The impact of transanal local excision of early rectal cancer on completion rectal resection without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review

Risk Factors for Rectal Cancer Recurrence after Local Excision of T1 Lesions from a Decade-Long Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background: Local surgical excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinoma is a well-established approach. Yet, there are still open questions regarding the recurrence rates and its risk factors. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study including all patients who underwent local excision of early rectal cancer with an open or MIS approach and had a T1 lesion from 2010 to 2020 in six academic centers. Data included demographics, preoperative studies, surgical findings, postoperative outcomes, and local and systemic recurrence. A univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for recurrence. Results: Overall, 274 patients underwent local excision of rectal lesions. Of them, 97 (35.4%) patients with a T1 lesion were included in the cohort. The mean age was 69 ± 10.5 years, and 42 (43.3%) were female. The mean distance of the lesions from the anal verge was 7.8 ± 3.2 cm, and the average tumor size was 2.7 ± 1.6 cm. Eighty-two patients (85%) had a full-thickness resection. Eight patients (8%) had postoperative complications. Kikuchi classification of submucosal (SM) involvement was reported in 29 (30%) patients. Twelve patients had SM1, two SM2, and fifteen SM3. Following pathology, 24 patients (24.7%) returned for additional surgery or treatment. The overall recurrence rate was 14.4% (14 patients), with 11 patients having a local recurrence and 6 having a systemic metastatic recurrence, 3 of which had both. The mean time for recurrence was 2.78 ± 2.8 years and the overall mortality rate was 11%. On univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of recurrence vs. non-recurrence groups, the strongest and most significant association and possible risk factors for recurrence were larger lesions (4.3 vs. 2.5 cm, p < 0.001) with an OR of 6.67 (CI-1.82-24.36), especially for tumors larger than 3.5 cm, mucinous histology (14.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.004, OR of 14.02, CI-1.13-173.85), and involved margins (41.7% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.003, OR of 9.59, CI-2.14-43.07). The open transanal excision (TAE) approach was also identified as a possible significant risk factor in univariant analysis, while SM3 level penetration showed only a trend. Conclusion: Surgical local excision of T1 rectal malignancy is a safe and viable option. Still, one in four patients received additional treatment. There is an almost 15% chance for recurrence, especially in large tumors, mucinous histology, or involved margin cases. These high-risk patients might warrant additional intervention and stricter surveillance protocols.

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.

Long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery for rectal tumors in 249 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

To delineate the long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery (MITAS) for selected rectal tumors.

METHODS

We analyzed data, retrospectively, on consecutive patients who underwent MITAS between 1995 and 2015, to establish the feasibility, excision quality, and perioperative and oncological outcomes of this procedure.

RESULTS

MITAS was performed on 243 patients. The final histology included 142 cancers, 47 adenomas, and 52 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G1). A positive margin of 1.6% and 100% en bloc resection were achieved. The mean operative time was 27.4 min. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 7% of patients, with 0% mortality. The median follow-up was 100 months (up to ≥ 5 years or until death in 91.8% of patients). Recurrence developed in 2.9% of the patients. The 10-year overall survival rate was 100% for patients with NET G1 and 80.3% for those with cancer. The 5-year DFS was 100% for patients with Tis cancer, 90.6% for those with T1 cancer, and 87.5% for those with T2 or deeper cancers. MITAS for rectal tumors ≥ 3 cm resulted in perioperative and oncologic outcomes equivalent to those for tumors < 3 cm.

CONCLUSION

MITAS is feasible for the local excision (LE) of selected rectal tumors, including tumors ≥ 3 cm. It reduces operative time and secures excision quality and long-term oncological outcomes.

Prevalence of occult hepatitis B among HIV-positive individuals in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The prevalence of hepatitis B virus among HIV-seropositive individuals is believed to be high, and yet the disease remains neglected in many areas of the continent. Little is known about occult hepatitis in HIV individuals. This review assessed occult hepatitis B infection and its prevalence in the different regions of the African continent. It also determines its prevalence in the HIV population which is endemic in the region. Studies were searched from the Cochrane, google scholar, PubMed/Medline, and African Journals online. Authors included cross-sectional studies, case controls, and cohorts, from 2010 to January 2021, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design frameworks to develop the search strategy. All studies had participants who were HIV-positive, covering different regions of the continent. Risk ratio was used to measure effect size, and Stata 14 software was used for analysis. Eleven studies met the eligibility criteria, with 2567 participants. Overall prevalence of occult hepatitis B was 11.2%. Regional prevalence was 26.5% for the south, 11% for the north, 9.1% for the east, and 8.5% for the western region. Approximately 10% of HIV-seropositive individuals were co-infected with occult hepatitis B virus. Regionally, the prevalence was highest in the southern region and lowest in the west. The prevalence of occult HBV infection was compared between the southern region and the other regions. It was higher in the south compared to the east (risk ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (0.83–0.91)). It was also higher in the south compared to the north (risk ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (0.79–0.85)), and it was also higher in the south compared to the west (risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (0.82–0.87)). Public health measures and interventions are required to raise awareness, increase prevention, and reduce spread of the disease. More evidence-based studies need to be carried out.