182 were in the lapTME group and 38 in the taTME group. We compared factors associated with anastomotic leakage and chronic presacral sinus formation between the two groups. A binary-logistic model was used to determine the risk factors for chronic presacral sinus.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in six patients (15.8%) in the taTME group and 36 patients (19.7%) in the lapTME group. Chronic presacral sinus occurred in three patients (7.9%) in the taTME group and 15 patients (8.2%) in the lapTME group. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage or chronic presacral sinus between groups (P = 0.569 and P = 1.000, respectively). Pathologic stage III or higher was significantly associated with chronic presacral sinus formation (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences between taTME and lapTME regarding the incidence of anastomotic leakage or chronic presacral sinus. Almost one-third of anastomotic leakages developed into chronic presacral sinus.

A nationwide comparison of short-term outcomes after transanal, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has several limitations. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) can potentially overcome these limitations. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of non-radical surgery and anastomotic leakage after TaTME, open TME (OpTME), laparoscopic TME (LaTME) and robotic TME (RoTME) procedures in a nationwide cohort.

METHODS

We extracted the demographic, perioperative and pathological data of patients who underwent a curative OpTME, LaTME, RoTME or TaTME procedure between January 2014 and December 2018 from the national database of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). We conducted multiple group-comparisons, uni- and multivariate analyses to determine the factors associated with positive resection margin (+RM) and anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

We included 2393 patients (OpTME = 205, LaTME = 1163, RoTME = 713 and TaTME = 312). The rate of +RM was 5.7% after TaTME. The lowest rate of +RM was achieved after RoTME (8.2%, 4.7%, 2.52%, and 5.7%, after OpTME, LaTME, RoTME and TaTME respectively, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, having a T4 tumour and intraoperative bowel perforation were associated with the risk of +RM (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). The factors associated with anastomotic leakage in multivariate analysis were male gender, high BMI and intraoperative bowel perforation (p < 0.001, p = 0.049, p = 0.002, respectively). TaTME was associated with the highest rate of sphincter-saving procedures (79.8%, p < 0.001), the lowest rate of bowel perforation (2.9%, p = 0.028) and the lowest rate of conversion to open surgery (1.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide audit of TME approaches, the rate of +RM was lowest after RoTME. No differences were found between the four approaches regarding the risk of anastomotic leakage. TaTME offered advantages related to sphincter-saving, perforation and conversion.

Transanal (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of early and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LapTME) in distal rectal tumors. Despite encouraging reports, mid- and long-term oncological results are limited. In this study, we aimed at comparing TaTME versus LapTME in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2019, all patients undergoing either TaTME or LapTME for rectal adenocarcinoma ≤ 12 cm from the anal verge were included. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up data were retrieved from a prospective and audited database, and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were included, 38 underwent TaTME, and 106 LapTME. The median age was 68.0 (60.2-75.8) years, and 96 (66.7%) patients were male. Median follow-up was 30.6 (20.2-39.8) months in the TaTME group and 49.5 (22.6-68.5) months in the LapTME group. There was one (2.6%) local recurrence in the TaTME group and two (1.9%) in the LapTME group (p = 0.788). There was no difference in the 3-year disease-free survival between groups both in the primary (93% vs. 86%, p = 0.274) and the propensity score-matched analyses (93% vs. 81%, p = 0.132). Conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the TaTME group (none vs. 4 (11.4%), p = 0.041). Intra- and postoperative complications, length of stay, specimen quality, and resection margins were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, TaTME was associated with a less frequent conversion to open surgery but otherwise had similar post-operative results compared to LapTME. Local recurrence and 3-year survival rates were similar.

Meta-analysis of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a 'New Health Technology' assessment in South Korea

Purpose

Under the South Korea's unique health insurance structure, any new surgical technology must be evaluated first by the government in order to consider whether that particular technology can be applied to patients for further clinical trials as categorized as 'New Health Technology,' then potentially covered by the insurance sometime later. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer, activated by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) TaTME committee.

