Is it time to rethink the rule of total mesorectal excision? A prospective radiological and pathological study in 49 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) practice for rectal cancer only relies on small retrospective studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the oncological and functional outcomes of TSME practice.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was drawn to include all the studies that compared partial versus total mesorectal excision (PME vs TME) practised for rectal adenocarcinoma up to 16 cm from the anal verge. A systematic literature search was conducted on EMBASE-Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Reports were screened for the study's outcomes: oncological radicality, postoperative anastomotic leak risk and functional outcomes. Included studies were appraised for risk-of-bias and meta-analysed. Evidence was rated with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included, consisting of 12325 patients (PME n = 4460, 36.2%; TME n = 7865, 63.8%). PME was performed for tumours higher than 10 cm from the anal verge in 54.5% of patients. There was no difference between PME and TME in circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 1.31, 95%CI 0.43-3.95, p = 0.64; I2 = 38%), and local recurrence risk (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.52-2.10, p = 0.90; I2 = 40%). The postoperative leak risk (OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.27-0.67, p < 0.001; I2 = 60%) and the major low anterior resection syndrome risk (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.28-0.40, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were lower after PME surgery. No difference was found in urinary incontinence (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.13-3.67, p = 0.66) and urinary retention after early catheter removal (OR 2.00, 95%CI 0.24-16.51, p = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this meta-analysis shows that TSME for rectal cancer has good oncological results and leads to the best-fitted functional results possible for the patient's condition.

Oncological outcome of wide anatomic resection with partial mesorectal excision in patients with upper and middle rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to investigate the influence of distal resection margin and extent of mesorectal excision on long-term oncological outcomes.

METHOD

Consecutive patients with upper and middle third rectal cancer from June 2006 to February 2016 were reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups depending on the distal margin considered as a surrogate marker of the extension of mesorectal excision (Q1 ≤10 mm, Q2 11-20 mm, Q3 21-30 mm, Q4 ≥31 mm). Local-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. Cox regression models were used to investigate the influence of surgical and clinicopathological variables on prognosis by adjusting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eleven patients with mid (125) and upper (86) rectal cancer underwent wide mesorectal excision. The median follow-up was 48.64 months (interquartile range 28-63). 17.5% patients developed recurrence. The 5-year LRFS, DFS and OS for all patients were 93.20%, 83.89% and 80.1%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between groups (LRFS, P = 0.601; DFS, P = 0.487; OS, P = 0.468). In the multivariable analysis the recurrences and survival were associated with the quality of the mesorectum (LRFS, hazard ratio 10.629, 95% CI 2.324-48.610, P = 0.002; DFS, hazard ratio 2.789, 95% CI 1.314-5.922, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

A wide anatomical resection with partial mesorectal excision and shorter distal resection margin does not jeopardize the oncological outcomes.