Pelvic exenteration for men with locally advanced rectal cancer: a morbidity analysis of complicated cases

A systematic review of oncosurgical and quality of life outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term morbidity and survival advantage conferred by R0 resection are well established. However, longer-term outcomes are rarely addressed. This systematic review focuses on long-term oncosurgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following PE for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed®, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE® and Embase® databases was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes following PE for LARC or LRRC. Studies with fewer than 20 patients were excluded.

FINDINGS

A total of 25 papers reported outcomes for 5,489 patients. Of these, 4,744 underwent PE for LARC (57.5%) or LRRC (42.5%). R0 resection rates ranged from 23.2% to 98.4% and from 14.9% to 77.8% respectively. The overall morbidity rates were 17.8-87.0%. The median survival ranged from 12.5 to 140.0 months. None of these studies reported functional outcomes and only four studies reported QoL outcomes. Numerous different metrics and timepoints were utilised, with QoL scores frequently returning to baseline by 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that PE is safe, with a good prospect of R0 resection and acceptable mortality rates in selected patients. Morbidity rates remain high, highlighting the importance of shared decision making with patients. Longer-term oncological outcomes as well as QoL and functional outcomes need to be addressed in future studies. Development of a core outcomes set would facilitate better reporting in this complex and challenging patient group.

A systematic review of the pathological determinants of outcome following resection by pelvic exenteration of locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite multimodal therapy 5-15% of patients who undergo resection for advanced rectal cancer (LARC) will develop local recurrence. Management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) presents a significant therapeutic challenge and even with modern exenterative surgery, 5-year survival rates are poor at 25-50%. High rates of local and systemic recurrence in this cohort are reflective of the likely biological aggressiveness of these tumour types. This review aims to appraise the current literature identifying pathological factors associated with survival and tumour recurrence in patients undergoing exenterative surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Trials database for all studies assessing pathological factors influencing survival following pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC from 2010 to July 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using QUIPS tool.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes for 2864 patients. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. Resection margin status and nodal disease were the most commonly reported factors. A positive resection margin was demonstrated to be a negative prognostic marker in six studies. Involved lymph nodes and lymphovascular invasion also appear to be negative prognostic markers with tumour stage to be of lesser importance. No studies assessed other adverse tumour features that would not otherwise be included in a standard histopathology report.

CONCLUSION

Pathological resection margin status is widely demonstrated to influence disease free and overall survival following pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. With increasing R0 rates, other adverse tumour features must be explored to help elucidate differences in survival and potentially guide tailored oncological treatment.

Predictors of Surgical Difficulty in Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

Concerns have been raised regarding the oncological safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) as compared to an open approach. This study aimed to identify risk factors for surgically difficult laparoscopic TME. All consecutive laparoscopic rectal cancer cases were included from a prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database. The primary outcome was to identify risk factors for surgically difficult TME. A Surgical Difficulty Risk Score (SDRS) between 0 and 6 was calculated for each case with cases achieving an SDRS of 2 or greater being deemed as surgically difficult. A total of 2795 consecutive cases of laparoscopic TME were identified, with 464 (16.6%) surgically difficult cases. Univariate analysis found that operating in the male pelvis, performing abdomino-perineal resections, Hartmann’s procedures, and proctocolectomies were all significantly associated with higher operative difficulty (P < 0.001). A higher nodal stage of cancer (P = 0.046), and the resection of another organ (P = 0.003) were significantly associated with higher surgical difficulty. On multivariate analysis, a female pelvis was associated with a favorable laparoscopic resection (Odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.67, P < 0.001), whereas patients who had another organ resection (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.53–4.42, P < 0.001), nodal positivity (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11–1.69, P = 0.003), and high ASA scores had more difficult surgeries. Predictive factors for surgically difficult laparoscopic TME include male gender, high ASA scores, mid and low rectal cancer, positive nodal stage, and resection of another organ at time of surgery.

