Local management of rectal neoplasia

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and local excision (LE) are minimally invasive procedures that can be used to treat early rectal cancer. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and LE. A meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. To perform the statistical analysis, the odds ratio (OR) was used for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. Four studies, involving a total of 307 patients, were identified. The length of hospital stay was longer in the group of patients undergoing LE [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.94; 95% CI -2.85 to -1.02; p < 0.0001]. The combined results of the individual studies showed no significant differences as regards en-bloc resection rate (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.25-2.70; p = 0.74), R0 resection rate (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.62-3.73; p = 0.35), overall complication rate (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26-1.69; p = 0.40), and tumor size (WMD 0.57; 95% CI -3.64 to 4.78; p = 0.79) between ESD and LE. When adopting the fixed effect model which takes into account the study size, ESD was associated with a lower recurrence rate than LE (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.87; p = 0.03), while with the random-effect model the difference was not significant (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.02-2.04; p = 0.17). Over the last decade improvements in technology have improved the technical feasibility of rectal ESD. In specialized centers with highly experienced endoscopists, ESD can provide high-quality en-bloc excision of rectal neoplasms equivalent to traditional local excision.

Giant rectal villous adenoma: Surgical approach with rectal eversion and perianal coloanal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of death. Most cases of colon and rectal cancer arise from a preexisting adenomatous polyp. However, if colorectal polyps are very large or not accessible for endoscopic ablation, or if they cannot be removed without an increased risk of perforation, surgical procedures are required.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

The case of a patient with a giant villous adenoma of the rectum is described. The patient had diarrhea for 2 years associated with asthenia. Colonoscopy revealed a sessile lesion in the rectum measuring 14cm in the largest diameter. Rectal eversion technique was used, resecting the lesion under direct visibility and an external coloanal anastomosis was performed. Surgery was satisfactory and the resection margins were free.

DISCUSSION

Removal of these polyps should be performed aiming to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, as well as to control local and systemic symptoms, such as diarrhea and fluid and electrolyte disorders, mainly in villous adenomas. Various surgical techniques are proposed, but in extensive circumferential lesions of the rectum they are difficult to apply. The rectal stump eversion technique was described by Maunsell (1892), for rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Eversion of the rectal stump and external coloanal anastomosis may be a good surgical alternative for resecting giant rectal adenomas.

Oncological outcomes of transanal local excision for high risk T1 rectal cancers

AIM: To evaluate the oncological outcomes of transanal local excision and the need for immediate conventional reoperation in the treatment of patients with high risk T₁ rectal cancers.

METHODS: Twenty five high risk T₁ rectal cancers treated by transanal local excision at the Guangdong General Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Twelve patients received transanal local excision and 13 patients underwent subsequent immediate surgical rescue after transanal local excision within 4 wk. Differences in the local recurrence rates and 5-year overall survival rates between the two groups were analyzed. The prognostic value of immediate conventional reoperation for high risk T₁ rectal cancers was also evaluated.

RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 62 mo. The local recurrence rates after transanal local excision for high risk T₁ rectal cancer were 50%. By immediate conventional reoperation, the local recurrence rates were significantly reduced to 7.7%. The difference between these two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.030). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a trend for decreased 5-year overall survival rates for patients treated by transanal local excision compared with immediate conventional reoperation (63% vs 89%).

CONCLUSION: Transanal local excision cannot be considered sufficient treatment for patients with high risk T₁ rectal cancers. Immediate conventional reoperation should be performed if the pathology of the local excision is high risk.

Local excision: is it an adequate substitute for radical resection in T1/T2 patients?

Local excision (LE) was historically developed to palliate patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who either are medically unfit or have adamantly refused to undergo transabdominal standard resection (SR) procedures. Over the years, the tradeoffs between the oncologic benefit and adverse functional sequelae associated with SR procedures have been increasingly recognized. In parallel, there has been growing interest in considering LE as an alternative to SR in select patients with early-stage disease. However, concerns regarding its oncologic adequacy remain. These concerns relate to the adequacy of tumor resection, the removal of mesorectal disease, the accuracy of preoperative selection, and the use of adjunctive treatment modalities. Evolving strategies that aim at improving the oncologic outcomes of LE for stage I T1/T2 rectal cancers include adoption of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and the addition of non-surgical modalities. Current evidence surrounding these approaches is examined to provide a basis for an informed discussion with patients. Key factors to be considered in formulating the treatment plan for an individual patient with T1/T2 rectal cancer are summarized.