Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Pelvic Malignancies

Evaluating postoperative hernia incidence and risk factors following pelvic exenteration

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a technically challenging surgical procedure. More recently, quality of life and survivorship following PEs are being increasingly acknowledged as important patient outcomes. This includes evaluating major long-term complications such as hernias, defined as the protrusion of internal organs through a facial defect (The PelvEx Collaborative in Br J Surg 109:1251-1263, 2022), for which there is currently limited literature. The aim of this paper is to ascertain the incidence and risk factors for postoperative hernia formation among our PE cohort managed at a quaternary centre.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study examining hernia formation following PE for locally advanced rectal carcinoma and locally recurrent rectal carcinoma between June 2010 and August 2022 at a quaternary cancer centre was performed. Baseline data evaluating patient characteristics, surgical techniques and outcomes was collated among a PE cohort of 243 patients. Postoperative hernia incidence was evaluated via independent radiological screening and clinical examination.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients (32.5%) were identified as having developed a hernia. Expectantly, those undergoing flap reconstruction had a lower incidence of postoperative hernias. Of the 79 patients who developed postoperative hernias, 16.5% reported symptoms with the most common symptom reported being pain. Reintervention was required in 18 patients (23%), all of which were operative.

CONCLUSION

This study found over one-third of PE patients developed a hernia postoperatively. This paper highlights the importance of careful perioperative planning and optimization of patients to minimize morbidity.

Contemporary results from the PelvEx collaborative: improvements in surgical outcomes for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

The PelvEx Collaborative collates global data on outcomes following exenterative surgery for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study is to report contemporary data from within the collaborative and benchmark it against previous PelvEx publications.

METHOD

Anonymized data from 45 units that performed pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoints were surgical outcomes, including resection margin status, radicality of surgery, rates of reconstruction and associated morbidity and/or mortality.

RESULTS

Of 2186 patients who underwent an exenteration for either LARC or LRRC, 1386 (63.4%) had LARC and 800 (36.6%) had LRRC. The proportion of males to females was 1232:954. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range 52-71 years) compared with a median age of 63 in both historical LARC and LRRC cohorts. Compared with the original reported PelvEx data (2004-2014), there has been an increase in negative margin (R0) rates from 79.8% to 84.8% and from 55.4% to 71.7% in the LARC and LRRC cohorts, respectively. Bone resection and flap reconstruction rates have increased accordingly in both cohorts (8.2%-19.6% and 22.6%-32% for LARC and 20.3%-41.9% and 17.4%-32.1% in LRRC, respectively). Despite this, major morbidity has not increased.

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for advanced rectal cancer are undergoing more radical surgery and are more likely to achieve a negative resection margin (R0) with no increase in major morbidity.

The double-barrel wet colostomy: An alternative for urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration

AIM

Pelvic exenteration is a radical procedure used to treat locally advanced and/or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Different reconstruction options exist, the most popular being the end colostomy with ileal conduit. The double barrel wet colostomy (DBWC) offers concomitant fecal and urinary diversion through a single stoma, but is infrequently utilized. We aim to review the evidence base of the postoperative complications, long-term oncologic risks and quality of life following creation of a double barrel wet colostomy.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature was performed evaluating the DBWC. Patient demographics, perioperative complications, operative variables, long terms oncologic outcomes and quality of life data were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to define the data.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles with a total of 300 patients undergoing DBWC following pelvic exenteration were selected. 41% of malignancies were gastrointestinal in origin while 41.7% were gynecologic and 5.3% genitourinary. 42% of patients experienced at least one complication within in 40 days of surgery, the most common being wound infection (8.7%) and urinary leak (8.3%). There was no evidence of malignancy within the DBWC during long-term surveillance. Quality of life following DBWC is comparable to other reconstructive methods.

CONCLUSION

The DBWC is a well described reconstructive method for urinary and fecal diversion utilizing a single stoma following pelvic exenteration. The short- and long-term outcomes following DBWC are comparable to other reconstructive methods and the quality of life with a DBWC is acceptable. DBWC should remain a readily available option for reconstruction following pelvic exenteration.

Robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy: technical considerations and case vignette

When working with patients who have locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) the ability to undertake minimally invasive procedures becomes more challenging but no less important for patient outcomes. We performed a minimally invasive approach to surgery for LARC invading the posterior vagina and sacrum. The patient was a 75-year-old lady who presented with a locally advanced rectal tumour staged T4N2 with invasion into the posterior wall of the vagina and coccyx/distal sacrum. We introduce a robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy using a purely perineal approach with no robotic adjuncts or intracorporal techniques. Final histology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma invading the vagina and sacrum, ypT4b N0 TRG2 R0 and the patient entered surgical follow-up with no immediate intra- or postoperative complications. A literature review shows the need for more minimally invasive techniques when relating to major pelvic surgery and the benefits of a purely perineal approach include less expensive resource use, fewer training requirements and the ability to utilise this technique in centres that are not robotically equipped.

Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.

Case Report: Long-term survival of a patient with advanced rectal cancer and multiple pelvic recurrences after seven surgeries

Background

Rectal cancer has a high risk of recurrence and metastasis, with median survival ranging from 24 months to 36 months. K-RAS mutation is a predictor of poor prognosis in rectal cancer. Advanced rectal cancer can be stopped in its tracks by pelvic exenteration.

