R0 resection, not surgical technique, is the key consideration in pelvic exenteration surgery

Extraperitoneal lateral pelvic sidewall excision: a novel rectal-sparing approach for lateral locally recurrent rectal cancer

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) involving the lateral pelvic sidewall requires a complex approach to maximize the likelihood of R0 resection, which is the only predictor of survival. The purpose of this report is to describe a novel technique to resect a localized lateral pelvic sidewall LRRC. A 63-year-old male patient was referred for a 15-mm LRRC near the right internal iliac vessels. Endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging excluded any involvement of the pelvic colon or residual rectum. A combined extraperitoneal antero-lateral approach and gluteal access were used to optimize vascular control on the internal iliac vessels, to promptly identify the ureter and to achieve a better posterior exposition of the sciatic notch. This technique allowed a controlled and tailored resection of pelvic sidewall without entering into the abdominal cavity. The postoperative course was uneventful. The pathologic report confirmed clear margins (R0), with one involving obturator lymph node. At 3 months, the patient is alive and free from local re-relapse. A right lung metastasis has occurred, and it was treated by stereotactic radiotherapy. The present report proposes a novel extraperitoneal pelvic sidewall excision to resect lateral LRRC with a colorectal-sparing approach, thus minimizing the risk of exenterative surgery-related complications. A proper selection of patients is mandatory, as the proposed technique could not be generalized as the standard of care in all lateral LRRCs.

Surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a narrative review

Objective

To summarize the recent literature on surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

Background

LRRC is a heterogeneous disease that requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment and prognosis depend on the site and type of recurrence. Radical resection remains the primary method for achieving long-term survival and improving symptom control. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy can reduce tumor volume and improve the R0 resection rate. Surgeons must clearly understand pelvic anatomy, develop a detailed preoperative plan, adopt a multidisciplinary approach for the surgical resection of the tumor as well as any invaded soft tissues, vessels, and bones, and ensure proper reconstruction. However, extended radical surgery often leads to a higher risk of postoperative complications and a low quality of life.

Methods

We searched English-language articles with keywords “locally recurrent rectal cancer”, “surgery” and “multidisciplinary team” in PubMed published between January 2000 to October 2020.

Conclusions

LRRC is a complex problem. Long-term survival is not impossible following multidisciplinary treatment in appropriately selected LRRC patients. The management of LRRC relies on a specialist team that determines the biological behavior of the tumor and evaluates treatment options through multidisciplinary discussions, thereby balancing the surgical costs and benefits, alleviating postoperative complications, and improving patients’ quality of life.

Prediction of R0/R+ surgery by different classifications for locally recurrent rectal cancer

A widely adopted classification system for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is currently missing, and the indication for surgery is not standardized. To evaluate all the published classification systems in a large monocentric cohort of LRRC patients, assessing their capability to predict a radical (R0) resection. A total of 152 consecutive LRRC patients treated at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) from 2009 to 2017 were classified according to Pilipshen, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Wanebo, Yamada, Boyle, Dutch TME Trial, Royal Marsden and National Cancer Institute of Milan (NCIM) classification systems. Central location of LRRC was significantly predictive of R0 resection across all classification systems. R + resection was predicted by the "anterior" category of MSKCC (OR 2.66, p = 0.007), the "S2b" (OR 3.50, p = 0.04) and the "S3" (OR 2.70, p = 0.01) categories of NCIM, "pelvic disease through anastomosis" of Pilipshen (OR 2.89, p = 0.002), "fixed at 2 sites" of Mayo Clinic (OR 2.68, p = 0.019), and "TR4" of Wanebo (OR 3.39, p = 0.002). The NCIM was the most predictive classification for R0 surgery. The NCIM classification seems to be superior among the others in predicting R0 surgery. Generally, lateral invasive and high sacral invasive relapses are associated with reduced probability of R0 surgery and unfavorable outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting.

METHODS

This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.

The Evolution of Pelvic Exenteration Practice at a Single Center: Lessons Learned from over 500 Cases

Considerable progress has been made in the management of patients with locally advanced or recurrent cancers of the pelvis over the past 60 years since the inception of pelvic exenteration. Early progress in pelvic exenteration was marred by the high surgical mortality and morbidity, which drew scepticism from the broader surgical community. Subsequent evolution in the procedure hinged on establishing surgical safety and a better understanding of outcome predictors. Surgical mortality from pelvic exenteration is now comparable to that of elective resection for primary colorectal cancers. The importance of a clear resection margin is also now well established in providing durable local control and predicting long-term survival that, in turn, has driven the development of novel surgical techniques for pelvic side wall resection, en bloc sacrectomy, and pubic bone resection. A tailored surgical approach depending on the location of the tumor with resection of contiguously involved organs, yet preserving uninvolved organs to minimize unnecessary surgical morbidity, is paramount. Despite improved surgical and oncological outcomes, surgical morbidity following pelvic exenteration remains high with reported complication rates ranging between 20% and 80%. Extended antibiotic prophylaxis and preemptive parenteral nutrition in the immediate postoperative period may reduce septic and nutritional complications. A high index of suspicion is needed in the early diagnosis and management of complications that may avoid prolonged duration of hospitalization. An acceptable quality of life has been reported among patients after pelvic exenteration. Further research into novel chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and reconstructive options are currently underway and are needed to further improve outcomes.

Validation of MRI and Surgical Decision Making to Predict a Complete Resection in Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The main predictor of long-term survival in patients with recurrent rectal cancer is surgical resection with a clear resection margin. MRI plays a role in patient selection and surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to validate MRI in determining pelvic involvement by comparing MRI to histological outcomes, to assess the effect of MRI on surgical planning by comparing MRI findings with the surgical procedure, and to compare MRI anatomical involvement with resection outcome to assess if MRI can predict a clear resection margin.

DESIGN

Retrospective study reviewing prepelvic exenteration MRI and correlating organ, involving an MRI with pathological involvement and surgical outcomes.

SETTINGS

Single quaternary referral center with a special interest in pelvic exenteration.

PATIENTS

The patients included 40 men and 22 women with median age of 60 years who had locally recurrent rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The accuracy of MRI as measured using sensitivity and specificity by correlating MRI involvement with pathological involvement was the primary outcome measured.

RESULTS

Recurrence in the anterior and central compartments was identified with accuracy on MRI and was likely to be associated with clear resection margins. MRI was less accurate at determining pelvic sidewall involvement. Lateral recurrence, high sacral, and nerve involvement were more likely to be associated with a positive resection margin. Sensitivity and specificity for pelvic sidewall structures was 46% and 91%. Involvement of nerve roots (60%-69%) and the upper sacrum (80%) on MRI was more likely to predict a positive resection margin than involvement of major pelvic viscera (22%).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI findings can be used to help predict resection margin. Prospective work with MRI interpretation and close correlation and involvement by pathologists is needed to address imaging and surgical limitations at the pelvic sidewall and high posterior margin.