Methods

We systematically searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane, and Korean databases (from their inception until August 31, 2019) for studies published that compare TaTME with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). End-points included perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Results

Sixteen cohort studies (7 for case-matched studies) were identified, comprising 1,923 patients (938 TaTMEs and 985 LaTMEs). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the conversion rate was significantly lower in TaTME (risk ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.34; P < 0.001); whereas other perioperative outcomes were similar to LaTME. There were no statistically significant differences in pathological results between the 2 procedures.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed comparable results in preoperative and pathologic outcomes between TaTME and LaTME, and indicated the benefit of TaTME with low conversion. Extensive evaluations of well-designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to come to unequivocal conclusions, but the results showed that TaTME is a potentially beneficial technique in some specific cases. This meta-analysis suggests that TaTME can be performed for rectal cancer patients as a 'New Health Technology' endorsed by NECA in South Korea.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Background

The quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is regarded as a fundamental key to the oncological outcome of rectal cancer. Robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal TME (TaTME) were developed to overcome the technical challenges of conventional open TME. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of RLAR versus TaTME for rectal cancer.

Methods

Retrospective data from patients undergoing RLAR or TaTME at a colorectal unit in Singapore were analysed. The primary outcomes were the short-term clinical and pathological results including specimen margins and quality of TME. Secondary outcomes were recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates.

Results

A total of 80 patients who underwent either RLAR or TaTME were analysed. The TaTME group had a shorter operating time than the RLAR group (354 versus 481 min respectively; P < 0.001) and fewer stays in the high-dependency and intensive care units (38.1 versus 73.7 per cent; P = 0.010). There was a higher rate of readmissions at 30 days in the TaTME group (19.0 versus 0 per cent; P = 0.006). Specimens from TaTME had greater proximal (14.0 versus 10.0 cm; P = 0.045) and distal (2.50 versus 1.65 cm; P = 0.021) margins. Patients undergoing TaTME had borderline longer DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.049). Subgroup analysis of patients with (y)pT3–4 tumours showed fewer positive circumferential resection margins with TaTME (0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.019) and improved DFS (25.9 versus 15.7 months; P = 0.017).

Conclusion

Superior margins were obtained with TaTME, especially in locally advanced tumours, although TaTME was associated with a higher readmission rate compared with RLAR.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Should Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Be Implemented in Medium-Sized Colorectal Unit? Technical and Oncological Outcome

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate the outcome of implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for low rectal cancer in a regional hospital and in comparison to laparoscopic (Lap) TME.

Methods

Consecutive patients with low rectal cancer of which the lowest border of the tumour was located beween 1 and 5 cm from the puborectalis who underwent TME at North District Hospital between January 2013 and December 2019 were included. Clinical, operative, and pathologic outcomes were compared between Lap TME and TaTME. The primary end point was complication profile.

Results

Thirty-five patients underwent Lap TME and 45 patients underwent TaTME for low rectal cancer. The conversion rate of the TaTME group was significantly lower than that of the Lap TME group (4.4% vs. 20%, P=0.029), but the operating time was longer (259 minutes vs. 219 minutes, P=0.009). The tumour location was significantly lower in the TaTME group, but the distal resection margins were adequate and not different between both groups. The TaTME group had higher incidence rates of prolonged ileus and urinary tract infection, but the other complications were similar between the two groups. The resection margin positivity rates of the TaTME and Lap TME groups were 2.2% and 5.7%, respectively (P=0.670). At a median follow up of 39 months, no abnormal early recurrence was detected.

Conclusion

It is technically feasible and oncologically safe to perform TaTME in a medium-volume colorectal unit. Patients with difficult pelvic anatomy can benefit by reducing the risk of conversion and margin positivity rate.

Comparing functional outcomes between transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is concern that transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) may result in poorer functional outcomes as compared to laparoscopic TME (LaTME). These concerns arise from the fact that TaTME entails both a low anastomosis and prolonged dilatation of the anal sphincter from the transanal platform.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aimed to assess the comparative functional outcomes following TaTME and LaTME, with a focus on anorectal and genitourinary outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed on available literature between 2000 and 2020 from the PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All comparative studies assessing the functional outcomes following taTME versus LaTME in adults were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Functional anorectal and genitourinary outcomes were evaluated using validated scoring systems.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included, consisting of one randomised controlled trial and six non-randomised studies. There were 242 (52.0%) and 233 (48.0%) patients in the TaTME and LaTME groups respectively. Anorectal functional outcomes were similar in both groups with regard to LARS scores (30.6 in the TaTME group and 28.3 in the LaTME group), Jorge-Wexner incontinence scores, and EORTC QLQ C30/29 scores. Genitourinary function was similar in both groups with IPSS scores of 5.5 to 8.0 in the TaTME group, and 3.5 to 10.1 in the LaTME group. (p = 0.835).

