Outcomes of Definitive Treatment of Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Rectum: Is Minimal Invasive Surgery Detrimental in Signet Ring Rectal Cancers?

Outcomes of extended total mesorectal excision in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

Extended total mesorectal excision (eTME) is a complex procedure involving en bloc resection of the structures surrounding the various quadrants of the rectum. This study, presenting the largest series so far of patients undergoing eTME, aimed to assess the surgical and survival outcomes of patients following treatment with eTME and to compare these outcomes with historical data on pelvic exenteration.

METHOD

The study is a retrospective review of all patients with locally advanced rectal cancer requiring an eTME (2014-2020). The database includes the demographic profile, operative details, histopathological features and follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty three patients who underwent eTME were analysed. The overall Clavien-Dindo complication rate of > IIIa was 21.1%. The anterior quadrant was the most common anatomical site resected (68.5%). The R1 resection rate was 10.4%. After a median follow-up of 28 months, there were 51 recurrences in the study and twenty two deaths were recorded. The local recurrence rate was 7.3% among the study population. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were 66.7% and 80.4%, respectively, at 3 years. The majority of the recurrences were distant metastasis (84.3%). In univariate analysis, the quadrant involved did not affect survival. In multivariate analysis, signet ring histology, metastatic presentation, inadequate tumour response and R1 resection affected DFS.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence pattern, R1 resection rate and survival outcomes of patients in the present study were comparable with those for patients undergoing an exenteration. Therefore, eTME is probably a safe alternative to pelvic exenterations when R0 resection is achievable and when the procedure is performed in high-volume specialist tertiary care centres.

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of open and minimally invasive pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

Patients who underwent pelvic exenterations for primary locally advanced rectal cancers with invasion of the urogenital organs (central and anterior disease) between August 2013 and September 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were categorized as undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and these groups were compared for perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival (overall, recurrence-free and local relapse-free survival). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the independent influence of approach of surgery and cancer features on recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Of the 158 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration, 97 (61.4 per cent) had open exenterations and 61 (38.6 per cent) patients had an MIS resection (44 patients (72 per cent) using laparoscopy and 17 (28 per cent) using robotic surgery). There were 96 (60.8 per cent) total pelvic exenterations and 62 (39.2 per cent) posterior pelvic exenterations. MIS exenterations had significantly longer operative times (MIS versus open: 640 mins versus 450 mins; P < 0.001) but reduced blood loss (MIS versus open: 900 ml versus 1600 ml; P < 0.001) and abdominal wound infections (MIS versus open: 8.2 versus 17.5 per cent; P = 0.020) without a difference in hospital stay (MIS versus open: 11 versus 12 days; P = 0.620). R0 resection rates and involvement of circumferential resection margins were similar (MIS versus open: 88.5 versus 91.8 per cent, P = 0.490 and 13.1 versus 8.2 per cent, P = 0.342 respectively). At a median follow-up of 29 months, there were no differences in 3-year overall survival (MIS versus open: 79.4 versus 60.2 per cent; P = 0.251), RFS (MIS versus open: 51.9 versus 47.8 per cent; P = 0.922) or local relapse-free survival (MIS versus open: 89.7 versus 75.2 per cent; P = 0.491. On multivariable analysis, approach to surgery had no bearing on RFS, and only known distant metastasis, aggressive histology and inadequate response to neoadjuvant radiation (pathological tumour regression grade greater than 3) predicted worse RFS.

CONCLUSION

MIS exenterations documented longer procedures but resulted in less blood loss and fewer wound infections compared with open surgeries. In the setting of an experienced centre, the hospital stay, R0 resection rates and oncological outcomes at 3 years were similar to those of open exenterations.