The multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: pathology

Does Completeness of the Mesorectal Excision Still Correlate With Local Recurrence?

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard surgical procedure for rectal cancer treatment. Several studies have shown a close correlation between the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer and the completeness of the mesorectal specimen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the correlation between macroscopic assessment of mesorectal excision and long-term oncological outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of an Institutional Review Board-approved database.

SETTINGS

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on between March 2016 and October 2019 were classified into 3 groups based on the mesorectal specimen quality: complete, near complete, and incomplete. Only patients with a follow-up of ≥2 years and without signs of preoperative distant disease were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Relationship between total mesorectal excision and local and distant recurrence rates in patients with rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients (35.5% females) were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 58.1 (SD 12) years and a mean BMI of 26.4 (SD 4.59) kg/m². Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 71% of patients, whereas 13.7% received total neoadjuvant therapy. Restorative procedures were performed in 107 patients (86.3%), whereas 17 patients (13.7%) underwent abdominoperineal resection. The majority of mesorectal excision specimens (87.09%) were complete or near complete. Local recurrence rates were 6.3% (1/16) in the incomplete and 7.4% (8/108) in the complete/near complete group ( p = 0.86). Metachronous distant metastases occurred in 6 patients (37.5%) in the incomplete group and in 24 patients (22.2%) in the complete/near complete group (p = 0.18). Thus, specimen quality did not appear to impact disease-free survival.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, single-center study with relatively short follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of a multidisciplinary approach and extensive use of neoadjuvant therapy, macroscopic completeness of total mesorectal excision may not be as valuable a prognosticator as in the past. Larger studies with longer follow-ups are needed to clarify these preliminary findings. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C129.

LA INTEGRIDAD DE LA ESCISIN MESORRECTAL TODAVA SE CORRELACIONA CON LA RECURRENCIA LOCAL

ANTECEDENTES:La escisión total desl mesorrecto es el estándar de oro para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. Varios estudios han demostrado una estrecha correlación entre el pronóstico de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y la integridad espécimen mesorrectal.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la correlación entre la evaluación macroscópica de la escisión mesorrectal y los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos aprobada por el IRB.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se realizó en un centro de referencia terciario de una sola institución.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes con cáncer de recto operados entre 3/2016-10/2019. Los pacientes se clasificaron en 3 grupos, según la calidad del espécimen mesorrectal: completo, casi completo e incompleto. Solo se incluyeron pacientes con seguimiento >2 años y sin signos de enfermedad a distancia preoperatoria.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Identificar la relación entre la escisión mesorrectal total y las tasas de recurrencia local y a distancia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 124 pacientes (35,5% mujeres) con una edad media de 58,1 años (DE 12) y un índice de masa corporal medio de 26,4 (DE 4,59). Se administró quimiorradiación neoadyuvante al 71% de los pacientes, mientras que el 13,7% recibió terapia neoadyuvante total. Se realizaron procedimientos de restauración en 107 pacientes (86,3%), mientras que 17 pacientes (13,7%) se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal. La mayoría (87,09%) de los especímenes de escisión mesorrectal fueron completas o casi completas. Las tasas de recurrencia local fueron 1/16 (6,3%) en el grupo incompleto y 8/108 (7,4%) en el grupo completo/casi completo ( p = 0,86). Se produjeron metástasis a distancia metacrónicas en 6 pacientes (37,5%) en el grupo incompleto y 24 (22,2%) en el grupo completo/casi completo ( p = 0,18). Por lo tanto, la calidad del espécimen no pareció afectar la supervivencia libre de enfermedad.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro con pequeño número de casos y seguimiento relativamente corto.CONCLUSIÓN:En la era de un enfoque multidisciplinario y el uso extensivo de la terapia neoadyuvante, la integridad macroscópica de la escisión total del mesorrecto, puede no ser un pronóstico tan valioso como en el pasado. Se necesitan estudios más amplios con períodos de seguimiento más prolongados para aclarar estos hallazgos preliminares. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C129 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

The quality of total mesorectal excision specimen: A review of its macroscopic assessment and prognostic significance

As a surgical procedure which could significantly lower the recurrence rate of cancers, total mesorectal excision (TME) has been the gold standard for middle and lower rectal cancer treatment. However, previous studies have shown that the procedure did not achieve the ideal theoretical local recurrence rates of rectal cancers. Some researchers pointed out it was very likely that not all so-called TME treatments completely removed the mesorectum, implying that some of these TME surgical treatments failed to meet oncological quality standards. Therefore, a suitable assessment tool for the surgical quality of TME is necessary. The notion of “macroscopic assessment of mesorectal excision (MAME)” was put forward by some researchers as a better assessment tool for the surgical quality of TME and has been confirmed by a series of studies. Besides providing rapid and accurate surgical quality feedbacks for surgeons, MAME also effectively assesses the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer. However, as a new assessment tool used for TME surgical quality, MAME has an only limited influence on the current guidelines and is yet to be widely applied in most countries. The aims of this review are to provide a detailed introduction to MAME for clinical practice and to summarize the current prognostic significance of MAME.

Need for objective and reproducible criteria in histopathological assessment of total mesorectal excision specimens: lessons from a national improvement project

AIM

Data on quality control of the pathologic evaluation of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens are scarce. We aimed to assess differences between evaluation by local pathologists participating in PROject on CAncer of the REctum (PROCARE; a Belgian improvement project on rectal cancer) and by a review panel of experts.

METHOD

Based on photographic material and histopathology slides, a Review Committee of gastrointestinal expert pathologists re-evaluated the mesorectal plane, the tumour differentiation grade, the (y)pT stage and the tumour regression grade in 444 patients previously routinely assessed by local pathologists.

RESULTS

The surgical plane was reported in 89% of patients and the circumferential resection margin in 88% of patients by the local pathologist. The median number of lymph nodes harvested in patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy was 11 and 14 in the other patients. The Review Committee downgraded the surgical plane from (intra)mesorectal to intramuscular in 17% of patients, and upgraded it from intramuscular to (intra)mesorectal in 27%. Tumour differentiation grade, T stage and tumour regression grade differed between local pathologists and the Review Committee in 15%, 10% and 38%, respectively, of patients. T stage was upgraded, mainly from T2 to T3, in 8% of patients. Tumour regression was judged by the Review Committee to be less advanced in 15% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Acknowledging some shortcomings, this study gives a realistic view of clinical practice. There are differences in interpretation with regard to both macroscopic and microscopic analysis of TME specimens. These findings indicate a need for more objective and reproducible criteria in histopathology. Being aware of this is a first step for improvement.

The Importance of the Pathologist's Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome.

The Importance of the Pathologist's Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome.

Current options for the management of rectal cancer

Patients diagnosed with rectal cancer should undergo locoregional staging with transrectal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or surface coil array MRI of the pelvis if that technique is available. Patients thought to have more than very early stage (T1 or T2) disease should undergo abdominal imaging as well by CT or MRI, and chest imaging with either CXR or preferably CT. The care of rectal cancer patients should be coordinated amongst an experienced multidisciplinary team to maximize the chance of cure and to minimize both local recurrence and complications of therapy. For patients with very early stage disease (T1N0 or T2N0), local resection with or without chemoradiation may be adequate therapy, but these patients must be selected carefully and should be without any poor prognostic factors. For the majority of patients with T3N0 or greater rectal cancer, standard therapy consists of neoadjuvant continuous 5-FU and radiation followed by surgery and further chemotherapy (either with 5-FU, capecitabine, or FOLFOX). The use of capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin during radiotherapy shows promise, but remains investigational pending results of phase III studies. Neoadjuvant therapy is preferred because it decreases local recurrence and appears to result in improved postoperative bowel function in comparison with postoperative therapy. Select patients with high (>10 cm from the anal verge) uT3N0 tumors may be at sufficiently low risk of local recurrence to justify omission of radiotherapy. Patients who experience pathologic complete response to radiotherapy should still receive postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy to reduce systemic recurrence risk until data demonstrate that this is not necessary. Patients with stage IV rectal cancer may still require local therapy with radiation, surgery, or both; however, care should be taken in these patients that chemotherapy is not excessively delayed as this is the one modality in this case that can result in improved survival.