CONCLUSION

This review corroborates findings from previous studies in showing that the transanal approach is not associated with increased anal sphincter damage. Further prospective clinical trials are needed in this field of research.

Transperineal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer on the residual rectum after multiple abdominal surgeries in a patient with Crohn's disease: a case report

BACKGROUND

The improved prognosis of Crohn's disease may increase the opportunities of surgical treatment for patients with Crohn's disease and the risk of development of colorectal cancer. We herein describe a patient with Crohn's disease and a history of multiple surgeries who developed rectal stump carcinoma that was treated laparoscopically and transperineally.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 51-year-old man had been diagnosed with Crohn's disease 35 years earlier and had undergone several operations for treatment of Crohn's colitis. Colonoscopic examination was performed and revealed rectal cancer at the residual rectum. The patient was then referred to our department. The tumor was diagnosed as clinical T2N0M0, Stage I. We treated the tumor by combination of laparoscopic surgery and concomitant transperineal resection of the rectum. While the intra-abdominal adhesion was dissected laparoscopically, rectal dissection in the correct plane progressed by the transperineal approach. The rectal cancer was resected without involvement of the resection margin. The duration of the operation was 3 h 48 min, the blood loss volume was 50 mL, and no intraoperative complications occurred. The pathological diagnosis of the tumor was type 5 well- and moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, pT2N0, Stage I. No recurrence was evident 3 months after the operation, and no adjuvant chemotherapy was performed.

CONCLUSION

The transperineal approach might be useful in patients with Crohn's disease who develop rectal cancer after multiple abdominal surgeries.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision in Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: Evaluation of the Learning Curve and Comparison of Short-term Results With Standard Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

BACKGROUND

Ever since transanal total mesorectal excision was introduced by Sylla and Lacy in 2010, it has become more popular among colorectal surgeons. However, some surgeons hesitate to use it, because this novel approach differs greatly from laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and requires a long learning curve.

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzed the learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision procedure and compared the different phases of transanal total mesorectal excision with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This is retrospective case-control study.

SETTINGS

We used data from the approved colorectal cancer database of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.

PATIENTS

The patients involved in this study underwent transanal total mesorectal excision performed by a single surgeon (L.K.) or underwent laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision performed by experienced surgeons.

INTERVENTIONS

Transanal or laparoscopic resection of mid-low rectal cancer was conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Perioperative complication and resection margin were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included in both groups. The learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision was divided into 3 phases. Data show that demographics and tumor characteristics were not significantly different between the matched groups. Indeed, during phase 1, only operative time was longer than in the laparoscopic group, whereas, during phase 2, results from the transanal group were comparable with the laparoscopic group. Results show that, during phase 3, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were all lower than in the laparoscopic group. Local recurrence occurred in 3 patients during phase 1 and in 1 patient during phase 2.

LIMITATIONS

This study was a small retrospective study and focused on just 1 surgeon performing transanal total mesorectal excision.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term and histopathologic outcomes are similar compared between a transanal group and matched laparoscopic group. Transanal total mesorectal excision also provided good oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B450.

ESCISIN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL EN EL CNCER DE RECTO MEDIOBAJO EVALUACIN DE LA CURVA DE APRENDIZAJE Y COMPARACIN DE RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO CON TME LAPAROSCPICA ESTNDAR