Case summary

A 51-year-old woman was diagnosed with advanced rectal cancer (pT4bN2aM1b, stage IV) with the KRAS G12D mutation due to a change in bowel habits. The patient had experienced repeated recurrences of rectal cancer after initial radical resection, and the tumor had invaded the ovaries, sacrum, bladder, vagina and anus. Since the onset of the disease, the patient had undergone a total of seven surgeries and long-term FOLFIRI- or XELOX-based chemotherapy regimens, with the targeted agents bevacizumab and regorafenib. Fortunately, the patient was able to achieve intraoperative R0 resection in almost all surgical procedures and achieve tumor-free survival after pelvic exenteration. The patient has been alive for 86 months since her diagnosis.

Conclusions

Patients with advanced rectal cancer can achieve long-term survival through active multidisciplinary management and R0 surgery.

Is preoperative sarcopenia associated with postoperative complications after pelvic exenteration surgery?

PURPOSE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) involves radical surgical resection of pelvic organs and is associated with considerable morbidity. Sarcopenia is recognised as a predictor of poor surgical outcomes. This study aimed to determine if preoperative sarcopenia is associated with postoperative complications after PE surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent PE with an available preoperative CT scan between May 2008 and November 2022 at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and St. Andrews Hospital in South Australia. Total Psoas Area Index (TPAI) was estimated by measuring the cross-sectional area of the psoas muscles at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on abdominal CT, normalised for patient height. Sarcopenia was diagnosed based on gender-specific TPAI cut-off values. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for major postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 3.

RESULTS

In total, 128 patients who underwent PE were included, 90 of whom formed the non-sarcopenic group (NSG) and 38 the sarcopenic group (SG). Major postoperative complications (CD grade ≥ 3) occurred in 26 (20.3%) patients. There was no detectable association with sarcopenia and an increased risk of major postoperative complications. Preoperative hypoalbuminemia (P = 0.01) and a prolonged operative time (P = 0.002) were significantly associated with a major postoperative complication on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenia is not a predictor of major postoperative complications in patients undergoing PE surgery. Further efforts aimed specifically at optimising preoperative nutrition may be warranted.

Comparation between the Bricker ileal conduit vs double-barrelled wet colostomy after pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancies

BACKGROUND

After exhausting other therapeutic options, pelvic exenteration is performed in patients who suffer from relapsed gynaecologic tumours, with most of them requiring some sort of urinary diversion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The main objective of this study was to assess the short- and medium/long-term urinary complications associated with the Bricker ileal conduit versus double-barrelled wet colostomy after performing a pelvic exenteration for gynaecologic malignancies.

RESULTS

A total of 61 pelvic exenterations were identified between November 2010 and April 2022; 29 Bricker ileal conduits and 20 double-barrelled wet colostomies were included in the urinary diversion analysis. Regarding the specific short-term urinary complications, no differences were found in the rate of urinary leakage (3 vs 0 %; p = 1), urostomy complications (7 vs 0 %; p = 0.51), acute renal failure (10 vs 20 %; p = 0.24) or urinary infection (0 vs 5 %; p = 0.41). Up to 69 % of patients with Bricker ileal conduits and 65 % of double-barrelled wet colostomies (p = 0.76) presented specific medium/long-term urinary complications. No differences in the rates of pyelonephritis (59 vs 53 %; p = 0.71), urinary fistula (0 vs 12 %; p = 0.13), ureteral stricture (10 vs 6 %; p = 1), conduit failure and reconstruction (7 vs 0 %; p = 0.53), renal failure (38 vs 29 %; p = 0.56) or electrolyte disorders (24 vs 18 %; p = 0.72) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no significant differences in the rate of complications between double-barrelled wet colostomy and the Bricker ileal conduit. The long-term complications related to urinary diversion remained high regardless of the type of technique. In this context, the double-barrelled wet colostomy presents advantages such as the single stoma placement and the simplicity of the technique.

Minimum radial margin in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to clarify the suitable radial margin (RM) for favourable outcomes after pelvic exenteration (PE), focusing on the discrepancy between the concepts of circumferential resection margin (CRM) and traditional R status.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients with locally advanced (LARC, n = 24) or locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC, n = 49) who underwent PE between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were histologically classified into the following 3 groups; wide RM (≥1 mm, n = 45), narrow RM (0-1 mm, n = 10), and exposed RM (n = 18). The analysis was performed not only in the entire cohort but also in each disease group separately.

RESULTS

The rates of traditional R0 (RM > 0 mm) and wide RM were 75.3% and 61.6%, respectively, resulting in the discrepancy rate of 13.7% between the two concepts. Preoperative radiotherapy was given in 12.3%. In the entire cohort, the local recurrence and overall survival (OS) rates for narrow RMs were significantly worse than those for wide RMs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002), but were similar to those for exposed RMs. In both LARC and LRRC, RM < 1 mm resulted in significantly worse local recurrence and OS rates compared to the wide RMs. Multivariate analysis showed that RM < 1 mm was an independent risk factor for local recurrence in both LARC (HR 15.850, p = 0.015) and LRRC (HR 4.874, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Narrow and exposed RMs had an almost equal impact on local recurrence and poor OS after PE. Preoperative radiotherapy might have a key role to ensure a wide RM.

