Impact of Intraoperative Decision-Making on Pathological Margin Status in Patients Undergoing Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

A key component of preoperative preparation for pelvic exenteration surgery is the development of an operative plan in a multidisciplinary setting based on the extent of local tumor invasion on preoperative imaging. Changes to the extent of resection or operative plan may occur intraoperatively based on intraoperative findings.

OBJECTIVE

To report the frequency and extent of intraoperative deviation from the planned extent of resection during pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer and determine whether this resulted in a more or less radical resection.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTINGS

A high-volume pelvic exenteration center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency and extent of intraoperative deviation from the planned extent of resection, R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients underwent pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer, of whom 110 (81%) had R0 resection margins. Twelve patients were excluded because of missing information, and 49 patients (40%) had a change to the operative plan. Operative changes were major in 30 patients (61%), more radical in 40 patients (82%), and margin relevant in 24 patients (49%). In patients in whom there was a change to the operative plan and R0 resection was achieved, the median distance to a relevant margin was 2.5 mm (range, 0.1-10 mm). Of 8 patients with a change in operative plan and R1 resection, 3 were margin relevant, of whom all were considered major, and 2 were more radical and 1 was less radical.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability outside of specialist units may be limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative changes to the planned extent of resection occur commonly and most often result in an unanticipated major or more radical resection. Such changes may contribute to high rates of R0 resection margins in specialist pelvic exenteration units that use an ultraradical approach in these patients. See Video Abstract .

IMPACTO DE LA TOMA DE DECISIONES INTRAOPERATORIA SOBRE EL ESTADO DEL MARGEN PATOLGICO EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A EXENTERACIN PLVICA POR RECURRENCIA LOCAL EN CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:Un componente clave de la preparación preoperatoria para exenteración pélvica es el desarrollo de un plan quirúrgico en un entorno multidisciplinario, basado en el grado de invasión tumoral local en las imágenes preoperatorias. Es posible que se produzcan cambios intraoperatorios en la extensión de la resección o en el plan quirúrgico según los hallazgos intraoperatorios.OBJETIVO:Informar la frecuencia y la extensión de la desviación intraoperatoria de la extensión planificada de la resección durante la exenteración pélvica para el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, y si esto resultó en una resección más o menos radical.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Un centro de exenteración pélvica de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto localmente recurrente entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2020.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Frecuencia y extensión de desviación intraoperatoria de la extensión planeada de resección, tasa de resección R0.RESULTADOS:136 pacientes fueron sometidos a exenteración pélvica por cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, de los cuales 110 (81%) tuvieron márgenes de resección R0. 12 pacientes fueron excluidos por falta de información y 49 pacientes (40%) tuvieron un cambio en el plan quirúrgico. Los cambios operatorios fueron mayores en 30 pacientes (61%), más radicales en 40 pacientes (82%) y con relevancia sobre márgenes en 24 pacientes (49%). En los pacientes en los que hubo un cambio en el plan quirúrgico y se logró la resección R0, la distancia mediana hasta un margen relevante fue de 2.5 mm (rango 0.1-10 mm). De ocho pacientes con un cambio en el plan quirúrgico y resección R1, tres tuvieron relevancia sobre márgenes de los cuales todos se consideraron mayores, dos fueron más radicales y uno fue menos radical.LIMITACIONES:La generalización fuera de las unidades especializadas puede ser limitada.CONCLUSIONES:Los cambios intraoperatorios en la extensión planificada de la resección ocurren comúnmente y con mayor frecuencia resultan en una resección mayor imprevista y más radical. Dichos cambios pueden contribuir a altas tasas de márgenes de resección R0 en unidades especializadas en EP que emplean un enfoque ultrarradical en estos pacientes. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Treatment of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Review

ABSTRACT

Up to 10% of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer will experience locoregional recurrence. In the setting of prior surgery and often radiation and chemotherapy, these represent uniquely challenging cases. When feasible, surgical resection offers the best chance for oncologic control yet risks significant morbidity. Studies have consistently indicated that a negative surgical resection margin is the strongest predictor of oncologic outcomes. Chemoradiation is often recommended to increase the chance of an R0 resection, and in cases of close/positive margins, intraoperative radiation/brachytherapy can be utilized. In patients who are not surgical candidates, radiation can provide symptomatic relief. Ongoing phase III trials are aiming to address questions regarding the role of reirradiation and induction multiagent chemotherapy regimens in this population.

Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer

Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.

Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy for Unresectable Locally Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Promising Curative Treatment for Both Radiation Therapy: Naïve Cases and Reirradiation Cases

PURPOSE

It is difficult to effectively cure patients with unresectable locally recurrent colorectal cancers (LRCRCs) using conventional chemotherapy or chemoradiation therapy. Furthermore, treatment options vary depending on the patient's history of radiation therapy. Carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) is a potentially curative treatment for these patients. Here, we compare the treatment outcomes of radiation therapy-naïve cases (nRT) and re-irradiation cases (reRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with LRCRC treated with CIRT at QST Hospital between 2003 and 2019 were eligible. CIRT was administered daily 4 d/wk for 16 fractions. The total irradiated dose was set at 73.6 Gy (relative biologic effectiveness-weighted dose [RBE]) for nRT and 70.4 Gy (RBE) for reRT patients.

RESULTS

We included 390 nRT cases and 83 reRT cases. The median follow-up period from the initiation of CIRT was 48 (5-208) months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates for nRT and reRT were 73% (95% CI, 68%-77%) and 76% (65%-84%), respectively. The 5-year OS rates were 50% (45%-55%) and 50% (38%-61%), respectively. These rates did not differ significantly (P = .55). The 3-year local control (LC) rates for nRT (73.6 Gy) and reRT (70.4 Gy) cases were 80% (75%-84%) and 80% (68%-88%), respectively. The 5-year LC rates were 72% (67%-78%) and 69% (55%-81%), respectively, without a significant difference (P = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that CIRT for LRCRC is a very effective and promising treatment for both nRT and reRT cases.

Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (TME)-Results of MRI-Guided Multivisceral Resections in T4 Rectal Carcinoma and Local Recurrence

Rectal cancer invading adjacent organs (T4) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) pose a special challenge for surgical resection. We investigate the diagnostic performance of MRI and the results that can be achieved with MRI-guided surgery. All consecutive patients who underwent MRI-based multivisceral resection for T4 rectal adenocarcinoma or LRRC between 2005 and 2019 were included. Pelvic MRI findings were reviewed according to a seven-compartment staging system and correlated with histopathology. Outcomes were investigated by comparing T4 tumors and LRRC with respect to cause-specific survival in uni- and multivariate analysis. We identified 48 patients with T4 tumors and 28 patients with LRRC. Overall, 529 compartments were assessed with an accuracy of 81.7%, a sensitivity of 88.6%, and a specificity of 79.2%. Understaging was as low as 3.0%, whereas overstaging was 15.3%. The median number of resected compartments was 3 (interquartile range 3-4) for T4 tumors and 4 (interquartile range 3-5) for LRRC (p = 0.017). In 93.8% of patients with T4 tumors, a histopathologically complete (R0(local)-) resection could be achieved compared to 57.1% in LRRC (p < 0.001). Five-year overall survival for patients with T4 tumors was 53.3% vs. 32.1% for LRRC (p = 0.085). R0-resection and M0-category emerged as independent prognostic factors, whereas the number of resected compartments was not associated with prognosis in multivariate analysis. MRI predicts compartment involvement with high accuracy and especially avoids understaging. Surgery based on MRI yields excellent loco-regional results for T4 tumors and good results for LRRC. The number of resected compartments is not independently associated with prognosis, but R0-resection remains the crucial surgical factor.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR.

RESULTS

Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Toward a Second Chance at Cure? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC.

RESULTS

Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1-2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC.

Oncovascular surgery for advanced pelvic malignancy

BACKGROUND

The number of units with experience in extended radical resections for advanced pelvic tumours has grown substantially in recent years. The use of complex vascular resections and reconstructive techniques in these units is expected to increase with experience. This review aimed to provide a cutting-edge overview of this evolving surgical approach to complex pelvic tumours with vascular involvement.

METHODS

This was a narrative review of published data on major vascular resection and reconstruction for advanced pelvic tumours, including preoperative evaluation, techniques used, and outcomes. Advice for treatment decisions is provided, and based on current literature and the personal experience of the authors. Current controversies and future directions are discussed.

RESULTS

Major vascular resection and reconstruction during surgery for advanced pelvic tumours is associated with prolonged operating time (510-678 min) and significant blood loss (median 2-5 l). R0 resection can be achieved in 58-82 per cent at contemporary specialist units. The risk of major complications is similar to that of extended pelvic resection without vascular involvement (30-40 per cent) and perioperative mortality is acceptable (0-4 per cent). Long-term survival is achievable in approximately 50 per cent of patients.

CONCLUSION

En bloc resection of the common or external iliac vessels during exenterative pelvic surgery is a feasible strategy for patients with advanced tumours which infiltrate major pelvic vascular structures. Oncological, morbidity, and survival outcomes appear comparable to more central pelvic tumours. These encouraging outcomes, combined with an increasing interest in extended pelvic resections globally, will likely lead to more exenteration units developing oncovascular experience.

Development of a consensus-based delineation guideline for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is used in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) to increase chances of a radical surgical resection. Delineation in LRRC is hampered by complex disease presentation and limited clinical exposure. Within the PelvEx II trial, evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy preceding nCRT for LRRC, a delineation guideline was developed by an expert LRRC team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight radiation oncologists, from Dutch and Swedish expert centres, participated in two meetings, delineating GTV and CTV in six cases. Regions at-risk for re-recurrence or irradical resection were identified by eleven expert surgeons and one expert radiologist. Target volumes were evaluated multidisciplinary. Inter-observer variation was analysed.

RESULTS

Inter-observer variation in delineation of LRRC appeared large. Multidisciplinary evaluation per case is beneficial in determining target volumes. The following consensus regarding target volumes was reached. GTV should encompass all tumour, including extension into OAR if applicable. If the tumour is in fibrosis, GTV should encompass the entire fibrotic area. Only if tumour can clearly be distinguished from fibrosis, GTV may be reduced, as long as the entire fibrotic area is covered by the CTV. CTV is GTV with a 1 cm margin and should encompass all at-risk regions for irradical resection or re-recurrence. CTV should not be adjusted towards other organs. Multifocal recurrences should be encompassed in one CTV. Elective nodal delineation is only advised in radiotherapy-naïve patients.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a first consensus-based delineation guideline for LRRC. Analyses of re-recurrences is needed to understand disease behaviour and to optimize delineation guidelines accordingly.

Understanding the Philosophy, Anatomy, and Surgery of the Extra-TME Plane of Locally Advanced and Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer; Single Institution Experience with International Benchmarking

Simple Summary

Worldwide there is still unwarranted variation in peri-operative management and subsequently oncological outcome following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. The major contributing factor seems to be a difference in treatment strategy with many centres aiming for more neoadjuvant treatment and less radical surgery. However, a radical resection with clear operative margins remains the single most important prognostic factor for survival and therefore an aggressive, radical approach is justified for an optimal oncological outcome and remains the gold standard of care.

Abstract

Pelvic exenteration surgery has become a widely accepted procedure for treatment of locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, there is still unwarranted variation in peri-operative management and subsequently oncological outcome after this procedure. In this article we will elaborate on the various reasons for the observed differences based on benchmarking results of our own data to the data from the PelvEx collaborative as well as findings from 2 other benchmarking studies. Our main observation was a significant difference in extent of resection between exenteration units, with our unit performing more complete soft tissue exenterations, sacrectomies and extended lateral compartment resections than most other units, resulting in a higher R0 rate and longer overall survival. Secondly, current literature shows there is a tendency to use more neoadjuvant treatment such as re-irradiation and total neoadjuvant treatment and perform less radical surgery. However, peri-operative chemotherapy or radiotherapy should not be a substitute for adequate radical surgery and an R0 resection remains the gold standard. Finally, we describe our experiences with standardizing our surgical approaches to the various compartments and the achieved oncological and functional outcomes.