ANTECEDENTES:Desde que Sylla y Lacy introdujeron la escisión mesorrectal total transanal en 2010, se ha vuelto más popular entre los cirujanos colorrectales. Sin embargo, algunos cirujanos dudan en utilizarlo, porque este nuevo método difiere mucho de la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y requiere una larga curva de aprendizaje.OBJETIVO:Este estudio analizó la curva de aprendizaje del procedimiento de escisión mesorrectal total transanal y comparó las diferentes fases de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal con la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles.ENTORNO CLINICO:Utilizamos base de datos de cáncer colorrectal aprobada del Sexto Hospital Afiliado de la Universidad Sun Yat-sen (Guangzhou, China).PACIENTES:Los pacientes involucrados en este estudio fueron sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total transanal realizada por un solo cirujano (LK) o se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total transanal laparoscópica realizada por cirujanos experimentados.INTERVENCIONES:Resección transanal o laparoscópica de cáncer de recto medio-bajo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VOLARCION:complicación perioperatoria y margen de resección.RESULTADOS:Se incluyó un total de 342 pacientes en ambos grupos. La curva de aprendizaje de la escisión mesorrectal total transanal se dividió en tres fases. Los datos muestran que las características demográficas y tumorales no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos emparejados. De hecho, durante la fase 1, solo el tiempo operatorio fue más largo que en el grupo laparoscópico. Mientras que durante la fase 2, los resultados del grupo transanal fueron comparables a los del grupo laparoscópico. Los resultados muestran que durante la fase 3, el tiempo operatorio, la pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y la estancia hospitalaria postoperatoria fueron menores que en el grupo laparoscópico. La recurrencia local ocurrió en 3 pacientes durante la fase 1 y en 1 paciente durante la fase 2.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio fue un estudio retrospectivo pequeño y se centró en un solo cirujano que realizaba la escisión mesorrectal total transanal.CONCLUSIÓN:Los resultados a corto plazo e histopatológicos son similares en comparación entre el grupo transanal y el grupo laparoscópico emparejado. La escisión mesorrectal total transanal también proporcionó buenos resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B450.

Oncological outcomes and stoma-free survival following TaTME, a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Transanal TME (TaTME) was introduced to improve access to the pelvis in difficult cases (male sex, obesity and mid to low rectal cancers) and reduce the risk of anastomotic leak by avoiding cross stapling. In April 2018 the Norwegian hospital to whom all local; recurrences for rectal cancer are referred reported an unexpected rise in early multifocal local recurrences of 9.5% following TaTME compared with 3.4% following conventional TME leading to a nationwide moratorium on the procedure and ending, in an editorial published on the British Journal of Surgery in August 2020, by saying that other countries should consider the issue in the context of local practices and results. There are limited data concerning oncological outcomes of TaTME compared to conventional TME. The aim of this study was to report perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients with rectal cancer treated with TaTME in a high-volume, experienced UK centre.

METHODS

From January 2015 to January 2020 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer having TaTME at Worcestershire Royal Hospital NHS were prospectively entered into an online international registry. Patients were followed according to local protocol with clinical examination, tumour markers, endoscopy and radiology.

RESULTS

Seventy patients underwent TaTME for rectal cancer. The median distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction was 4 cm (IQR 2-5). The mesorectal margin was involved in 20 (1%) patients, all of whom received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Overall survival was 94% at a median follow-up of 15 months (IQR 9-31 months). Distant recurrence occurred in 12 (17%) of patients at a median of 14 months (IQR 10-17 months). The 18-month stoma-free survival rate was 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

A local recurrence rate of 5.7% supports the oncological safety of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27–0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference, −1.72; 95% CI, −2.89 to −0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision outcomes for advanced rectal cancer in a complex surgical population

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard for oncologic resection in low and mid rectal cancers. However, abdominal approaches to TME can be hampered by poor visibility, inadequate retraction, and distal margin delineation. Transanal TME (taTME) is a promising hybrid technique that was developed to mitigate the difficulties of operating in the low pelvis and to optimize the circumferential resection and distal margins.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to characterize our experience implementing taTME at our institution in a technically challenging patient population. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent taTMEs between November 2013 and May 2019 for rectal cancer at a tertiary community cancer center. Outcome measures included pathologic grading of TME specimen, post-operative complications, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients with mid and low rectal cancer underwent low anterior resection via taTME. The most common staging modality was rectal MRI which demonstrated T3 or T4 tumors in 89% of our patients prior to neoadjuvant. Eighty-six percent of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The initial cases were performed sequentially as a single team, but we later transitioned to a synchronous, two-team approach. Ninety-one percent of TME grades were complete or near complete. Only one patient (2.3%) had a positive circumferential margin. Six patients developed anastomotic leaks with an overall anastomotic complication rate of 18.2%. Two patients (4.5%) with primary rectal cancer developed local recurrence, one of which developed multifocal local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the taTME approach on selected locally advanced low rectal cancers, especially in technically complex irradiated and obese male patients, has yielded comparably safe and effective outcomes to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: A case matched study

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve the quality of laparoscopic TME for patients with rectal cancer. Recently, international concern on TaTME was raised by a national cohort study showing an increased rate of local recurrences. This study aimed to compare clinicopathological and mid-term oncological outcomes of TaTME versus laparoscopic TME (LaTME) for mid and low rectal cancer of a high volume center.

