Clinical outcome of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection combined with transanal rectal dissection for t3 low rectal cancer in patients with a narrow pelvis. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:901574. [PMID: 22312529 DOI: 10.1155/2011/901574]

Efficacy and safety of preoperative chemoradiotherapy with S-1 for advanced rectal cancer: a phase II study

Background

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with rectal cancer is not yet established in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative CRT with S-1, a fixed-dose combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective, interventional, non-randomized single-center study. Radiotherapy was administered at a total dose of 45 Gy (1.8 Gy in 25 fractions) for five weeks. S-1 was administered orally for nine weeks (five weeks during and four weeks after radiotherapy) at a dose of 80 mg/m²/day. The endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR) rate.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were finally enrolled. The following patient characteristics were recorded: clinical Stage (II: n = 12, III: n = 16), median age (66 years, range 40-77 years), male/female ratio (20/8), and lesion site (Ra-Rb:3/Rb:23/Rb-P:2). Preoperative treatment was completed in 27 patients (96%). Treatment abandonment occurred because of diarrhea. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in one (4%) patient with two events. No serious adverse events occurred in the ≥ 70 years group. The response rate was 68% in all patients and 68% among elderly patients. Radical resection was achieved in all patients, including 19 (68%) who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery. The pCR rate was 11% (three patients). The five-year disease-free survival rate was 68%, and the overall survival rate was 82%. Local recurrence occurred in only one patient five years after surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative CRT with S-1 alone may be a safe and acceptable regimen from the perspective of adverse events and oncological outcomes.

Trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000013598. Registered 1 April 2014, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recpt-no=R000015887.

Transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum as a viable approach to achieve total mesorectal excision in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer near the anus: a study of short- and long-term outcomes of 123 consecutive patients from a single Japanese institution

Background

In rectal cancer (RC) surgery, the complexity of total mesorectal excision (TME) in laparoscopic sphincter-preserving surgery (lap-SPS) for RC near the anus has been a critical issue. Recently, technical assistance via the anus for complete TME has been receiving attention. This study aimed at clarifying the transanal down-to-up dissection viability for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus.

Methods

We evaluated surgical and oncological outcomes of a total of 123 consecutive patients undergoing either a transanal rectal dissection (TARD) under direct vision mobilizing the most difficult portion of TME via the anus or the transanal TME by using an endoscopic system (TaTME) for achieving TME in lap-SPS for RC near the anus between January 2006 and February 2021.

Results

A total of 123 consecutive patients (83 men) with a median age of 66 years (range 33–86 years) were included. TARD and TaTME were performed for 50 (40.7%) and for 73 (59.3%) patients, respectively. Preoperative treatment was performed for 40 (32.5%) patients, resulting in a complete pathological response in 5 (12.5%) patients. Intersphincteric resection was performed significantly more in the TARD group (p<0.001). Although the TaTME group needed a longer operative time at the transanal portion (p<0.001), the median blood loss was lower (p<0.001). Postoperative complications with the Clavien–Dindo classification grade ≧2 developed in 52 (42.3%) patients. Urinary dysfunction and stoma-related complications were found most frequently. More patients needing medication for urinary dysfunction were found in the TARD group, but a significant difference was not observed (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p=0.526). The quality of TME was good for almost all patients. Recurrence developed in 18 (14.6%) patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates in 123 patients were 95.8% and 88.8%, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusions

Our data suggested that a transanal down-to-up dissection of the distal rectum might be a viable approach in lap-SPS for RC near the anus. Further studies are needed to examine the differences between TARD and TaTME.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term effects of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with the conventional open approach for patients with low rectal cancer through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2017. Operation time, blood loss, circumferential resection margin-positive rate, distal margin length, number of resected lymph nodes, diverting stoma rate, postoperative overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay were the main short-term effect endpoints. We also examined disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and post-operational anal function as secondary outcomes to evaluate the mid-term effects of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 620 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the open approach, the laparoscopic ISR had less blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 214.65 ml, 95% CI [- 370.44, - 196.13], p < 0.01), less postoperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86], p < 0.01), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = - 5.87 days, 95% CI [- 11.35, - 0.40], p < 0.05); however, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 47.34 min, 95% CI [4.10, 90.58], p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer offers fewer complications and faster recovery, with similar operation quality and mid-term oncological results than the conventional approach. Although this technique is comparatively more complex than the conventional approach and requires practice, laparoscopic ISR shows great potential as a surgical option and deserves further clinical study.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

For low rectal cancer located < 5 cm from the anal verge, abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent sigmoid colostomy is usually used to ensure the R0 resection. Sphincter saving surgery has emerged in the last 20 years, and the introduction of intersphincteric resection (ISR) can successfully preserve the anal function and guarantee a radical tumor resection for patients with ultra-low lying tumors. Therefore, the use of APR has been consistently declining worldwide. Recently, a growing body of research on ISR has been reported. However, more evidence based results are needed to clarify some issues about ISR. In the current review, we discuss the indications for ISR and the oncological and functional outcomes following the procedure. Some technique issues of ISR are also discussed.

Potential sexual function improvement by using transanal mesorectal approach for laparoscopic low rectal cancer excision

OBJECTIVE

Preliminary results of the transanal approach for low rectal cancer suggest better oncological outcomes than the conventional laparoscopic approach. We currently report the functional results.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer and suitable for sphincter-saving resection were randomized between transanal and laparoscopic low rectal dissection. Patients derived from this randomized trial were enrolled for functional assessment. End points were bowel function (LARS bowel and Wexner continence scores) and urogenital function (IPSS, IIEF-5 and FSFI-6 scores) obtained by questionnaires sent to patients with a follow-up more than 12 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 76 patients were eligible and 72 responded to the questionnaire: 38 in the transanal group and 34 in the laparoscopic group. The bowel function did not differ between the transanal and the laparoscopic groups: LARS 36 versus 37 (p = 0.941) and Wexner 9 versus 10 (p = 0.786). The urologic function was also similar between the two groups: IPSS 5.5 versus 3.5 (p = 0.821). Among sexually active patients before surgery, 20 of 28 (71 %) patients in the transanal group and 9 of 23 (39 %) in the laparoscopic group maintained an activity after surgery (p = 0.02). Erectile function was also better in men after transanal compared to laparoscopic low rectal dissection: IIEF 17 versus 7 (p = 0.119).

CONCLUSION

Transanal approach for low rectal cancer did not change bowel and urologic functions compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach. However, there was a trend to a better erectile function with a significantly higher rate of sexual activity in the transanal group.

Intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis in treatment of distal rectal cancer

In the treatment of distal rectal cancer, abdominoperineal resection is traditionally performed. However, the recognition of shorter safe distal resection line, intersphincteric resection technique has given a chance of sphincter-saving surgery for patients with distal rectal cancer during last two decades and still is being performed as an alternative choice of abdominoperineal resection. The first aim of this study is to assess the morbidity, mortality, oncological, and functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection. The second aim is to compare outcomes of patients who underwent intersphincteric resection with the outcomes of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection.