What happens after R1 resection in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A study in 333 consecutive patients

The Role of Intraoperative Radiotherapy Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been used in the treatment of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers for the last several decades. Given the heterogeneity of patients treated and different indications for use and dosing at different institutions, it has been difficult to discern if IORT adds any appreciable benefit to standard of care therapies. Herein, the rationale for IORT in rectal cancer is discussed along with the most modern and best available data in 2023. IORT is likely indicated in patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer with threatened margins (R0 or R1 resection) to help improve local control. High-quality imaging and multidisciplinary discussion are necessary to ensure optimal patient selection. Appropriate counseling of the patient and excellent team communication are of the utmost importance given the challenging nature of these cases and the prognostic implications of R1 and R2 resections in this patient population.

Patient management after primary rectal cancer diagnosis. Special focus on surgical treatment for non-metastatic disease

Background: Rectal cancer is a public health priority. Primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of care for non-metastatic rectal cancer using process and outcome indicators. Delay of management, length of stay and readmission rate, sphincter preservation, morbidity, number of examined lymph nodes, mortality, overall and disease-free survivals were evaluated. Secondary objectives were to estimate the relationship between possible predictive parameters for (1) anastomotic leakage (logistic regression), (2) overall or disease-free survivals (cox regression).Methods: We performed a retrospective study on 312 consecutive patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer between 2016 and 2019. We focused on the 163 patients treated by surgery for non-metastatic cancer.Results: The treatment began within 33 days (range 0-264) after incidence, resection rate was 67%. Digestive continuity rate in lower, middle and upper rectum was 30%, 87% and 96%. Median of 14 lymph nodes (range 1-46) was analyzed. Length of stay and readmission rate were 11 days (range 3-56) and 4%, respectively. Within 90 postoperative days, clinical anastomotic leakage occurred in 9.2% of cases, major morbidity rate was 17%, mortality 1.2%. Multivariate analysis revealed that stoma decreased the risk of anastomotic leakage [hazard ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence intervals: 0.04-0.63; p = 0.008]. The 5-year overall survival after surgery was 85 ± 4%, disease-free survival 83 ± 4%. Patients with major complications, male gender and R1/R2 resection margin had a poorer prognosis.Conclusion: This work showed encouraging results in rectal cancer treatment in our institution, our results were in line with recommendations at the time.

Resection of sigmoid cancer with bladder invasion using laparoscopic combined with a cystoscopic holmium laser: an innovative surgical procedure

The aim of this study was to introduce a new surgical procedure for the resection of sigmoid colon tumours invading the bladder by combining laparoscopy and cystoscopy, and the feasibility and safety of the method were verified. The data of 6 patients with sigmoid colon cancer invading the bladder in a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from January 2020 to October 2022 were collected, sigmoid colon tumour resection was performed by this procedure, and the data related to the surgery were recorded. All six patients successfully underwent sigmoid colon tumour resection, and all sigmoid colon and bladder resections had negative margins. The mean total operative time was 211.66 ± 27.33 min, and the mean resection time of the bladder tumour was 22.16 ± 4.63 min. The median blood loss was 100 ml, and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was nineteen. There were no serious intraoperative complications in any of the cases. After operation, the first flatus and defecation were 4 and 4.5 days, respectively. The mean time of drainage tube retention and the time of bladder flushing were 3 and 1.5 days, respectively. The mean time of urinary tube retention was 7.5 days. There were no intestinal obstructions, dysuria, or other complications. For patients with sigmoid colon tumours invading the bladder, this method can effectively resect sigmoid colon tumours and minimize the loss of bladder tissue at the same time, which helps to prolong the survival of these patients. The surgical method is safe, reliable, and feasible.

Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin After Curative Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, positive circumferential resection margin has been found to be an indicator of advanced disease with a high risk of distant recurrence rather than local recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter, propensity score-matched (2:1) analysis comparing the positive and negative circumferential resection margins.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 5 high-volume centers in Spain.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent for middle-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 1599 patients, of whom 4.9% had a positive circumferential resection margin. After matching, 234 patients were included (156 with a negative circumferential margin and 78 with a positive circumferential margin). The median follow-up period was 52.5 (22.0-69.5) months. Local recurrence was significantly higher in patients with a positive circumferential margin (33.3% vs 11.5%; p < 0.001). Distant recurrence was similar in both groups (46.2% vs 42.3%; p = 0.651). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (48.6% vs 43.6%; p = 0.14). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with a positive circumferential margin (36.1% vs 52.3%; p = 0.026).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design. The different neoadjuvant treatment options were not included in the propensity score.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive circumferential resection margin was associated with a higher local recurrence rate and worse disease-free survival in comparison with the negative circumferential resection margin. However, the positive circumferential resection margin was not a prognostic indicator of distant recurrence and overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 .