METHODS

From August 2014 to October 2019, patients with mid or low rectal cancer who received TaTME procedure were identified. The cases were matched with patients treated with LaTME. Data were retrospectively collected including operative details, postoperative morbidity, pathologic results, and oncologic outcomes. Primary endpoint was the local recurrence (LR) rate.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded 70 patients in each of the groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative complications, conversion rate to open surgery and circumferential resection margin. Local recurrence occurred in 2 patients (2.9%) in the transanal group, whereas 1 patient developed a local recurrence in the laparoscopic group (1.4%)(p = 0.559). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a 2 year Local recurrence rate 1.5% VS 1.6%(p = 0.934), DFS 88.0% VS 87.7%, OS 94.0% vs 100% for transanal and laparoscopic group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high volume center the transanal total mesorectal procedure is feasible, and appears to be safe alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Oncological outcomes were acceptable and no increased multi or unifocal local recurrence rate was found.

Early Experience With Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared With Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is widely used for rectal cancers; however, it is sometimes challenging, especially in obese patients with low tumors, particularly after chemoradiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision was developed to overcome these limitations in terms of visualization, dissection, and stapling.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the pathologic and early oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic and transanal approaches.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study using propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital specializing in oncology.

PATIENTS

In total, 722 inpatients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer from January 2014 to December 2017 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic (N = 514) and transanal (N = 208) total mesorectal excision were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was pathologic outcome including circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications and overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rates.

RESULTS

The 2 groups of the cohort had several differences; thus, we performed propensity score matching. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 13.4% and 12.9% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.88). The distal resection margin was involved in 1% and 3% of the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.28). Complete or nearly complete total mesorectal excision was 98.0% and 96.5% in the laparoscopic and transanal groups (p = 0.41). Postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.54) but were significantly higher in patients with tumors <5 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopy (laparoscopic group = 11.9%; transanal group = 1.7%; p = 0.04). There were no statistical differences in the 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, or local recurrence rates between groups.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study design with a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with the transanal approach showed similar pathologic outcomes as those of conventional laparoscopy; hence, it should be considered as a surgical option for lower rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. EXPERIENCIA TEMPRANA CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL TRANSANAL EN COMPARACIÓN CON LA ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN: La escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica se usa ampliamente para los cánceres rectales; Sin embargo, a veces es un desafío, especialmente en pacientes obesos con tumores bajos, particularmente después de la quimiorradioterapia. La escisión mesorrectal total transanal se desarrolló para superar estas limitaciones en términos de visualización, disección y grapado.Comparar los resultados patológicos y oncológicos precoces de los enfoques laparoscópico y transanal.estudio comparativo retrospectivo con puntaje de propensión-análisis emparejadoHospital terciario especializado en oncología.En total, se incluyeron 722 pacientes hospitalizados que se sometieron a una escisión mesorrectal total por cáncer rectal desde Enero de 2014 hasta Diciembre de 2017.Se realizó escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica (n = 514) y transanal (n = 208).El resultado primario fue el resultado patológico, incluyendo el involucramiento del margen de resección circunferencial y distal. Los resultados secundarios fueron complicaciones intraoperatorias, postoperatorias y supervivencia general, supervivencia libre de recurrencia y tasas de recurrencia local.Los dos grupos de la cohorte tuvieron varias diferencias; así, realizamos un emparejamiento de puntuación de propensión. El margen de resección circunferencial estuvo involucrado en 13.4% y 12.9% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.88). El margen de resección distal estuvo involucrado en 1% y 3% de los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.28). La escisión mesorrectal total completa o casi completa fue de 98.0% y 96.5% en los grupos laparoscópico y transanal, respectivamente (p = 0.41). Las complicaciones postoperatorias con Clavien-Dindo grado ≥ III no difirieron significativamente entre los grupos (p = 0,54), pero fueron significativamente mayores en pacientes con tumores de < 5 cm del borde anal que se sometieron a laparoscopia (grupo laparoscópico, 11,9%; grupo transanal, 1,7%; p = 0,04). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la supervivencia general a 3 años, la supervivencia libre de recurrencia y las tasas de recurrencia local entre los grupos.Diseño de estudio retrospectivo, corto período de seguimiento.La experiencia temprana con el enfoque transanal mostró resultados patológicos similares a los de la laparoscopia convencional; por lo tanto, debe considerarse como una opción quirúrgica para el cáncer rectal mas bajo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B352. (Traducción-Dr Yesenia Rojas-Khalil).