Patterns of Recurrent Disease in Cervical Cancer

Uterine cervical cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. Patients with cervical cancer are at a high risk of pelvic recurrence or distant metastases within the first few years after primary treatment. However, no definitive agreement exists on the best post-treatment surveillance in these patients. Imaging may represent an accurate method of detecting relapse early, right when salvage treatment could be effective. In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, the correct interpretation of imaging may support the surgeon in the proper selection of patients prior to surgery to assess the feasibility of radical surgical procedure, or may help the clinician plan the most adaptive curative therapy. MRI can accurately define the extension of local recurrence and adjacent organ invasion; CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT may depict extra-pelvic distant metastases. This review illustrates different patterns of recurrent cervical cancer and how imaging, especially MRI, accurately contributes towards the diagnosis of local recurrence and the assessment of the extent of disease in patients with previous cervical cancer. Normal post-therapy pelvic appearance and possible pitfalls related to tissue changes for prior treatments will be also illustrated.

Usefulness of structured-cadaveric training for trans-anal pelvic exenteration

PURPOSE

Structured training using cadaveric simulation is useful for trans-anal surgery; however, no studies have examined the effectiveness of cadaveric training for advanced trans-anal surgery including pelvic exenteration (PE).

METHODS

Twelve colorectal surgeons attended a total of 10 cadaveric simulation training courses between 2016 and 2021 and completed a questionnaire at the end of the program. We divided 14 consecutive patients who underwent trans-anal PE between 2015 and 2021 into two groups: pre-training group and post-training group, and compared the clinico-pathological features between the groups.

RESULTS

The median length of clinical experience of the surgeons was 12 years. There was high score agreement among the surgeons that the course was useful for recognition of anatomical and layer structure, training for trans-anal total mesorectal excision and trans-anal PE, and reducing complications specific to the trans-anal approach. Compared with the pre-training group, patients in the post-training group had a higher rate of two-team surgery (77.8% vs 0%, P = .021), and shorter time to specimen removal (273 vs 423 min, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

Structured-cadaveric training has potential use as a technical step-up in advanced trans-anal surgery that might contribute to better short-term outcomes in the clinical setting.

Whole-exome sequencing of rectal cancer identifies locally recurrent mutations in the Wnt pathway

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) leads to a poor prognosis and appears as a clinically predominant pattern of failure. In this research, whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 21 samples from 8 patients to search for the molecular mechanisms of LRRC. The data was analyzed by bioinformatics. Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA) and Human Protein Atlas (HPA) were performed to validate the candidate genes. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect the protein expression of LEF1 and CyclinD1 in LRRC, primary rectal cancer (PRC), and non-recurrent rectal cancer (NRRC) specimens. The results showed that LRRC, PRC, and NRRC had 668, 794, and 190 specific genes, respectively.

FGFR1 and MYC have copy number variants (CNVs) in PRC and LRRC, respectively. LRRC specific genes were mainly enriched in positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter, plasma membrane, and ATP binding. The specific signaling pathways of LRRC were Wnt signaling pathway, gap junction, and glucagon signaling pathway, etc. The transcriptional and translational expression levels of genes including NFATC1, PRICKLE1, SOX17, and WNT6 related to Wnt signaling pathway were higher in rectal cancer (READ) tissues than normal rectal tissues. The PRICKLE1 mutation (c.C875T) and WNT6 mutation (c.G629A) were predicted as “D (deleterious)”. Expression levels of LEF1 and cytokinin D1 proteins: LRRC > PRC > NRRC > normal rectal tissue. Gene variants in the Wnt signaling pathway may be critical for the development of LRRC. The present study may provide a basis for the prediction of LRRC and the development of new therapeutic drugs.

Combined transabdominal and transperineal endoscopic pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: feasibility and safety of a two-team approach

Purpose

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a highly invasive procedure with high morbidity and mortality rates. Promising options to reduce this invasiveness have included laparoscopic and transperineal approaches. The aim of this study was to identify the safety of combined transabdominal and transperineal endoscopic PE for colorectal malignancies.

Methods

Fourteen patients who underwent combined transabdominal and transperineal PE (T group: 2-team approach, n = 7; O group: 1-team approach, n = 7) for colorectal malignancies between April 2016 and March 2020 in our institutions were included in this study. Clinicopathological features and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

All patients successfully underwent R0 resection. Operation time tended to be shorter in the T group (463 minutes) than in the O group (636 minutes, P = 0.080). Time to specimen removal was significantly shorter (258 minutes vs. 423 minutes, P = 0.006), blood loss was lower (343 mL vs. 867 mL, P = 0.042), and volume of blood transfusion was less (0 mL vs. 560 mL, P = 0.063) in the T group, respectively. Postoperative complications were similar between groups.

Conclusion

Combined transabdominal and transperineal PE under a synchronous 2-team approach was feasible and safe, with the potential to reduce operation time, blood loss, and surgeon stress.

The Emerging Role of Robotics in Pelvic Exenteration Surgery for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review

Pelvic exenteration surgery for locally advanced rectal cancers is a complex and extensive multivisceral operation, which is associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality rates. Significant technical challenges may arise due to inadequate access, visualisation, and characterisation of tissue planes and critical structures in the spatially constrained pelvis. Over the last two decades, robotic-assisted technologies have facilitated substantial advancements in the minimally invasive approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancers. Here, we review the emerging experience and evidence of robotic assistance in beyond TME multivisceral pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancers where heightened operative challenges and cumbersome ergonomics are likely to be encountered.

Surgical outcomes of hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: Initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines better visualization of laparoscopic surgery with the advantages of open surgery. The aim of this study was to describe important technical considerations of HALS and to assess the feasibility of hybrid HALS pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2012 to August 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 11 patients who underwent PE for primary advanced rectal cancer (< 10 cm from the anal verge). Patients were divided into the open PE group (n = 5) and the hybrid HALS PE group (n = 6).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the two groups, and all included patients were male. Tumor invasion to adjacent organs was mostly anterior invasion. In addition, four patients (66%) in the hybrid HALS PE group and two (40%) in the open PE group received neoadjuvant therapy (P = .3).

CONCLUSION

Compared to open surgery, hybrid HALS has the advantages of less bleeding and less invasion, and can achieve the same results in the short-term. It was a reasonable procedure which was easy and safe dissection of internal iliac vessels and dorsal vein complex. Thus, hybrid HALS may become a useful approach for PE.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pelvic Exenteration in Primary Colorectal Cancer

Background:

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pelvic exenteration is not a well-established technique. The aim was to assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for pelvic exenteration in locally advanced primary colorectal cancer and to compare the perioperative outcomes with open surgery.

Methods:

This is a retrospective analysis of patients, who had undergone pelvic exenteration for primary colorectal adenocarcinoma from May 2013 to July 2018. The short-term outcomes like perioperative details and histopathological characteristics were compared between the two groups.

Results:

MIS was performed in 23 patients and open pelvic exenteration was carried out in 72 patients. The mean operative time was significantly more in the MIS group (640 vs. 432 min, p = 0.00). The intraoperative blood loss (900 vs. 1550 ml, p = 0.00) and the requirement for blood transfusion (170 vs. 250 ml, p = 0.03) was significantly less in the MIS group. The overall morbidity (60% vs. 49%, p = 0.306) was comparable between the two groups. The median length of hospital stay in the MIS group was 11 d, compared to 12 d in the open surgery group, (p = 0.634). The rate of R0 resection (87% vs. 89%, p = 0.668) was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

MIS is feasible and safe for total pelvic exenteration and posterior exenteration in carefully selected locally advanced primary colorectal cancer, when performed by an experienced surgical team in high volume centers. An R0 resection with adequate margin can be achieved with good perioperative outcomes in MIS. Long-term oncological outcomes would require further follow up to confirm.

Morbidity and Mortality of Total Pelvic Exenteration for Malignancy in the US

BACKGROUND

Total pelvic exenterations (TPEs) for malignancies are complex operations often performed by multidisciplinary teams. The differences among primary cancer for TPE and multicentered results are not well described. We aimed to describe TPE outcomes for different malignant origins in a national multicentered sample.

METHODS

Patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database who underwent TPE between 2005 and 2016 for all malignant indications (colorectal, gynecologic, urologic, or other) were included. Chi square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare patient characteristics by primary malignancy. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to determine factors associated with any 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complication, length of hospital stay (LOS; days), 30-day wound infection, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 2305 patients underwent TPE. Indications for surgery included 33% (749) colorectal, 15% (335) gynecologic, 9% (196) other, and 45% (1025) urologic malignancies. Median LOS decreased from 10 to 8 days during the study period (p < 0.001), 36% were males, and 50% required blood transfusion. High-grade complications occurred in 15% of patients and were associated with bowel diversion [odds ratio (OR) 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.4], disseminated cancer (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.3), and gynecologic cancers (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7). Mortality was 2% and was associated with disseminated cancer (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.3) and male sex (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4).

CONCLUSIONS

TPE is associated with high rates of complications, however mortality rates remain low. Preoperative and perioperative outcomes differ depending on the origin of the primary malignancy.

The Role of Exenterative Surgery in Advanced Urological Neoplasms

Pelvic exenterative surgery is both complex and challenging, especially in the setting of locally recurrent disease. In recent decades, improved surgical techniques have facilitated more extensive resection of both locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies, but its role in urological cancer surgery is highly selective. However, it remains an important part of the armamentarium for the management of bladder and prostate cancer cases where there is local invasion into adjacent organs or localized recurrence. Better diagnostics, reconstructive options and centralized care have reduced associated morbidity considerably, and it is still used rarely in palliative settings. Despite this, there is sparse prospective evidence reporting on long-term oncological or quality of life outcomes.

Outcomes of extended radical resections for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancy involving the aortoiliac axis

AIM

Currently, there is no clear consensus on the role of extended pelvic resections for locally advanced or recurrent disease involving major vascular structures. The aims of this study were to report the outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing extended resections for pelvic malignancy involving the aortoiliac axis.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on patients having extended radical resections for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies, with aortoiliac axis involvement, requiring en bloc vascular resection and reconstruction, at a single institution between 2014 and 2018.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included (median age 60 years; range 31-69 years; seven women). The majority required resection of both arterial and venous systems (n = 8), and the technique for vascular reconstruction was either interposition grafts or femoral-femoral crossover grafts. The median operative time was 510 min (range 330-960 min). Clear resection margins (R0) were achieved in nine patients. The median length of stay was 25 days (range 7-83 days). Seven patients did not suffer an early complication. There was one serious complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), an arterial graft occlusion secondary to thrombus in the immediate postoperative period, requiring a return to theatre and thrombectomy. The median length of follow-up in this study was 22 months (range 4-58 months).