VALOR PRONSTICO DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA CURATIVA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS MULTICNTRICO EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN

ANTECEDENTES:En los últimos años, se ha encontrado que el margen de resección circunferencial positivo es un indicador de enfermedad avanzada con alto riesgo de recurrencia a distancia más que de recurrencia local.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue analizar el impacto pronóstico del margen de resección circunferencial sobre la recidiva local, a distancia y las tasas de supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis multicéntrico emparejado por puntaje de propensión 2: 1 que comparó el margen de resección circunferencial positivo y negativo.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en 5 centros Españoles de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a escisión total de mesorrecto con intención curativa por cáncer de recto medio-bajo entre 2006-2014. Las características clínicas e histológicas se utilizaron para el emparejamiento.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultadoes principales fueron la recurrencia local, la recurrencia a distancia, la supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La cohorte inicial no emparejada consistió en 1599 pacientes; El 4,9% tuvo un margen de resección circunferencial positivo. Tras el emparejamiento se incluyeron 234 pacientes (156 con margen circunferencial negativo y 78 con margen circunferencial positivo). La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 52,5 meses (22,0-69,5). La recurrencia local fue significativamente mayor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 33,3% vs 11,5% [HR 3,2; IC 95%: 1,83-5,43; p < 0,001]. La recidiva a distancia fue similar en ambos grupos (46,2 % frente a 42,3 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,78-1,90; p = 0,651]. No hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global a 5 años (48,6 % frente a 43,6 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,92-1,78; p = 0,14]; La supervivencia libre de enfermedad fue menor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 36,1% vs 52,3% [HR 1,5; IC 95%: 1,05-2,06; p = 0,026].LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el diseño retrospectivo. Las diferentes opciones de tratamientos neoadyuvantes no se han incluido en la puntuación de propensión.CONCLUSIONES:El margen de resección circunferencial positivo se asocia con una mayor tasa de recurrencia local y peor supervivencia libre de enfermedad en comparación con el margen de resección circunferencial negativo. Sin embargo, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo no fue un indicador pronóstico de recidiva a distancia ni de supervivencia global. Consulte el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . (Traducción- Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Required distal mesorectal resection margin in partial mesorectal excision: a systematic review on distal mesorectal spread

BACKGROUND

The required distal margin in partial mesorectal excision (PME) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine incidence and distance of distal mesorectal spread (DMS).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Articles eligible for inclusion were studies reporting on the presence of distal mesorectal spread in patients with rectal cancer who underwent radical resection.

RESULTS

Out of 2493 articles, 22 studies with a total of 1921 patients were included, of whom 340 underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). DMS was reported in 207 of 1921 (10.8%) specimens (1.2% in CRT group and 12.8% in non-CRT group), with specified distance of DMS relative to the tumor in 84 (40.6%) of the cases. Mean and median DMS were 20.2 and 20.0 mm, respectively. Distal margins of 40 mm and 30 mm would result in 10% and 32% residual tumor, respectively, which translates into 1% and 4% overall residual cancer risk given 11% incidence of DMS. The maximum reported DMS was 50 mm in 1 of 84 cases. In subgroup analysis, for T3, the mean DMS was 18.8 mm (range 8-40 mm) and 27.2 mm (range 10-40 mm) for T4 rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

DMS occurred in 11% of cases, with a maximum of 50 mm in less than 1% of the DMS cases. For PME, substantial overtreatment is present if a distal margin of 5 cm is routinely utilized. Prospective studies evaluating more limited margins based on high-quality preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and pathological assessment are required.

The Impact of Narrow and Infiltrated Distal Margin After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer on Patients' Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered imperative for good prognosis. In this article, the authors systematically reviewed all published literature with specific Mesh terms until the end of year 2019. Thereafter, retrieved articles were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis was conducted comparing local recurrence among 1-cm, 5-mm, and narrow (< 1-mm)/infiltrated margins. Thirty-nine articles were included in the study. Macroscopic distal margin < 1 cm carried a higher incidence of recurrence for those who did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, without affecting neither estimated overall nor disease-free survival. Less than 5-mm margin after radiation therapy is accepted oncologically. Infiltrated margins and narrow margins (< 1 mm) microscopically are associated with higher incidence of local recurrence and shorter overall and disease-free survival. Surgeons should aim at 1-cm safety margin in radiotherapy-naïve patients and microscopic free margin > 1 mm for those who received neoadjuvant therapy. The cost/benefit of reoperation for patients with infiltrated margins is still inadequately studied.

Rectal cancer at the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative MRI accuracy and histophatologic correlation. Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accuracy for determining the location of rectal tumors with respect to the peritoneal reflection (PR) and its potential involvement.

METHODS

Prospective study of 161 patients ongoing surgery for rectal cancer. A double-ink method has been aplied to examine surgical specimen, orange ink for the serosal surface and indian ink for the mesorrectal margin, and assess preoperative MRI accuracy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two tumors were located above, 65 at and 74 below PR. MRI accuracy was 90.6% for determining tumor's location with respect to the PR and 80.5% for defining peritoneal involvement. For classifying tumors according to their intra or extraperitoneal location an accuracy of 92.5% was set for MRI. Histophatologic peritoneal involvement was found in 28.7% of tumors located above or at the PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging accurately predicts the location of rectal tumors with respect to the PR and its potential involvement. The double-ink method is useful to assess serosal involvement (pT4a) and to distinguish mesorrectal fascia from the peritonealized surface.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor oncological outcomes in rectal cancer patients: A word of caution from a multicentric Canadian cohort study

AIM

The main objective of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) versus low anterior resection (LAR) through a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) approach.

METHOD

A total of 360 adult patients with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were enrolled at participating centres from the Canadian taTME Expert Collaboration. Forty-three patients received taTME-APR and received 317 taTME-LAR. Demographic, operative, pathological and follow-up data were collected and merged into a single database. Results are presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval. All analyses were performed in the R environment (v.3.6).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential radial margin status was higher in the taTME-APR group than the taTME-LAR group (21% vs. 9%, p = 0.001). Complete TME was achieved in 91% of those undergoing APR compared with 96% of those undergoing LAR (p = 0.25). APR was associated with a greater rate of local recurrence relative to LAR, although it was not significant [crude HR = 3.53 (95% CI 0.92-13.53)]. Circumferential margin positivity was significantly associated with a higher rate of systemic recurrence [crude HR = 3.59 (95% CI 1.38-9.3)].

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate inferior outcomes in those undergoing taTME-APR compared with taTME-LAR. The use of this technique for this particular indication needs to be carefully considered.

The role of intraoperative radiotherapy in advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

Patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC/LRRC) experience higher rates of local recurrence (LR) and poorer overall survival than patients with primary rectal cancer restricted to the mesorectum despite improved neoadjuvant treatment regimens and radical surgical procedures. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been suggested as an adjunctive tool in the surgical management of these challenging cases. However, clear evidence regarding the oncological benefit of IORT is sparse. The aim of this review was to update this evidence in the era of standardized neoadjuvant radiotherapy administration.

METHOD

A systematic review of patients who received IORT as part of multimodal treatment for advanced rectal cancer from 2000 to 2020 and an analysis of IORT and surgery/external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) groups was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of LR between the two groups.

RESULTS

Seven papers met the predefined criteria. LR was reduced by the addition of IORT when compared with the surgery/EBRT alone group (14.7% vs. 21.4%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27-1.14; p = 0.11). There was no increase in reported genitourinary morbidity, wound issues, pelvic collections or anastomotic leak in those patients who received IORT. Notably, there was no survival difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of IORT to current treatment strategies in the management of patients with LARC/LRRC is associated with a lower rate of locoregional recurrence without increased morbidity. However, this marks a highly selective group of patients, with heterogeneity regarding indications, prior neoadjuvant treatments and/or IORT dosing.

Influence of incorrect staging of colorectal carcinoma on oncological outcome: are we playing safely?