Transanal total mesorectal excision: 3-year oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved with the implementation of new surgical techniques. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is the most recent approach developed to facilitate pelvic dissection of mid- and distal rectal tumours. The purpose of this study was to analyse the short- and mid-term oncological outcomes of TaTME.

METHODS

A study was conducted on patients treated with TaTME for rectal cancer at two colorectal units in Portugal between March 2016 and December 2018. Clinical, pathological and oncological data were retrospectively analysed. Primary endpoints were 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival and local recurrence. Secondary endpoints were clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (31 males, [62%], median age 66 years [range 40-85 years]) underwent TaTME, 49 (98%) for malignant and 1 (2%) for benign disease. There were no cases of conversion, 49 (98%) patients had complete or near-complete mesorectum, all the resections were R0 with adequate distal and circumferential margins. With a median follow-up of 36 months, there were 2 cases (4%) of local recurrence and 3-year estimated overall survival and disease-free survival were 90% and 79%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME can provide safe mid-term oncological outcomes, similar to what has been published for classic and laparoscopic TME. Our results also show how demanding this novel approach can be and the consequent need for audited data and standardized implementation.

IMARI: multi-Interventional program for prevention and early Management of Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection in Rectal cancer patIents: rationale and study protocol

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is still a common and feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. The multifactorial pathophysiology of AL and lack of standardised treatment options requires a multi-modal approach to improve long-term anastomotic integrity. The objective of the IMARI-trial is to determine whether the one-year anastomotic integrity rate in patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer can be improved using a multi-interventional program.

Methods

IMARI is a multicentre prospective clinical effectiveness trial, whereby current local practice (control cohort) will be evaluated, and subsequently compared to results after implementation of the multi-interventional program (intervention cohort). Patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer will be included. The multi-interventional program includes three preventive interventions (mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, tailored full splenic flexure mobilization and intraoperative fluorescence angiography using indocyanine green) combined with a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL. The primary outcome is anastomotic integrity, confirmed by CT-scan at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include incidence of AL, protocol compliance and association with AL, temporary and permanent stoma rate, reintervention rate, quality of life and functional outcome. Microbiome analysis will be conducted to investigate the role of the rectal microbiome in AL.

In a Dutch nationwide study, the AL rate was 20%, with anastomotic integrity of 90% after one year. Based on an expected reduction of AL due to the preventive approaches of 50%, and increase of anastomotic integrity by a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL, we hypothesised that the anastomotic integrity rate will increase from 90 to 97% at one year. An improvement of 7% in anastomotic integrity at one year was considered clinically relevant. A total number of 488 patients (244 per cohort) are needed to detect this difference, with 80% statistical power.

Discussion

The IMARI-trial is designed to evaluate whether a multi-interventional program can improve long-term anastomotic integrity after rectal cancer surgery. The uniqueness of IMARI lies in the multi-modal design that addresses the multifactorial pathophysiology for prevention, and a standardised pathway for early detection and active treatment of AL.

Trial registration

Trialregister.nl (NL8261), January 2020.

Preoperative predictive risk to cancer quality in robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement is widely considered the strongest predictor of local recurrence after TME. This study aimed to determine preoperative factors associated with a higher risk of pathological CRM involvement in robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive adult patients who underwent elective, curative robotic low anterior or abdominoperineal resection with curative intent for primary rectal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary referral cancer center from March 2012 to September 2019. Pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports were reviewed for all the patients. Risk factors for pathological CRM involvement were investigated using Firth's logistic regression and a predictive model based on preoperative radiological features was formulated.

RESULTS

A total of 305 patients were included, and 14 (4.6%) had CRM involvement. Multivariable logistic regression found both T3 >5 mm (OR 6.12, CI 1.35-36.44) and threatened or involved mesorectal fascia (OR 4.54, CI 1.33-17.55) on baseline MRI to be preoperative predictors of pathologic CRM positivity, while anterior location (OR 3.44, CI 0.72-33.13) was significant only on univariate analysis. The predictive model showed good discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve >0.80) and predicted a 32% risk of positive CRM if all risk factors were present.

