Curative resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma: abdomino-perineal vs anterior resection

Predicting the Feasibility of Curative Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: Insights from a Prospective Observational Study on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accuracy

Background and Objectives: A positive pathological circumferential resection margin is a key prognostic factor in rectal cancer surgery. The point of this prospective study was to see how well different MRI parameters could predict a positive pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) in people who had been diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma, either on their own or when used together. Materials and Methods: Between November 2019 and February 2023, a total of 112 patients were enrolled in this prospective study and followed up for a 36-month period. MRI predictors such as circumferential resection margin (mCRM), presence of extramural venous invasion (mrEMVI), tumor location, and the distance between the tumor and anal verge, taken individually or combined, were evaluated with univariate and sensitivity analyses. Survival estimates in relation to a pCRM status were also determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: When individually evaluated, the best MRI predictor for the detection of a pCRM in the postsurgical histopathological examination is mrEMVI, which achieved a sensitivity (Se) of 77.78%, a specificity (Sp) of 87.38%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.83%, and an accuracy of 86.61%. Also, the best predictive performance was achieved by a model that comprised all MRI predictors (mCRM+ mrEMVI+ anterior location+ < 4 cm from the anal verge), with an Se of 66.67%, an Sp of 88.46%, an NPV of 96.84%, and an accuracy of 86.73%. The survival rates were significantly higher in the pCRM-negative group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of selective individual imaging predictors or combined models could be useful for the prediction of positive pCRM and risk stratification for local recurrence or distant metastasis.

The adipofasciocutaneous gluteal fold perforator flap a versatile alternative choice for covering perineal defects

AIM

Perineal defects following the resection of anorectal malignancies are a reconstructive challenge. Flaps based on the rectus abdominis muscle have several drawbacks. Regional perforator flaps may be a suitable alternative. We present our experience of using the gluteal fold flap (GFF) for reconstructing perineal and pelvic defects.

METHODS

We used a retrospective chart review and follow-up examinations focusing on epidemiological, oncological (procedure and outcome), and therapy-related data. This included postoperative complications and their management, length of hospital stay, and time to heal.

RESULTS

Twenty-two GFFs (unilateral n = 8; bilateral n = 7) were performed in 15 patients (nine women and six men; anal squamous cell carcinoma n = 8; rectal adenocarcinoma n = 7; mean age 65.5 + 8.2 years) with a mean follow-up time of 1 year. Of the cases, 73.3% were a recurrent disease. Microscopic tumor resection was achieved in all but one case (93.3%). Seven cases had no complications (46.7%). Surgical complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system (grades I n = 2; II n = 2; IIIb n = 4). These were mainly wound healing disorders that did not affect mobilization or discharge. The time to discharge was 22 + 9.9 days. The oncological outcomes were as follows: 53.3% of the patients had no evidence of disease, 20% had metastatic disease, 20% had local recurrent disease, and one patient (6.7%) died of other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The GFF is a robust, reliable flap suitable for perineal and pelvic reconstruction. It can be raised quickly and easily, has an acceptable complication rate and donor site morbidity, and does not affect the abdominal wall.

[Reconstruction of abdo-perineal resection by Taylor flap: About 68 patients]

PURPOSES

Healing after abdomino-perineal resection is often difficult, especially in patients who have undergone radiation therapy. Vaginal reconstruction is also an important issue for the women who undergo this surgery. We describe and analyze here our series of perineal reconstructions with modified Taylor flaps. Between 2010 and 2016, 68 patients (52 women, 16 men) with cancer of the anal canal (53), adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum (9), or other malignant neoplasms of the perineum underwent reconstruction with a rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap with an inferior pedicle and an oblique skin paddle.

RESULTS

This review of records showed that all patients healed, with a median of 30 days. The reoperation rate was 11.7% including 1 for eventration. The principal causes for delayed healing were scar dehiscence, abscess, and partial necrosis. No flap required removal, however. The mean duration of hospitalization was 23.7 days.

CONCLUSION

Modified Taylor flaps substantially improved the reconstruction of defects resulting from abdomino-perineal resection. They enabled complete and rapid healing with low comorbidity.

Overview of gynaecological and colorectal reconstruction

Plastic surgeons are often required to reconstruct defects following radical pelvic surgery for advanced or recurrent anorectal and gynaecological malignancies. This article describes the most commonly used flaps for reconstruction following radical pelvic surgery and provides a treatment algorithm to facilitate decision making.

Evaluation of the impact of implementing the prone jackknife position for the perineal phase of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal excision of rectum has been associated with poor oncological specimens and high local recurrence rates in comparison with restorative surgery. The role of recent changes in operative position has yet to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether a change in the perineal phase from the Lloyd-Davies position to the prone jackknife position might improve excision margins and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A single-institution review of a prospectively maintained database comparing the quality of excision and oncological outcomes after abdominoperineal excision in conventional and prone position was performed. Consecutive abdominoperineal excisions performed for adenocarcinoma of the rectum between January 1999 and April 2008 were included.