Accurate preoperative staging of colorectal cancers is critical in selecting patients for neoadjuvant therapy prior to resection. Inaccurate staging, particularly understaging, may lead to involved resection margins and poor oncological outcomes. Our aim is to determine preoperative imaging accuracy of colorectal cancers compared to histopathology and define the effect of inaccurate staging on patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment(NT). Staging and treatment were determined for patients undergoing colorectal resections for adenocarcinomas in a single tertiary centre(2016-2020). Data were obtained for 948 patients. The staging was correct for both T and N stage in 19.68% of colon cancer patients. T stage was under-staged in 18.58%. At resection, 23 patients (3.36%) had involved pathological margins; only 7 of which had been predicted by pre-operative staging. However, the staging was correct for both T and N stage in 53.85% of rectal cancer patients. T stage was understaged in 26.89%. Thirteen patients had involved(R1)margins; T4 had been accurately predicted in all of these cases. There was a general trend in understaging both the tumor and lymphonodal involvement (T p < 0.00001 N p < 0.00001) causing a failure in administrating NT in 0.1% of patients with colon tumor, but not with rectal cancer. Preoperative radiological staging tended to understage both colonic and rectal cancers. In colonic tumours this may lead to a misled opportunity to treat with neoadjuvant therapy, resulting in involved margins at resection.

What management for patients with R1 resection after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A review of the literature

AIM OF THE STUDY

Treatment for rectal cancer is very standardized. However, for total mesorectal excision (TME) with positive margins at microscopic pathological examination (classified R1 ), there is no consensus regarding management. The objective of this update was, through a review of the literature, to identify the most suitable management to improve overall survival and/or recurrence-free survival after R1 TME for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Published national quality guidelines and original studies were searched on Pubmed. Only studies and recommendations concerning the specific management of patients who had undergone R1 TME resection were selected.

RESULTS

Five original non-randomized studies and seven published national quality guidelines were selected for review. For patients who have undergone R1 TME resection, the French and European published guidelines issued a Grade A recommendation in favor of post-operative radio-chemotherapy (RCT) for those in whom it had not already been performed pre-operatively. The French and European guidelines recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy was based only on expert agreement. The original studies emphasized the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy, as opposed to post-operative RCT, which did not seem to improve survival. Salvage surgery was not recommended in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

After R1 TME resection for rectal cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be indicated when feasible, whereas post-operative RCT and salvage surgery do not appear to improve patient survival.

Rectal cancer at the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative MRI accuracy and histophatologic correlation. Prospective study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accuracy for determining the location of rectal tumors with respect to the peritoneal reflection (PR) and its potential involvement.

METHODS

Prospective study of 161 patients ongoing surgery for rectal cancer. A double-ink method has been aplied to examine surgical specimen, orange ink for the serosal surface and indian ink for the mesorrectal margin, and assess preoperative MRI accuracy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two tumors were located above, 65 at and 74 below PR. MRI accuracy was 90.6% for determining tumor's location with respect to the PR and 80.5% for defining peritoneal involvement. For classifying tumors according to their intra or extraperitoneal location an accuracy of 92.5% was set for MRI. Histophatologic peritoneal involvement was found in 28.7% of tumors located above or at the PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging accurately predicts the location of rectal tumors with respect to the PR and its potential involvement. The double-ink method is useful to assess serosal involvement (pT4a) and to distinguish mesorrectal fascia from the peritonealized surface.

Oncological strategy following R1 sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy

AIM

Sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for low rectal cancer remains challenging due to the high risk of positive resection margin (R1). Long-term outcomes and the dedicated oncological strategy are not well established in this situation. The aim of this study was to define the more appropriate strategy according to the patterns of recurrence.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2014, patients treated by SSR for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiotherapy were included. Three types of recurrences were defined: local (LR), distant (DR) and mixed (MR). Recurrences and survival after R0 and R1 resection were analysed by Kaplan-Meier and compared with the log-rang test.

RESULTS

Among 394 patients receiving SSR, 42 (10.6%) had R1 resection. Independent factors of R1 resection were EMVI (OR2.24,95%IC1.10-4.53,p = 0.025) and no tumor downstaging (OR8.41,95%IC2.50-8.32,p = 0.001). Both 5-year disease free and overall survival, and 5-year distant and local recurrence, were significantly worse after R1 resection. The overall recurrence after R1 resection was 57% (24/42), 7% had LR, 36% DR and 14% MR. Time to DR was shorter than time to LR (11.1 vs. 34.3) months. In all cases of MR, DR occurred before LR (12.1 vs. 34.3) months, meaning that after R1 resection, the first concern was DR.

