Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer: a Review

An assessment of left-digit bias in the treatment of older patients with potentially curable rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient age is associated with poorer rectal cancer treatment compliance. However, it is unknown whether left-digit bias (disproportionate influence of leftmost age digit) influences this association.

METHODS

The patients diagnosed with stage I-III rectal cancer between 2006 to 2017 in the National Cancer Database were identified. The association between age and receipt of guideline-adherent care was assessed using mixed-effects multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Among 97,960 patients, 46.2% received guideline-adherent overall treatment and 73.3% underwent guideline-adherent surgical resection. Of those who underwent guideline-adherent surgery, 86.4% received guideline-adherent radiotherapy and 56.6% received guideline-adherent chemotherapy. After risk-adjustment, each decade increase in age was associated with 36% decreased odds of guideline-adherent therapy (odds ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.65). Patients aged 58 to 59 (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.27) and 78 to 79 (odds ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval = 1.08-1.51) had higher odds of guideline-adherent overall treatment compared with patients aged 60 and 80, respectively. However, there were no significant differences in the receipt of guideline-adherent treatment between patients aged 60 vs 61-62 and 80 vs 81-82.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with rectal cancer are less likely to receive guideline-adherent care, and a left-digit bias is present. Geriatric assessment-guided treatment decisions could help mitigate this bias.

Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains a technically challenging procedure. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques in performing TME for patients with rectal cancers.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent RAL TME for rectal cancers was performed. These cases were matched for age, sex, and stage of malignancy with patients who underwent HAL TME. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, comorbid conditions, types of surgical resections and operative times, perioperative complications, length of hospital stays, and histopathologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

From August 2008 to August 2011, 19 patients, with a median age of 62 (range, 47 to 92) years underwent RAL TME. Eight (42.1%) patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The median docking and operative times were 10 (range, 3 to 34) and 390 (range, 289 to 771) minutes, respectively. There was 1 (5.3%) conversion to open surgery. The grade of mesorectal excision was histopathologically reported as complete in all 19 cases. Positive circumferential margin was reported in 1 (5.3%) patient.Comparing the 2 groups, more patients in the RAL group received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (8 vs. 3; P=0.048). The operative times were longer in the RAL group (390 vs. 225 min; P<0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the HAL group required conversion to open surgery (5 vs. 1; P=0.180) and developed perioperative morbidities (3 vs. 7; P=0.269). The median length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups (RAL: 7 vs. HAL: 6 d; P=0.476).The procedural cost was significantly higher in the RAL group (US$12,460 vs. US$8560; P<0.001), whereas the nonprocedural cost remained comparable between the 2 groups (RAL: US$4470 vs. HAL: US$4500; P=0.729).

CONCLUSIONS

RAL TME is associated with lower conversion and morbidity rates compared with HAL TME. The longer operating times and higher procedural costs are current limitations to its widespread adoption.

Laparoscopic anterior resection and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective nonrandomized study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to present our experience of laparoscopic total mesorectal resection, including ultralow resection and coloanal anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1993 and 2005, patients fit for general anesthesia, with resectable cancers, and with lower edge of tumor beyond 5 cm of the anal verge were subjected to laparoscopic anterior resection with sphincter preservation. Double stapling technique is used to establish bowel continuity.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients, 88 males and 82 females, were subjected to successful laparoscopic anterior resection, which included high anterior resection (n=90), low anterior resection (n=52), ultralow anterior resection (n=20), and coloanal anastomosis (n=8). The average age of patients was 58.4 years (12-90 years). Mean operating time was 130 min and mean hospital stay was 7 days. The morbidity was 13.5% with nil mortality. With an average follow-up of 49 months (range 9 years to 3 months), 9 patients developed local recurrence and 45 patients developed distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

In selected cases, laparoscopic anterior resection is possible for all levels of rectal tumors, allowing sphincter preservation and maintaining oncological safety.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly used in resectable locally advanced rectal cancer. The exact role of the addition of chemotherapy is not established. We compared neoadjuvant therapy using chemoradiation (CRT) or hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART).

METHODS

Clinical, pathological, and survival data were obtained from patients with resectable stage II or III rectal cancer within 7 cm from the anal verge. A group of 50 patients was treated with a preoperative dose of 41.6 Gy of radiotherapy (RT) in two daily fractions of 1.6 Gy over 13 days immediately followed by surgery (HART). A second group of 96 patients received 45 Gy of conventionally fractionated RT in 25 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy combined with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy followed by surgery within 4 to 6 weeks (CRT). Both groups were compared in terms of morbidity, pathological downstaging, local recurrence, and survival.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in terms of preoperative clinicopathological variables. The mean distance from the anal verge was 5.8 cm (HART) versus 4.9 cm (CRT). Sphincter preservation was possible in 74% (HART) versus 83.5% (CRT) of patients (P = .013). The clinical anastomotic leak rate was 2% (HART) versus 2.2% (CRT). Pathological complete response was observed in 4% (HART) versus 18% (CRT) of the resected specimens (P = .002). A pelvic recurrence developed in 6% (HART) versus 4.4% (CRT) of patients (P = .98). Overall 5-year survival was 58% (HART) versus 66% (CRT) (P = .19); disease-free 5-year survival was 51% (HART) versus 62% (CRT) (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with preoperative HART followed by immediate surgery, preoperative CRT followed by a 6-week waiting period enhances pathological response and increases sphincter preservation rate. This could be explained by the addition of chemotherapy or the longer interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery. No statistically significant difference was observed in local control or overall survival.

N/A

N/A

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of low rectal cancer with preservation of anal sphincter: A report of 82 cases

AIM: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) of low rectal cancer with preservation of anal sphincter.

METHODS: From June 2001 to June 2003, 82 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with preservation of anal sphincter. The lowest edge of tumors was below peritoneal reflection and 1.5-7 cm from the dentate line (1.5-5 cm in 48 cases, 5-7 cm in 34 cases).

RESULTS: LTME with anal sphincter preservation was performed on 82 randomized patients with low rectal cancer, and 100% sphincter preservation rate was achieved. There were 30 patients with laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) at the level of the anastomosis below peritoneal reflection and 2 cm above from the dentate line; 27 patients with laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (LULAR) at the level of anastomoses 2 cm below from the dentate line; and 25 patients with laparoscopic coloanal anastomoses (LCAA) at the level of the anastomoses at or below the dentate line. No defunctioning ileostomy was created in any case. The mean operating time was 120 min (ranged from 110-220 min), and the mean operative blood loss was 20 mL (ranged from 5-120 mL). Bowel function was restored and diet was resumed on day 1 or 2 after operation. The mean hospital stay was 8 d (ranged from 5-14). Postoperative analgesics were used in 45 patients. After surgery, 2 patients had urinary retention, one had anastomotic leakage, and another 2 patients had local recurrence one year later. No interoperative complication was observed.

CONCLUSION: LTME with preservation of anal sphincter is a feasible, safe and minimally invasive technique with less postoperative pain and rapid recovery, and importantly, it has preserved the function of the sphincter.