Pelvic exenterations for primary rectal cancer: Analysis from a 10-year national prospective database

AIM

To identify short-term and oncologic outcomes of pelvic exenterations (PE) for locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LAPRC) in patients included in a national prospective database.

METHODS

Few studies report on PE in patients with LAPRC. For this study, we included PE for LAPRC performed between 2006 and 2017, as available, from the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Association of Surgeons [Asociación Española de Cirujanos (AEC)]. Primary endpoints included procedure-associated complications, 5-year local recurrence (LR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A propensity-matched comparison with patients who underwent non-exenterative surgery for low rectal cancers was performed as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Eight-two patients were included. The mean age was 61.8 ± 11.5 years. More than half of the patients experienced at least one complication. Surgical site infections were the most common complication (abdominal wound 18.3%, perineal closure 19.4%). Thirty-three multivisceral resections were performed, including two hepatectomies and four metastasectomies. The long-term outcomes of the 64 patients operated on before 2013 were assessed. The five-year LR was 15.6%, the distant recurrence rate was 21.9%, and OS was 67.2%, with a mean survival of 43.8 mo. R+ve resection increased LR [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.58, 95%CI: 1.04-30.07, P = 0.04]. The quality of the mesorectum was associated with DFS. Perioperative complications were independent predictors of shorter survival (HR = 3.53, 95%CI: 1.12-10.94, P = 0.03). In the propensity-matched analysis, PE was associated with better quality of the specimen and tended to achieve lower LR with similar OS.

CONCLUSION

PE is an extensive procedure, justified if disease-free margins can be obtained. Further studies should define indications, accreditation policy, and quality of life in LAPRC.

Systematic review of outcomes following pelvic exenteration for the treatment of primary and recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.

Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration is the only radical treatment for locally advanced (ARC) or recurrent (RRC) rectal cancers. The long-term results of the procedure are variably reported in the literature, with recent series suggesting similar survival between ARC and RRC. The study aimed to analyze and compare the long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for ARC and RRC in a tertiary center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison of variables was performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. The Kaplan Meier method was used to analyze the disease-free survival (DFS) and the log-rank test to compare the two groups.

RESULTS

Since 2002, 46 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for ARC (28, 60.9%) and RRC (18, 39.1%). The groups had comparable characteristics, perioperative results, including postoperative complications, and rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. A R0 resection was obtained in 71.4% and 55.6% (p 0.41) and a T4 stage was diagnosed in 75% and 94.4% (p 0.22) of ARC and RRC patients, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 32.5 and 56.6 months (p 0.01), the 5-year DFS was significantly lower in the RRC group (23.6 vs 46.2%, p 0.006), even after exclusion of R1 cases (30 vs 54.5%, p 0.044).

CONCLUSION

The long-term disease free survival of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is significantly worse when the procedure is performed for RRC, regardless of the tumor involvement of the resection margins.

A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.

RESULTS

The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.

Pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration is a potentially curative treatment for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the current evidence regarding clinical and oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer who undergo pelvic exenteration.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library was undertaken, and studies published in the English language from January 2000 to August 2012 were identified.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective and retrospective studies that report outcomes of pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer with or without subgroup evaluation were included for examination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oncological outcomes included 5-year survival, median survival, and local recurrence rates. Clinical outcomes included complication rates and perioperative mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1049 patients were reviewed. The complication rates ranged from 37% to 100% (median, 57%) and the perioperative mortality rate ranged from 0% to 25% (median, 2.2%). The rate of local recurrence ranged from 4.8% to 61% (median, 22%). The median survival for primary advanced rectal cancers was 14 to 93 months (median, 35.5 months) and 8 to 38 months (median, 24 months) for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

LIMITATIONS

Our review was limited by the small sample sizes from single-institutional studies reporting outcomes over long periods of time with heterogeneity in both the disease and treatments reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the human costs and risks are significant, the potentially favorable survival outcomes make this acceptable in the absence of other effective treatment modalities that would otherwise result in debilitating symptoms that afflict patients who have advanced pelvic malignancy.