CONCLUSION

R1 resection after SSR for low rectal cancer reflects a more aggressive and systemic disease. Prognosis depends on DR in about 90% of cases, suggesting that pelvic control should not be the priority in the oncological strategy after R1. Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy ought to be preferred to salvage abdominoperineal resection.

Direct intraoperative assessment of total mesorectal excision specimens by expert pathologists in patients with very low rectal cancer prevents unnecessary abdominoperineal resections

PURPOSE

In patients with low rectal cancer, the intraoperative assessment of sufficient distal resection margins can be challenging. The assessment determines whether reconstruction can be performed or whether permanent colostomy is required. The goal of the present study was to evaluate intraoperative assessment of the total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen during an interruption of the operation.

METHODS

The intraoperative strategy of eight patients with low rectal cancer was evaluated. In all cases, intraoperative pathological assessment of the TME specimen by an expert pathologist together with the surgeon was performed. Assessment of the distance of the tumor to the resection margin was measured macroscopically as well as microscopically.

RESULTS

All patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The tumor was located at an average 4.8 ± 1.4 cm from the anal verge. In all cases, preoperative MRI revealed mrT3 tumors. The intraoperative assessment showed a median distal resection margin of 10 mm (2-15 mm). In six patients, sufficient margins allowed for reconstruction while in two patients APR was needed. In three patients (37.5%), the pathological assessment changed the operative strategy: In one patient APR could be avoided while two patients required APR instead of the anticipated TME.

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative assessment of the TME specimen by an expert pathologist together with the surgeon is a valuable tool to avoid unnecessary APR or R1 resections. We therefore suggest routine intraoperative pathological assessment in all operations for borderline low rectal cancers.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors.

METHODS

A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

Is follow-up still mandatory more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess if to prolong follow-up (FU) more than 5 years after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is justified or not.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for a CRC before 2013 and without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery were identified from our database and included.

RESULTS

Between 1996 and 2012, 121 patients operated for rectal (RC) (median of FU of 84 months; range 60-211) and 97 with colonic cancer (CC) (median of FU of 78 months; range 60-139), without any tumor recurrence (or synchronous metastases) during the first 5 years after surgery, presented a late tumor recurrence: 13/121 RC (10.7%) versus 2/97 CC (2.1%) (p = 0.014); 8/13 recurrences in RC (61.5%) were observed after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and 9/13 (69.2%) in pN0 tumors. Among the 13 recurrences, 3 had both local and metastatic recurrences (23%), 5 an isolated local recurrence (38.5%) and 5 an isolated metastatic recurrence (38.5%). After surgery for CC, the 2 recurrences were observed in patients with T3N0 tumors.

CONCLUSION

After surgery for a CRC, in patients without tumor recurrence during the first 5 years after surgery, follow-up after 5 years must be continued in rectal cancer patients because of a 10.7% rate of late recurrence. On the opposite, after surgery for colon cancer the 2% rate of late recurrence after 5 years suggested that only patients with pT3-T4 colonic cancer could probably be followed more than 5 years after surgery.

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial

AIMS

The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

A multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.

RESULTS

88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.

CONCLUSION

Feasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of clinical T4b tumours of distal sigmoid and rectum: initial results

BACKGROUND

Radical resection by multivisceral resection of colorectal T4 tumours is important to reduce local recurrence and improve survival. Oncological safety of laparoscopic resection of T4 tumours is controversial. However, robot-assisted resections might have advantages, such as 3D view and greater range of motion of instruments. The aim of this study is to evaluate the initial results of robot-assisted resection of T4 rectal and distal sigmoid tumours.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of a prospectively kept database of all robot-assisted rectal and sigmoid resections between 2012 and 2017. Patients who underwent a multivisceral resection for tumours appearing as T4 cancer during surgery were included. Rectal and sigmoid resections are routinely performed with the DaVinci robot, unless an indication for intra-operative radiotherapy exists.

RESULTS

28 patients with suspected T4 rectal or sigmoid cancer were included. Most patients (78%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 19), short course radiotherapy with long waiting interval (n = 2) or chemotherapy (n = 1). En bloc resection was performed with the complete or part of the invaded organ (prostate, vesicles, bladder, abdominal wall, presacral fascia, vagina, uterus, adnex). In 3 patients (11%), the procedure was converted to laparotomy. Twenty-four R0-resections were performed (86%) and four R1-resections (14%). Median length of surgery was 274 min (IQR 222-354). Median length of stay was 6 days (IQR 5-11). Twelve patients (43%) had postoperative complications: eight (29%) minor complications and four (14%) major complications. There was no postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopy seems to be a feasible option for the resection of clinical T4 cancer of the distal sigmoid and rectum in selected cases. Radical resections can be achieved in the majority of cases. Therefore, T4 tumours should not be regarded as a strict contraindication for robot-assisted surgery.

Is There Any Reason Not to Perform Standard Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision?

The curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is currently based on chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopy has developed considerably because of obvious clinical benefits such as reduced pain and shorter hospital stay. Recently, several prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up have showed that laparoscopy is noninferior to laparotomy with the same oncologic outcomes in terms of survival and local control rate. However, laparoscopic TME remains a challenging procedure requiring a high level of expertise and a long learning curve to ensure an adequate and safe resection. The only relative contraindication of laparoscopic rectal surgery is T4 rectal cancer extended beyond the plane of TME. In this situation, it is reasonable to consider an open resection to avoid an uncomplete resection. In obese and elderly patients, laparoscopic TME also provides the same benefits as in nonobese and younger patients but may be more difficult to achieve. This review summarizes current knowledge on the place of laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer.

A Distal Resection Margin of ≤1 mm and Rectal Cancer Recurrence After Sphincter-Preserving Surgery: The Role of a Positive Distal Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

There is little information about the prognostic value of a microscopically positive distal margin in patients who have rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the influence of a distal margin of ≤1 mm on oncologic outcomes after sphincter-preserving resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 2 hospitals.

PATIENTS

A total of 6574 patients underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer from January 1999 to December 2014; 97 (1.5%) patients with a distal margin of ≤1 mm were included in this study. For comparative analyses, patients were matched with 194 patients with a negative distal margin (>1 mm) according to sex, age, BMI, ASA score, neoadjuvant treatment, tumor location, and stage.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The oncologic outcomes of the 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Perineural and lymphovascular invasion rates were significantly higher in patients with a positive distal margin (54.6% vs 28.9%; 67.0% vs 42.8%; both p < 0.001) compared with to patients with negative distal margin. Comparison between microscopically positive and negative distal margin showed worse oncologic outcomes in patients with a microscopically positive distal margin, including 5-year local recurrence rate (24.1% vs 12.0%, p = 0.005); 5-year distant recurrence rate (35.5% vs 20.2%, p = 0.011); 5-year disease-free survival (45.5% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001); and 5-year OS (69.2% vs 79.7%, p = 0.004). Among the 97 patients with a microscopically positive distal margin, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was higher in patients who received adjuvant therapy (52.0% vs 30.7%, p = 0.089).

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective study; bias may exist.

CONCLUSIONS

A distal margin of 1 mm is associated with worse oncologic results. Our data indicate the importance of achieving a clear distal margin in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Adjuvant therapy should be used in these patients to reduce recurrence. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A408.

Circumferential margin involvement after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer: are all R1 resections equal?

AIM

Our aim was to assess the prognostic influence of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) exact value after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer.

METHODS

All patients (n = 321) who underwent total mesorectal excision from 2005 to 2013 were identified from a prospective database, including 49 (15%) who presented with a CRM ≤ 1 mm. Four groups were defined: group 1, CRM = 0 mm (n = 21); group 2, 0 < CRM ≤ 0.4 mm (n = 13); group 3, 0.4 < CRM ≤ 1 mm (n = 15); group 4, CRM > 1 mm (n = 272).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 42 ± 26 months, locoregional recurrence rates were 8/21 (38%) in group 1, 3/13 (23%) in group 2, 0/12 (0%) in group 3 and 26/272 (10%) in group 4 (P < 0.001), leading to significantly impaired 3-year locoregional recurrence-free survival in group 1 (57% ± 13%) and group 2 (56% ± 15%) compared to group 3 (85% ± 10%, vs group 1, P = 0.021, vs group 2, P = 0.049) and to group 4 (89% ± 2%, vs group 1, P < 0.001, vs group 2, P < 0.001). In multivariate Cox analysis, a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm was identified as an independent factor impairing both locoregional recurrence-free survival (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.53-6.46; P = 0.002) and disease-free survival (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.28-3.63; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the prognosis after mid or low rectal cancer surgery was worse with a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm. The prognosis was similar in patients with a CRM > 0.4 mm or ≤ 1 mm and patients with an R0 resection.

Adjuvant Therapy for a Microscopically Incomplete Resection Margin after an Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: To investigate the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with a microscopically incomplete (R1) resection margin following an esophagectomy, as well as the impact of adjuvant treatment on survival. Methods: Data obtained from 124 patients with R1-resected ESCC were reviewed. The impact of clinicopathological factors and adjuvant treatment on the overall survival, locoregional recurrence, and distant recurrence were explored. Results: For a median follow-up time of 16.8 months, the median overall survival of 124 patients was 25.6 months. The 1, 3, and 5-year overall survival rates were 75.6%±4.0%, 35.9%±5.1%, and 23.2%±5.0%, respectively. Adjuvant therapy was administered in 78 patients. In the univariate analyses, patients with a pN0 stage (log rank, p=0.028) and adjuvant chemotherapy (log rank, p=0.032) exhibited more favorable overall survival. In the multivariate analyses, the pN stage (HR=2.192, p=0.004) and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=0.032, p=0.004) were independent prognostic factors for overall survival. Locoregional recurrence was the main failure pattern after R1 resection. The pN stage (HR=2.567, p=0.009) and adjuvant radiotherapy (HR=0.278, p=0.000) were independent prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence. Conclusion: In R1-resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, adjuvant radiotherapy reduced locoregional recurrence; however, it did not improve overall survival. Adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated benefits for overall survival. The pN stage was an independent prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence and overall survival.

The significance of extramural venous invasion in R1 positive rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence has shown that a positive resection margin (R1) is a key determinant of subsequent local recurrence and a poor prognostic factor in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and prognosticators in patients with R1 resection of rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients operatively managed within our institution between April 2008 and April 2013 for rectal cancer. Baseline demographics and multiple outcome measures recorded. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 306 primary rectal cancers. Seventy-six percent were grade T3/4 tumours. OS was 30 months. R1 rate was 16 % (48 patients). Thirty-one patients underwent APR and 17 AR. In patients who responded to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), overall survival was 55 months, with no extramural venous invasion (EMV) seen in this cohort. In non-responders OS was 29 months, with EMV in 48 %. In patients who did not receive NAC, OS was 23 months, with EMV in 74 %. EMV is a strong predictor for poor survival following R1 (p = 0.001). We also found a correlation between number of positive nodes and OS/DFS (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In this small cohort of patients with R1 positive rectal cancers, response to NAC is the strongest predictor of poor overall and disease-free survival. In patients who respond to NAC, OS and DFS has been shown to be positive, with a reduced rate of EMV.

Oncological impact of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

The effect of anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME) is controversial. This study aimed to assess the influence of symptomatic and asymptomatic anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

All patients who underwent restorative laparoscopic TME for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent from 2005 to 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined by CT performed systematically 4-8 weeks after rectal surgery, with no relevant clinical symptoms or laboratory examination findings during the postoperative course.

RESULTS

Of a total of 428 patients, anastomotic leakage was observed in 120 (28·0 per cent) (50 asymptomatic, 70 symptomatic). After a mean follow-up of 40 months, local recurrence was observed in 36 patients (8·4 per cent). Multivariable Cox regression identified three independent risk factors for reduced local recurrence-free survival (LRFS): symptomatic anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) 2·13, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 3·50; P = 0·003), positive resection margin (R1) (OR 2·41, 1·40 to 4·16; P = 0·001) and pT3-4 category (OR 1·77, 1·08 to 2·90; P = 0·022). Patients with no risk factor for reduced LRFS had an estimated 5-year LRFS rate of 87·7(s.d. 3·2) per cent, whereas the rate dropped to 75·3(4·3) per cent with one risk factor, 67(7) per cent with two risk factors, and 14(13) per cent with three risk factors (P < 0·001). Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was not significantly associated with LRFS in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic anastomotic leakage is a risk factor for disease recurrence in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

AIM

The long-term risk of definitive stoma after sphincter-saving resection (SSR) for rectal cancer is underestimated and has never been reported for ultralow conservative surgery. We report the 10-year risk of definitive stoma after SSR for low rectal cancer.