CONCLUSION

This series demonstrates that en bloc major vascular resection and reconstruction can be performed safely and can achieve clear resection margins in selected patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy at specialist surgery centres.

Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced and Relapsed Pelvic Malignancies - An Analysis of 100 Cases

BACKGROUND/AIM

Although pelvic exenteration is an aggressive surgical procedure, it remains almost the only curative solution for patients diagnosed with large pelvic malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We present a series of 100 patients submitted to pelvic exenteration with curative intent.

RESULTS

The origin of the primary tumor was most commonly represented by cervical cancer, followed by, endometrial cancer, rectal cancer, ovarian cancer and vulvo-vaginal cancer. An R0 resection was confirmed in 68 cases, while the remaining 32 cases presented lateral positive resection margins or perineal positive margins. The postoperative morbidity rate was 37% while the mortality rate was 3%. As for the-long term outcomes, the median overall survival time was 38.7 months, being most significantly influenced by the origin of the primary tumor.

CONCLUSION

Although pelvic exenteration is still associated with an increased morbidity, an important improvement in the long-term survival can be achieved, especially if radical resection is feasible.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced or Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer is often used to secure negative resection margins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic PE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical records of 24 patients (9, open; 15, laparoscopic) who underwent total or posterior PE for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer between July 2012 and April 2016 at Osaka National Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Operative factors were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The R0 resection rate was 100% in the laparoscopic group and 89% in the open group. The operative time and the incidence of postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The laparoscopic group showed less intraoperative blood loss (P=0.019), a lower C-reactive protein elevation on postoperative day 7 (P=0.025), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P=0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PE is a safe and feasible procedure to reduce postoperative stress.

Pelvic Exenteration for Anal and Urogenital Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Experience and Outcomes from an Exenteration Unit Over 12 Years

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration has increasingly been shown to improve disease-free and overall survival for patients with locally advanced pelvic malignancies. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common pelvic malignancy requiring exenteration.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the clinical and oncological outcomes from patients treated with pelvic exenteration for anal and urogenital SCC from a single, high-volume unit.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively maintained database from 1991 to 2018 at a high-volume specialised institution was performed. Primary endpoints included R0 resection rates, local recurrence and overall survival (OS) rates.

RESULTS

From January 1999 to July 2018, 361 patients underwent pelvic exenteration of which 31 patients were identified with SCC (15 anal SCC, 16 urogenital SCC). The majority of patients were females (n = 24, 77.4%). Median age was 59 (range 35-81). Twenty-seven patients underwent resection with curative intent with an R0 resection rate of 81.5%. Four patients underwent a palliative procedure [R1 = 3 (8%), R2 = 1 (3.3%)]. Mean hospital length of stay was 32 days (range 8-122 days). Disease-free survival was significantly increased in anal SCC with no significant difference in OS compared to urogenital SCC (p = 0.03, p = 0.447 respectively). Advanced pathological T stage was associated with decreased OS (p = 0.023). In the curative intent group the disease-free survival and OS rate was 59.3% and 70% at 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Complete R0 resection is achievable in a high proportion of patients. Urogenital SCC is associated with significantly worse disease-free survival, and advanced T-stage was a significant prognostic factor for OS.

Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer-how much more?

There have been significant advances in the surgical management of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer in recent decades. Patient with advanced pelvic tumours involving adjacent organs and neurovascular structures, beyond the traditional mesorectal planes, who would have traditionally been considered irresectable at many centres, now undergo surgery routinely at specialised units. While high rates of morbidity and mortality were reported by the pioneers of pelvic exenteration (PE) in early literature, this is now considered historical data. In 2019, patients who undergo PE for advanced or recurrent rectal cancer can expect reasonable rates of long-term survival (up to 60% at 5 years) and acceptable morbidity and quality of life. This article describes the surgical techniques that have been developed for radical multivisceral pelvic resections and reviews contemporary outcomes.

Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The primary treatment for locally advanced cases of cervical cancer is chemoradiation followed by high-dose brachytherapy. When this treatment fails, pelvic exenteration (PE) is an option in some cases. This study aimed to develop recommendations for the best management of patients with cervical cancer undergoing salvage PE.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology. Of them, 68 surgeons participated in the study and were divided into 10 working groups. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was carried out on topics chosen by the participants. These topics were indications for curative and palliative PE, preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of tumor resectability, access routes and surgical techniques, PE classification, urinary, vaginal, intestinal, and pelvic floor reconstructions, and postoperative follow-up. To define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used.

RESULTS

Most conducts and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines outlining strategies for PE in the treatment of persistent or relapsed cervical cancer were developed and are based on the best evidence available in the literature.

Surgical and Survival Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced Primary Rectal Cancer: Results From an International Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze data from an international collaboration, and ascertain prognostic indicators that inform clinical decision-making and practices regarding the role of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC).

BACKGROUND

With improved national screening programs fewer patients present with LARC. Despite this, select cohorts of patients require pelvic exenteration. To date, the majority of outcome data are from single-center series.