RESULTS

Abdominoperineal excision cases were assessed including 63 in the Lloyd-Davies position and 58 in the prone jackknife position. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 5% in the prone jackknife group in comparison with 23% in the Lloyd-Davies group (p = 0.03) by life table analysis. For local recurrence, the most significant and independent risk factors were a favorable effect of having the patient in the prone jackknife position for the perineal phase of abdominoperineal excision (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.81) and, unfavorably, a positive circumferential resection margin (HR 7.1; 95% CI 2.4-20). Lymph node involvement (N2) was an independent risk factor for overall survival (HR 4.6; 95% CI 2.1-9.5) and relapse of disease (HR 4.0; 95% CI 0.7-9.4).

LIMITATIONS

This study has some limitations because it is a retrospective review of a prospective database.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that the rate of local recurrence after abdominoperineal excision may be lowered by adaptation of the prone jackknife position.

Factors associated with oncologic outcomes after abdominoperineal resection compared with restorative resection for low rectal cancer: patient- and tumor-related or technical factors only?

BACKGROUND

Previous reports suggest that patients with rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection have worse oncologic outcomes in comparison with those undergoing restorative rectal resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess factors influencing oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data.

SETTING

Data were gathered from a prospective cancer database.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent radical resection for mid and lower third rectal cancer (1991-2006).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the impact of various factors on perioperative outcomes, local recurrence, and disease-free survival for patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirteen (29%) patients underwent abdominoperineal resection and 993 (71%) underwent restorative resection for rectal cancer. Patients with abdominoperineal resection were older (p < 0.0001), had a higher mean ASA score (p < 0.001), worse tumor differentiation (p < 0.001), and higher tumor stage (p = 0.0001). Although overall morbidity was lower in the abdominoperineal resection group (p = 0.001), the length of stay was greater (p < 0.001). After a similar period of follow-up (5.2 ± 3.9 vs 5.3 ± 3.4 y, p = 0.58), local recurrence (7% vs 3%, p = 0.02) was higher after abdominoperineal resection, but overall survival (56% vs 71%, p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (54% vs 70%, p < 0.001) were lower. On multivariate analysis, higher stage, poor tumor differentiation, involved margins, and older age were associated with worse survival, whereas higher stage, poor tumor differentiation, and abdominoperineal resection were associated with greater recurrence. These worse oncologic outcomes persisted even when the groups were stratified based on the location of the cancer in mid or distal rectum and for patients with a clear circumferential margin.

LIMITATION

This study was limited by its retrospective nature.

CONCLUSION

Technical factors alone are unlikely to be responsible for the worse outcomes after abdominoperineal resection in comparison with restorative resection. A combination of patient- and tumor-related factors that may have indicated the choice of the procedure also probably contribute to the worse outcomes. Because patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection represent a high risk for poor outcomes, management strategies need to consider all these factors during treatment.

Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer--a systematic overview

BACKGROUND

After introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery, oncologic results appeared to be inferior for abdominoperineal excision (APE) as compared to anterior resection. This has been attributed to the technique of standard APE creating a waist at the level of the tumor-bearing segment. This systematic review investigates outcome of both standard and extended techniques of APE regarding inadvertent bowel perforation, circumferential margin (CRM) involvement, and local recurrence.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify all articles reporting on APE after the introduction of TME using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Extended APE was defined as operations that resected the levator ani muscle close to its origin. All other techniques were taken to be standard. Studies so identified were evaluated using a validated instrument for assessing nonrandomized studies. Rates for perforation, CRM involvement, and local recurrence were compared using chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

In the extended group, 1,097 patients, and in the standard group, 4,147 patients could be pooled for statistical analysis. The rate of inadvertent bowel perforation and the rate of CRM involvement for extended vs. standard APE was 4.1% vs. 10.4% (relative risk reduction 60.6%, p = 0.004) and 9.6% vs. 15.4% (relative risk reduction 37.7%, p = 0.022), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 6.6% vs. 11.9% (relative risk reduction 44.5%, p < 0.001) for the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that extended techniques of APE result in superior oncologic outcome as compared to standard techniques.

Short-term outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been introduced to avoid oncologic problems encountered with conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) such as high rates of inadvertent bowel perforation and of positive circumferential resection margin. We compare our short-term results of this new approach with a historic patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1997 until 2010, we performed 46 consecutive conventional APE and 28 ELAPE after neoadjuvant therapy with a macroscopically complete resection in the true pelvis. Patient data was prospectively collected in our colorectal tumor database. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared as were the rates of inadvertent bowel perforation, of circumferential margin involvement, and of wound abscesses.

RESULTS

The rates of inadvertent bowel perforation, of circumferential margin involvement, and of wound abscesses were 15.2% vs. 0 (p = 0.04), 4.9% vs. 0 (p = 0.511), and 17.4% vs. 10.7% (p = 0.518), respectively, in the conventional APE vs. ELAPE group.