METHOD

From 1994 to 2008, patients with low rectal cancer who were suitable for SSR were analysed retrospectively. Patients were divided into the following four groups: low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA); coloanal anastomosis (CAA); partial intersphincteric resection (pISR); and total intersphincteric resection (tISR). The end-point was the risk of a definitive stoma according to the type of anastomosis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 297 patients had SSR for low rectal cancer. The incidence of definitive stoma increased from 11% at 1 year to 22% at 10 years. The reasons were no closure of the loop ileostomy (4.7%), anastomotic morbidity (6.5%), anal incontinence (8%) and local recurrence (5.2%). The risk of definitive stoma was not influenced by type of surgery: 26% vs 18% vs 18% vs 19% (P = 0.578) for LCRA, CAA, pISR and tISR, respectively. Independent risk factors for definitive stoma were age > 65 years and surgical morbidity.

CONCLUSION

The risk of a definitive stoma after SSR increased two-fold between 1 and 10 years after surgery, from 11% to 22%. Ultralow conservative surgery (pISR and tISR) did not increase the risk of definitive stoma compared with conventional CAA or LCRA.

Prognostic significance of pathological response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is widely used in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Pathological response to CRT has been shown to be a potential prognostic predictor in rectal cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of pathological response to preoperative CRT in LARC patients.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with LARC were retrospectively analyzed to determine the relationships of pathological response and clinicopathological characteristics to survival outcomes. Patients received CRT with tegafur/uracil and leucovorin. Radiotherapy was administered in fractions of 1.8 Gy/day and 5 days per week. The total dose of radiation delivered was 45 Gy.

RESULTS

All patients underwent total mesorectal excision with lymph node dissections after CRT, and resected specimens were examined pathologically. Four patients showed pathological complete response, 14 showed good response, and 14 showed poor response. Pathological complete or good response was associated with longer survival (P = 0.041). Clinicopathological factors excluding gender were not correlated with outcome. No factor was associated with recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Pathological response to preoperative CRT may be a useful prognostic predictor in patients with LARC.

Prognostic significance of pathological response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is widely used in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Pathological response to CRT has been shown to be a potential prognostic predictor in rectal cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of pathological response to preoperative CRT in LARC patients.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with LARC were retrospectively analyzed to determine the relationships of pathological response and clinicopathological characteristics to survival outcomes. Patients received CRT with tegafur/uracil and leucovorin. Radiotherapy was administered in fractions of 1.8 Gy/day and 5 days per week. The total dose of radiation delivered was 45 Gy.

RESULTS

All patients underwent total mesorectal excision with lymph node dissections after CRT, and resected specimens were examined pathologically. Four patients showed pathological complete response, 14 showed good response, and 14 showed poor response. Pathological complete or good response was associated with longer survival (P = 0.041). Clinicopathological factors excluding gender were not correlated with outcome. No factor was associated with recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Pathological response to preoperative CRT may be a useful prognostic predictor in patients with LARC.

Risk factors for circumferential R1 resection after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a study in 233 consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for circumferential R1 resection (R1c) after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid or low rectal cancer. Better knowledge of pre- or intraoperative risk factors could possibly help for the management of these patients.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2013, 233 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for low or mid rectal cancer after RCT were included. R1c resection was defined as a circumferential margin ≤ 1 mm. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for R1c.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients had R1c resection (11%). In univariate analysis, low rectal cancer, anterior tumour, T4 on pretherapeutic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), T4 and/or N+ on post-RCT MRI and operative time > 240 min were associated with a significantly increased risk of R1c resection. In multivariate analysis, only T4 on post-RCT MRI (odds ratio (OR) = 6.02 [1.06-33]; p = 0.043) and operative time >240 min. (OR = 5.4 [1.01-28.9]; p = 0.049) were identified as independent risk factors for R1c resection. The risk of R1c resection was 3% (n = 3/88), 10% (n = 5/51) or 38% (n = 3/8) when 0, 1 or 2 risk factors were present in the same patient, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with T4 on MRI after RCT and/or operative time >240 min. seems to be at higher risk for R1c resection. In a pragmatic approach, we consider that systematic second MRI after RCT could help the surgeon, especially in area where circumferential margin is too short, in order to reduce this risk of R1 resection.