CONCLUSION

Patients with pre-operatively assessed threatened radiological margin, T3 tumors with greater than 5 mm extension and anterior location are at risk for a positive CRM. The predictive model can preoperatively estimate the CRM positivity risk for each patient, allowing surgeons to tailor management to improve oncological outcomes.

Are oncological long-term outcomes equal after laproscopic completed and converted laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival after laproscopic completed and laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent curative laparoscopic rectal surgery for cancer at our institution between January 2001 and December 2016 were included in a single-center retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: the converted (CONV) group and the totally laparoscopic (LAP) group. The primary outcomes were long-term oncologic outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), as well as local and distant recurrence (LR, DR). The secondary outcomes included postoperative mortality and morbidity as defined as death or any complication occurring within 90 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of 214 consecutive patients included, 57 were converted to open surgery (CONV group), leading to a 26.6% conversion rate. Mean length of follow-up was 68 ± 42 months in the LAP group and 70 ± 41 months in the CONV group. Five-year OS was significantly shorter in the CONV group compared to the LAP group (p = 0.0016). On multivariate analysis, rectal tumor location (middle and low) and conversion to open surgery were predictors of both OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that conversion to open surgery after laparoscopic rectal resection appears to significantly reduce OS without having a significant impact on DFS and recurrence rates.

Transanal total mesorectal excision in the prone jackknife position without being conscious of the size of prostatic enlargement for lower rectal cancer

In 1982, it was demonstrated that a total mesorectal excision alone could achieve low rectal cancer recurrence rates in the pelvis and high disease-free survival rates. Nowadays, the total mesorectal excision is the gold-standard surgery for rectal cancer. Currently, the transanal total mesorectal excision has attracted attention as a promising alternative to the anterior approach. The transanal approach is superior to the anterior approach, because it facilitates total mesorectal excisions of the lower rectum, improves visualization, and shortens the surgical time. Some factors are particularly favorable for the transanal approach, including lesions in the lower third of the rectum, a narrow pelvis, a large tumor, male sex, and a prostatic enlargement. The transanal total mesorectal excision is commonly performed in the Lloyd-Davies position. However, in the Lloyd-Davies position, the sacral bone prevents the mobilized rectum from moving away from the pelvic base. From the perspective of pelvic morphology, we reasoned that, in the prone jackknife position, the mobilized rectum could spontaneously move toward the head, due to gravity, and this would broaden the pelvic surgical field. Consequently, this position could facilitate the transanal total mesorectal excision. Here, we described a transanal total mesorectal excision performed in the prone jackknife position for treating lower rectal cancer with a prostatic enlargement.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit Data

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is commonly used in the treatment of rectal cancer, despite the lack of evidence to support oncological equivalence or improved recovery compared with open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze prospectively collected data from a large Australasian colorectal cancer database.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.

SETTING

This study was conducted using data supplied by the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit.

PATIENTS

A total of 3451 patients who underwent open (n = 1980), laparoscopic (n = 1269), robotic (n = 117), and transanal total mesorectal excision (n = 85) for rectal cancer were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was positive margin rates (circumferential resection margin and/or distal resection margin) in patients treated with curative intent.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded 1132 patients in each of the open and minimally invasive surgery groups. Margin positivity rates and lymph node yields did not differ between groups. The open group had a significantly lower total complication rate (27.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.0001), including a lower rate of postoperative small-bowel obstruction (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). The minimally invasive surgery group had significantly lower wound infection rate (2.9% vs 5.0%, p = 0.02) and a shorter length of hospital stay (8 vs 9 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Results are limited by the quality of registry data entries.

CONCLUSION

In this patient population, minimally invasive proctectomy demonstrated similar margin rates in comparison with open proctectomy, with a reduced length of stay but a higher overall complication rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. RESULTADOS DE LA PROCTECTOMÍA MÍNIMA INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ANÁLISIS DE PROPENSIÓN DE LOS DATOS BINACIONALES DE AUDITORÍA DEL CÁNCER COLORRECTAL: La cirugía mínima invasiva, frecuentemente se utiliza en el tratamiento del cáncer rectal, a pesar de la falta de evidencia que respalde la equivalencia oncológica o la mejor recuperación, en comparación con la cirugía abierta.El estudio tiene como objetivo analizar datos prospectivamente obtenidos, de una gran base de datos de cáncer colorrectal de Australia.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo utilizando el emparejamiento de puntaje de propensión.Este estudio se realizó utilizando datos proporcionados por la Auditoría Binacional del Cáncer Colorrectal.Se incluyeron en este estudio un total de 3451 pacientes que se trataron de manera abierta (n = 1980), laparoscópica (n = 1269), robótica (n = 117) y taTME (n = 85) para cáncer rectal.Los resultados primarios fueron de tasas de margen positivas (margen de resección circunferencial y/o margen de resección distal) en pacientes con intención curativa.La coincidencia de puntaje de propensión arrojó 1132 pacientes en cada uno de los grupos de cirugía abierta y mínima invasiva. Las tasas de positividad del margen y los rendimientos de los ganglios linfáticos no difirieron entre los dos grupos. El grupo abierto tuvo una tasa de complicaciones totales significativamente menor (27.6% vs 35.8%, p <0.0001), incluida una tasa menor de obstrucción postoperatoria del intestino delgado (1.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.03). El grupo de cirugía mínimamente invasiva tuvo una tasa de infección de la herida significativamente menor (2.9% frente a 5.0%, p = 0,02) y una estancia hospitalaria más corta (8 frente a 9 días, p <0.0001). No hubo diferencias en la mortalidad a los 30 días.Los resultados están limitados por la calidad de la entrada de datos de registro.En esta población de pacientes, la proctectomía mínima invasiva demostró tasas de margen similares en comparación con la proctectomía abierta, con una estadía reducida pero una tasa más alta de complicaciones en general. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B190. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Meta-analysis of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in management of rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic TME (LaTME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched multiple databases and bibliographic reference lists. A combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits were applied. Overall intraoperative complications, overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infections (SSIs), completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection, distal (DRM) and circumferential resection margin (CRM), number of harvested lymph nodes, and procedure time were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We identified 18 comparative studies reporting a total of 2048 patients evaluating outcomes of TaTME (n = 1000) and LaTME (n = 1048) in patients with rectal cancer. TaTME was associated with significantly higher number of R0 resection (OR 1.67, P = 0.01) and harvested lymph nodes (MD 1.08, P = 0.01), and lower rate of positive CRM (OR 0.67, P = 0.04) and conversion to an open procedure (OR 0.17, P < 0.00001) compared with LaTME. However, there was no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR 1.18, P = 0.54), postoperative complications (OR 0.89, P = 0.24), anastomotic leak (OR 0.88, P = 0.42), SSIs (OR 0.64, P = 0.26), completeness of mesorectal excision (OR 1.43, P = 0.19), DRM (MD 1.87, P = 0.16), CRM (MD 0.36, P = 0.58), and procedure time (MD - 10.87, P = 0.18) between TaTME and LaTME. Moreover, for low rectal tumours, TaTME was associated with significantly lower rate of anastomotic leak and higher number of lymph nodes (MD 2.06, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that TaTME may be associated with better short-term oncological outcomes and similar clinical outcomes compared with LaTME, the differences between the two groups were small questioning their clinical relevance. No solid conclusions can be made due to lack of high quality randomised studies.

International evaluation of circumferential resection margins after rectal cancer resection: insights from the Swedish and Dutch audits

AIM

This study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care.

METHOD

Data for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population.

CONCLUSION

Within two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer in adolescents and young adults: Defining a growing threat

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising among adolescents and young adults (AYAs), with the greatest increase occurring in distal colon and rectal cancers. Reasons for this striking trend are not well understood. Genetically linked cases of CRC occur in the context of familial conditions such as Lynch Syndrome, but most AYA cases of CRC are sporadic. Unique biology is suggested, yet limited information is available regarding the molecular underpinnings of CRC in this age group. Young patients are more likely to experience delays in diagnosis and to present with advanced-stage disease; yet, prognosis by stage is comparable between younger and older adults. Treatment paradigms are based on evidence reflecting the older adult population. Given the concerning rise in CRC rates among AYAs, there is urgent need for further research into the role of screening from a younger age, biology of disease, and optimal therapies in this age group.