CONCLUSION

With a significant reduction of the bowel perforation rate and a reduction of circumferential margin involvement and wound abscess formation, ELAPE improves important surrogate parameters for local recurrence rate and survival.

A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era

PURPOSE

It is a widely held view that anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer is an oncologically superior operation to abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, some centres have demonstrated better outcomes with APE. We conducted a systematic review of high-quality studies within the total mesorectal excision (TME) era comparing outcomes of AR and APE.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies within the TME era comparing AR and APE with regard to the following: circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, tumour perforation rates, specimen quality, local recurrence, overall survival (OS; 3 or 5 year), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Additional data regarding patient demographics and tumour characteristics was collected.

RESULTS

Twenty four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Newcastle-Ottawa scores of six or greater. Where a significant difference was found, all studies reported lower and more advanced tumours for APE and 4/5 studies observed more frequent use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in APE patients. Tumour perforation rates and CRM involvement where reported, were significantly greater for APE. 8 out of 10 studies showing significant differences in local recurrence reported higher rates for APE but no differences were observed with distant recurrence. Where differences were noted, AR was reported to have increased DFS, CSS and OS compared to APE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with AR have lower rates of tumour perforation and CRM involvement and tend to have better outcomes with regard to disease recurrence and survival. However, tumours treated by APE are lower and more locally advanced.

The National Bowel Cancer Project: social deprivation is an independent predictor of nonrestorative rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess the impact of social deprivation on rates of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Colorectal Cancer Database (2000-2005). Social deprivation was assessed by using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (2004) score. Logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of nonrestorative surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 12,128 patients underwent anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision for Dukes A-C cancer in 101 centers; 2,625 patients (21.6 percent) underwent abdominoperineal excision (median, 20.8 (interquartile range, 16.5-27.9) percent per unit). Abdominoperineal excision rates decreased from 24.3 to 18.2 percent (P < 0.001) and varied between the least and most deprived groups from 18 to 26.4 percent, respectively (P < 0.001). Independent predictors of abdominoperineal excision were: year of surgery (odds ratio = 0.855 per year increase, P < 0.001), female vs. male gender (odds ratio = 0.82, P < 0.001), use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (odds ratio = 2.4, P < 0.001), and social deprivation (most vs. least deprived: odds ratio = 1.638, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominoperineal excision rates vary considerably between centers. Gender and deprivation status independently predict formation of a permanent stoma. These results have important implications for intercenter comparisons of surgical quality and may suggest inequalities in health care provision.

Risk factors for local recurrence of middle and lower rectal carcinoma after curative resection

AIM: To explore the risk factors for local recurrence of middle and lower rectal carcinoma after curative resection.

METHODS: Specimens of middle and lower rectal carcinoma from 56 patients who received curative resection at the Department of General Surgery of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital were studied. A large slice technique was used to detect mesorectal metastasis and evaluate circumferential resection margin status. The relations between clinicopathologic characteristics, mesorectal metastasis and circumferential resection margin status were identified in patients with local recurrence of middle and lower rectal carcinoma.

RESULTS: Local recurrence of middle and lower rectal carcinoma after curative resection occurred in 7 of the 56 patients (12.5%), and was significantly associated with family history (χ² = 3.929, P = 0.047), high CEA level (χ² = 4.964, P = 0.026), cancerous perforation (χ² = 8.503, P = 0.004), tumor differentiation (χ² = 9.315, P = 0.009) and vessel cancerous emboli (χ² = 11.879, P = 0.001). In contrast, no significant correlation was found between local recurrence of rectal carcinoma and other variables such as age (χ² = 0.506, P = 0.477), gender (χ² = 0.102, χ² = 0.749), tumor diameter (χ² = 0.421, P = 0.516), tumor infiltration (χ² = 5.052, P = 0.168), depth of tumor invasion (χ² = 4.588, P = 0.101), lymph node metastases (χ² = 3.688, P = 0.055) and TNM staging system (χ² = 3.765, P = 0.152). The local recurrence rate of middle and lower rectal carcinoma was 33.3% (4/12) in patients with positive circumferential resection margin and 6.8% (3/44) in those with negative circumferential resection margin. There was a significant difference between the two groups (χ² = 6.061, P = 0.014). Local recurrence of rectal carcinoma occurred in 6 of 36 patients (16.7%) with mesorectal metastasis, and in 1 of 20 patients (5.0%) without mesorectal metastasis. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ² = 1.600, P = 0.206).

CONCLUSION: Family history, high CEA level, cancerous perforation, tumor differentiation, vessel cancerous emboli and circumferential resection margin status are the significant risk factors for local recurrence of middle and lower rectal carcinoma after curative resection. Local recurrence may be more frequent in patients with mesorectal metastasis than in patients without mesorectal metastasis.