METHODS

Anonymized data from 14 countries on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LARC between 2004 and 2014 were accumulated. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The impact of resection margin, nodal status, bone resection, and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) on survival was evaluated using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1291 patients, 778 (60.3%) were male with a median (range) age of 63 (18-90) years; 78.1% received neoadjuvant therapy. Bone resection en bloc was performed in 8.2% of patients (n = 106), and 22.6% (n = 292) had resection combined with flap reconstruction. Negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 79.9%. The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.5%.The median overall survival following R0, R1, and R2 resection was 43, 21, and 10 months (P < 0.001) with a 3-year survival of 56.4%, 29.6%, and 8.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); 37.8% of patients experienced one or more major complication. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the risk of 30-day morbidity (P < 0.012). Multivariable analysis identified resection margin and nodal status as significant determinants of overall survival (other than advanced age).

CONCLUSIONS

Attainment of negative resection margins (R0) is the key to survival. Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival; however, it does so at the increased risk of postoperative morbidity.

Complications After Extended Radical Resections for Locally Advanced and Recurrent Pelvic Malignancies: A 25-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

The oncological role of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies arising from the anorectum, gynaecological, or urological systems is now well-established. Despite this, the surgical community has been slow to accept pelvic exenteration, undoubtedly due to concerns about high morbidity and mortality rates. This study assessed the general major complications and predictors of morbidity following extended radical resections for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies.

METHODS

Data were collected from prospective databases at two high-volume institutions specialising in beyond TME surgery for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies between 1990 and 2015. The primary outcome measures were major complications (Clavien-Dindo 3 or above) and predictors for morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 646 consecutive patients required extended surgery for local advanced pelvic malignancies. The median age was 63 (range 19-89) years, and the majority were female (371; 57.4%). One or more major complications were observed in 106 patients (16.4%). The most common major complications were intra-abdominal collection (43.7%; n = 59/135) and wound infection (14.1%; n = 19/135). The overall inpatient mortality rate was 0.46% (n = 3/646). Independent predictors for major morbidity following surgery for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies were squamous cell carcinoma of anus, sacrectomy, and blood transfusion requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

This series adds increasing evidence that good outcomes can be achieved for extended radical resections in locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancies. A coordinated approach in specialist centres for beyond TME surgery demonstrates that this is a safe and feasible procedure, offering low major complication rates.

Avoiding the Need for Bowel Anastomosis during Pelvic Exenteration-Urinary Sigmoid or Descending Colon Conduit-Short and Long Term Complications

OBJECTIVE

To educate surgeons of distal colon urinary diversion as an alternative to ileal conduit. To assess perioperative outcomes of distal colon conduit in pelvic exenteration including conduit-related, gastrointestinal, infectious, metabolic, and wound complications within 30 days, 31-89 days, and greater than 90 days from the time of surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one patients who underwent distal colon urinary diversion for malignancy, fistula, or neurogenic bladder were identified in our IRB approved database from 1/2007 to 7/2017.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (63.4%) were male with mean age of 54.1 years. Complications were stratified by early (≤30 days), intermediate (31-89 days), and late (≥90 days). Within 30 days, 2 (4.9%) had partial small bowel obstructions requiring nasogastric tube (NGT) placement and total parenteral nutrition (TPN); 8 (19.5%) prolonged ileus with 6 (14.6%) requiring TPN and 5 (12.2%) requiring NGT placement; 1 (2.4%) enterocutaneous fistula; 1 (2.4%) conduit hemorrhage, 10 (24.4%) treated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Between 31 and 89 days, 1 patient (2.4%) had urinary conduit leak and 3 (7.3%) treated UTIs. At ≥90 days, 2 (4.9%) had partial small bowel obstructions requiring NGT placement, 4 (9.8%) ureterocolonic strictures and 1 (2.4%) parastomal hernia, 3 (7.3%) treated UTIs. Readmission rate in ≤30 days was 10 (24.4%), 31-89 days was 13 (31.7%), and 90+ days was 16 (39%). Long-term metabolic complications at ≥90 days included 16 (39%) with hypokalemia, 10 (24.4%) with hyperchloremia, and 14 (34.1%) with metabolic acidosis.

CONCLUSION

Distal colon urinary conduit is a relatively safe and feasible option and obviates the need for small bowel anastomosis and possible associated complications.

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting.

METHODS

This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.

Urgent Pelvic Exenteration: Should the Indication Be Extended?

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration carries significant risks of morbidity and mortality. Preoperative management is therefore crucial, and the exenteration procedure is usually performed in an elective setting. In cases of rectal cancer, however, tumor-related complications may cause a patient's condition to deteriorate rapidly, despite optimal management. Urgent pelvic exenteration then may be an option for these patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the outcomes of pelvic exenteration between the urgent and elective settings.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between February 2006 and June 2012.

PATIENTS

Fifty-three patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer. They were assigned to urgent and elective setting groups according to their preoperative conditions. The urgent setting group included patients who required urgent pelvic exenteration because of intestinal obstruction, bowel perforation, bleeding, or uncontrolled sepsis, despite optimal management preoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Twenty-six patients were classified in the urgent setting group, and 27 were classified in the elective setting group. Three-year overall and disease-free survivals were compared between the 2 groups. Thirty-day postoperative morbidity and mortality were also studied.

