Sphincter-saving surgery versus abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant treatment with propensity score analysis

Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery for patients with lower rectal cancer remains unclear compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes for lower rectal cancer patients after ISR and APR through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed through January 12, 2022. The primary outcomes included 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence, perioperative outcomes, and other long-term outcomes. The pooled odds ratios, mean difference, or hazard ratios (HRs) of each outcome measurement and their 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 20 nonrandomized controlled studies were included in the qualitative analysis, with 1217 patients who underwent ISR and 1135 patients who underwent APR. There was no significant difference in 5y-DFS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55-1.29; P =0.43) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.46; P =0.76) between the two groups. Using the results of five studies that reported matched T stage and tumor distance, we performed another pooled analysis. Compared to APR, the ISR group had equal 5y-DFS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.30; P =0.31) and 5y-LRFS (local recurrence-free survival) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.29-1.78; P =0.48). Meanwhile, ISR had equivalent local control as well as perioperative outcomes while significantly reducing the operative time (mean difference: -24.89, 95% CI: -45.21 to -4.57; P =0.02) compared to APR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the long-term survival and safety of patients is not affected by ISR surgery, although this result needs to be carefully considered and requires further study due to the risk of bias and limited data.

The impact of restorative proctectomy versus permanent colostomy on health-related quality of life after rectal cancer surgery using the patient-generated index

BACKGROUND

The impact of bowel dysfunction versus colostomy on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery is poorly understood.

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the quality of life after rectal cancer surgery in patients with colostomy versus restorative proctectomy.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study measuring quality of life using the Patient-Generated Index, patients were asked to list up to 5 areas of their life affected by their surgery. Areas were then weighted according to patients' preferences for improvement to generate a score from 0-100. The areas reported by patients were linked to the International Classification of Functioning for content analysis. Bowel dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score, and patients were then grouped according to (1) colostomy, (2) no/minor, or (3) major low anterior resection syndrome. Quality of life was compared between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 121 patients were included (colostomy n = 39, restorative proctectomy n = 82). There were no differences in demographics, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, or time to follow-up between groups. In the restorative proctectomy group, 53% had no/minor, and 47% had major low anterior resection syndrome. Overall, patients with colostomy had significantly lower quality-of-life scores than those with restorative proctectomy. However, patients with major low anterior resection syndrome scored similarly to those with colostomy. On content analysis, patients with colostomies reported more problems with sexual function, body image, and sports. Patients with restorative proctectomy reported more problems with sleep, using transportation, and taking care of themselves.

CONCLUSION

Colostomy has a more detrimental impact on quality of life than restorative proctectomy. However, bowel dysfunction severity is important to consider. The patient experience between treatments differs.

Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection (ISR), the ultimate anus-preserving technique for ultralow rectal cancers, is an alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The failure patterns and risk factors for local recurrence and distant metastasis remain controversial and require further investigation.

AIM

To investigate the long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic ISR in ultralow rectal cancers.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR (LsISR) at Peking University First Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation analysis was performed using the Chi-square or Pearson's correlation test. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were analyzed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 368 patients with a median follow-up of 42 mo. Local recurrence and distant metastasis occurred in 13 (3.5%) and 42 (11.4%) cases, respectively. The 3-year OS, LRFS, and DMFS rates were 91.3%, 97.1%, and 90.1%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that LRFS was associated with positive lymph node status [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.411, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.413-20.722, P = 0.014] and poor differentiation (HR = 3.739, 95%CI: 1.171-11.937, P = 0.026), whereas the independent prognostic factors for DMFS were positive lymph node status (HR = 2.445, 95%CI: 1.272-4.698, P = 0.007) and (y)pT3 stage (HR = 2.741, 95%CI: 1.225-6.137, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the oncological safety of LsISR for ultralow rectal cancer. Poor differentiation, (y)pT3 stage, and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for treatment failure after LsISR, and thus patients with these factors should be carefully managed with optimal neoadjuvant therapy, and for patients with a high risk of local recurrence (N + or poor differentiation), extended radical resection (such as APR instead of ISR) may be more effective.