RESULTS

Three-year overall survival was 62.2% and 54.4% in the elective and urgent groups (p = 0.7), whereas three-year disease-free survival was 43% and 63.8% (p = 0.33). The median follow-up time was 33 months. Thirty-day morbidity did not differ between the 2 groups (p = 0.49). A low serum albumin level was a significant risk factor for complications. There was no postoperative mortality in this study.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study performed at 1 institution, and it lacked quality-of-life scores.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenteration in an urgent setting is feasible and could offer acceptable outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A591.

Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with variable outcomes, with the majority of data from single-centre series. This study analysed data from an international collaboration to determine robust parameters that could inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Anonymized data on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LRRC between 2004 and 2014 were accrued from 27 specialist centres. The primary endpoint was survival. The impact of resection margin, bone resection, node status and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1184 patients, 614 (51·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant therapy. A clear resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 55·4 per cent of operations. Twenty-one patients (1·8 per cent) died within 30 days and 380 (32·1 per cent) experienced a major complication. Median overall survival was 36 months following R0 resection, 27 months after R1 resection and 16 months following R2 resection (P < 0·001). Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had more postoperative complications (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53), readmissions (unadjusted OR 2·33) and radiological reinterventions (unadjusted OR 2·12). Three-year survival rates were 48·1 per cent, 33·9 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Bone resection (when required) was associated with a longer median survival (36 versus 29 months; P < 0·001). Node-positive patients had a shorter median overall survival than those with node-negative disease (22 versus 29 months respectively). Multivariable analysis identified margin status and bone resection as significant determinants of long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Negative margins and bone resection (where needed) were identified as the most important factors influencing overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy before pelvic exenteration did not affect survival, but was associated with higher rates of readmission, complications and radiological reintervention.

Pelvic exenteration with rectal resection for different types of malignancies at two tertiary referral centres

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) offers the best chance of cure for locally advanced primary or recurrent pelvic organ malignancies invading adjacent organs. The aims of this study were to analyse results for any pelvic exenteration that includes rectal resection and the analysis of results of fecal and urinary reconstruction.

METHOD

From January 2000 to April 2014, 111 PE with rectal resection for any pelvic cancer were analysed retrospectively at two national tertiary referral centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-six colorectal anastomosis were performed. Urologic reconstructions performed were 30 double barrelled wet colostomy (DBWC), 14 Bricker ileal conduit (BIC), and 2 ureterocutaneostomies. Postoperative complications occurred in 71 patients (64%). Six deaths (5.4%) occurred within 30 postoperative days. Five-year overall survival following R0 resection was 62.6%; R1: 42.7%; R2: 24.2% (P=.018). The resection margin status was associated with overall survival, local recurrence and distant recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenterations for any cause need to be performed in referral centers and by specialized surgeons. Anastomosis after modified supralevator pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer, is safe. DBWC can be considered a valid option for urologic reconstruction. The most important prognostic factor after pelvic exenteration for malignant pelvic tumors is the status of surgical margins.

Locally Advanced Disease and Pelvic Exenterations

Advanced primary and recurrent colorectal cancer can be successfully treated by experienced, dedicated centers delivering good outcomes with low mortality and morbidity. Development and implementation of a comprehensive referral pathway is to be encouraged. Multidisciplinary team management is essential in the management of this complex group of patients and is associated with significantly more complete preoperative evaluation and more accurate provision of patient information, as well as improved access to the most appropriate individualized management plan. A structured selection process can improve outcomes through standardized approaches to service delivery to provide the highest quality of care.

Factors affecting hospital length of stay following pelvic exenteration surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Total pelvic exenteration are performed in patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignances. Many patients have prolong hospital length of stay (LOS), but risk factors are not clearly identified.

METHODS

From 2002 through 2012, 100 consecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration were retrospectively reviewed. A general linear model was used to examine risk factors for prolonged hospital LOS.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients, 51 had gastrointestinal cancer, 14 had genitourinary cancer, 31 had gynecologic cancer, and 4 had sarcoma. Perioperative complications included infection (n = 44), anastomotic leak/fistula (n = 6), wound or flap dehiscence (n = 11), and ileus or bowel obstruction (n = 30). The median (Interquartile range (IQR)) hospital LOS was 15 days (10-21.5 days). On multivariate regression analysis, hospital LOS was significantly prolonged by underweight status, genitourinary cancer or sarcoma diagnosis, ≥2 infections, anastomotic leak/fistula, requiring rehabilitation consult and admission, and ≥2 consultations (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, prolonged hospital LOS is associated with underweight status, genitourinary cancer or sarcoma diagnosis, more than one infection, anastomotic leak/fistula, requiring rehabilitation consult and admission, and more than one consultation. Further study is needed to assess whether minimizing these risk factors can improve hospital LOS in these patients.

Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration is the only radical treatment for locally advanced (ARC) or recurrent (RRC) rectal cancers. The long-term results of the procedure are variably reported in the literature, with recent series suggesting similar survival between ARC and RRC. The study aimed to analyze and compare the long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for ARC and RRC in a tertiary center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison of variables was performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. The Kaplan Meier method was used to analyze the disease-free survival (DFS) and the log-rank test to compare the two groups.

RESULTS

Since 2002, 46 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for ARC (28, 60.9%) and RRC (18, 39.1%). The groups had comparable characteristics, perioperative results, including postoperative complications, and rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. A R0 resection was obtained in 71.4% and 55.6% (p 0.41) and a T4 stage was diagnosed in 75% and 94.4% (p 0.22) of ARC and RRC patients, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 32.5 and 56.6 months (p 0.01), the 5-year DFS was significantly lower in the RRC group (23.6 vs 46.2%, p 0.006), even after exclusion of R1 cases (30 vs 54.5%, p 0.044).

CONCLUSION

The long-term disease free survival of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is significantly worse when the procedure is performed for RRC, regardless of the tumor involvement of the resection margins.

Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: The Evolution of Radical Surgical Techniques for Advanced and Recurrent Pelvic Malignancy

Pelvic exenteration was first described by Alexander Brunschwig in 1948 in New York as a palliative procedure for recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Because of initially high rates of morbidity and mortality, the practice of this ultraradical operation was largely confined to a small number of American centers for most of the 20 century. The post-World War II era saw advances in anaesthesia, blood transfusion, and intensive care medicine that would facilitate the evolution of more radical and heroic abdominal and pelvic surgery. In the last 3 decades, pelvic exenteration has continued to evolve into one of the most important treatments for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. This review aimed to explore the evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery and to identify the pioneering surgeons, seminal articles, and novel techniques that have led to its current status as the procedure of choice for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

A systematic review examining quality of life following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of this review was to assess the QoL following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

METHOD

A comprehensive search of studies published between 2000 and 2016 that examined QoL outcome following pelvic exenteration was performed. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C), SF-36 version 2, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and Brief Pain Inventory assessments from these studies were reviewed.

RESULTS

Seven studies reporting on 382 patients were included. Baseline QoL was the strongest predictor of postoperative QoL. Female gender, total pelvic exenteration with or without bone resection, and positive surgical margins were associated with a reduced QoL. In the majority of patients, QoL gradually improved between 2 and 9 months post-operation.

CONCLUSION

QoL is an important patient-reported outcome. This review highlights factors associated with reduced postoperative QoL that should be borne in mind when surgical resection is being considered.

Cost-effectiveness of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced malignancy

Background

The rising cost of healthcare is well documented. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of pelvic exenteration (PE).

Methods

Consecutive patients referred for consideration of PE between 2008 and 2011 were recruited into a prospective non-randomized study that compared quality of life (QoL) between patients who did or did not undergo PE. Information on QoL and cost (in Australian dollars, AUD) was collected at baseline, during admission and up to 24 months after discharge. QoL data were converted into a utility-based measure. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Bottom-up costing was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated per life-year saved and per QALY.

Results

There were 174 patients with sufficient data for analysis. Of these, 139 underwent PE. R0 was achieved in 78·4 per cent of patients. The survival rate at 24 months after PE was 74·8 per cent compared with 43 per cent in those without exenteration (P = 0·001). Treatment costs were significantly higher for patients who had PE compared with those who did not (mean AUD 137 407 versus 79 174; P &lt; 0·001). The ICER was AUD 124 147 (95 per cent c.i. 71 585 to 261 876) per life-year saved and AUD 227 330 (109 974 to 1 100 449) per QALY. Curative PE (R0) was found to be more cost-effective than non-curative PE (R1/R2), with an ICER of AUD 101 518 (60 105 to 200 428) versus 390 712 (74 368 to 82 256 739) per life-year saved.

Conclusion

Treatment of advanced pelvic cancers is expensive regardless of the treatment intent. For a cost difference of only AUD 58 000 (€38 264), PE offers a chance of cure, and improves survival and QoL.

Surgery for Locally Advanced T4 Rectal Cancer: Strategies and Techniques

Locally advanced T4 rectal cancer represents a complex clinical condition that requires a well thought-out treatment plan and expertise from multiple specialists. Paramount in the management of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer are accurate preoperative staging, appropriate application of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments, and, above all, the provision of high-quality, complete surgical resection in potentially curable cases. Despite the advanced nature of this disease, extended and multivisceral resections with clear margins have been shown to result in good oncological outcomes and offer patients a real chance of cure. In this article, we describe the assessment, classification, and multimodality treatment of primary locally advanced T4 rectal cancer, with a focus on surgical planning, approaches, and outcomes.

Role of MR Imaging and FDG PET/CT in Selection and Follow-up of Patients Treated with Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Malignancies

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical procedure used for the past 6 decades to treat locally advanced malignant diseases confined to the pelvis, particularly persistent or recurrent gynecologic cancers in the irradiated pelvis. The traditional surgical technique known as total PE consists of resection of all pelvic viscera followed by reconstruction. Depending on the tumor extent, the procedure can be tailored to remove only anterior or posterior structures, including the bladder (anterior exenteration) or rectum (posterior exenteration). Conversely, more extended pelvic resection can be performed if the pelvic sidewall is invaded by cancer. Preoperative imaging evaluation with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is central to establishing tumor resectability and therefore patient eligibility for the procedure. These imaging modalities complement each other in diagnosis of tumor recurrence and differentiation of persistent disease from posttreatment changes. MR imaging can accurately demonstrate local tumor extent and show adjacent organ invasion. FDG PET/CT is useful in excluding nodal and distant metastases. In addition, FDG PET/CT metrics may serve as predictive biomarkers for overall and disease-free survival. This pictorial review describes different types of exenterative surgical procedures and illustrates the central role of imaging in accurate patient selection, treatment planning, and postsurgical surveillance.