T1 colorectal cancer management in the era of minimally invasive endoscopic resection

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial of open vs closed management of the rectal defect after transanal endoscopic microsurgery

AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a technically challenging strategy that allows expanded indications for local excision of rectal lesions. Transluminal suturing is difficult, so open management of the resultant defect is appealing. Expert opinion suggests there is more pain when the defect is left open. The aim of this study was to determine if closure of the defect created during full thickness excision of rectal lesions with TEM leads to less postoperative pain compared to leaving the defect open.

METHOD

At the time of surgery, patients undergoing a full thickness TEM were randomized to sutured (TEM-S) or open (TEM-O) management of the rectal defect. At five Canadian academic colorectal surgery centres, experienced TEM surgeons enrolled patients ≥ 18 years treated by full thickness TEM. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain medication use and 30-day postoperative complications, including bleeding, infection and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

Between March 2012 and October 2013, 50 patients were enrolled and randomized to sutured (TEM-S, n = 28) or open (TEM-O, n = 22) management of the rectal defect. There was no difference between the two study groups in postoperative pain on postoperative day 1 (2.8 vs 2.6, P = 0.76), day 3 (2.8 vs 2.1, P = 0.23) and day 7 (2.8 vs 1.7, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, there was no difference in postoperative pain between sutured or open defect management in patients having a full thickness excision with TEM.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery as day surgery - a single-centre experience with 500 patients

AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is the current treatment of choice for rectal adenomas and early rectal cancer. Postoperative admission to hospital is common but possibly unnecessary. Our objective was to analyse predictors and outcomes of TEM patients having same day discharge (TEM-D) compared with those who were admitted to hospital (TEM-A).

METHOD

At St Paul's Hospital (SPH), demographic, surgical, pathological and follow-up data have been collected prospectively since TEM was started in 2007. Trends in admission and readmission rates were analysed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, and predictors of admission were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2016, 500 patients were treated by TEM at SPH. The overall admission rate was 29% (145/500), but this decreased to 19% in the last 3 years of the study (P < 0.001). The readmission rate was 5.2% (n = 26/500) and did not change significantly over the study period (P = 0.30). Reasons for admission included the following: surgeon discretion/monitoring (35%), urinary retention (26%), haemorrhage (10%), breach of peritoneal cavity (7%), infection (7%) and other (15%). The most common reasons for readmission were haemorrhage (54%, n = 14), pain (19%, n = 5) and infection (12%, n = 3). Factors associated with admission were as follows: tumour height (OR 1.09, 1.02-1.17), prolonged operative time (OR 1.25, 1.14-1.37), unsutured surgical defect (OR 1.99, 1.22-3.25) and surgeon experience (OR 4.62, 2.75-7.77).

CONCLUSION

Outpatient TEM is safe and carries a low risk of readmission. In centres with an outpatient TEM strategy, predictors of hospital admission include proximal tumours, prolonged surgical time and open management of the surgical defect.

When is local excision appropriate for "early" rectal cancer?

Local excision is increasingly performed for “early stage” rectal cancer in the US; however, local recurrence after local excision has become a controversial issue in Western countries. Local recurrence is considered to originate based on the type of tumor and procedure performed, and in surgical margin-positive cases. This review focuses on the inclusion criteria of “early” rectal cancers for local excision from the Western and Japanese points of view. “Early” rectal cancer is defined as T1 cancer in the rectum. Only the tumor grade and depth of invasion are the “high risk” factors which can be evaluated before treatment. T1 cancers with sm1 or submucosal invasion <1,000 μm are considered to be “low risk” tumors with less than 3.2 % nodal involvement, and are considered to be candidates for local excision as the sole curative surgery. Tumors with a poor tumor grade should be excluded from local excision. Digital examination, endoscopy or proctoscopy with biopsy, a barium enema study and endorectal ultrasonography are useful for identifying “low risk” or excluding “high risk” factors preoperatively for a comprehensive diagnosis. The selection of an initial local treatment modality is also considered to be important according to the analysis of the nodal involvement rate after initial local treatment and after radical surgery.

Outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery in a population-based cohort in British Columbia: are they as good as the clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have shown equivalent outcomes for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) when performed by well-trained surgeons experienced in both techniques. Our goal was to evaluate the outcomes of LAC at a population level.

METHODS

Using the prospectively collected Gastrointestinal Cancer Outcomes Unit database from the British Columbia Cancer Agency, short- and long-term outcomes in patients with colon cancer treated with LAC and OC were compared from 2003 to 2008 inclusive.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of LAC from 2003 to 2008 (P < .001). LAC was more likely to be performed in the elective setting (P < .001) and for smaller tumors (P < .001). A similar proportion of patients had a minimum of 12 lymph nodes identified by pathology (58% vs 60%, P = not significant). Disease-free survival was similar for the 2 groups after adjusting for stage, emergency presentation, and adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of LAC for colon cancer in British Columbia outside of optimized clinical trial conditions appears to be effective and safe.

Principles of surgical oncology in the elderly

Elderly patients constitute the largest group in oncologic medical practice, despite the fact that in solid cancers treated operatively, many patients are denied standard therapies and where such decision making is based solely on age. The “natural” assumptions that we have are often misleading; namely, that the elderly cannot tolerate complex or difficult procedures, chemotherapy, or radiation schedules; that their overall predictable medical health determines survival (and not the malignancy); or that older patients typically have less aggressive tumors. Clearly, patient selection and a comprehensive geriatric assessment is key where well-selected cases have the same cancer-specific survival as younger cohorts in a range of tumors as outlined including upper and lower gastrointestinal malignancy, head and neck cancer, and breast cancer. The assessment of patient fitness for surgery and adjuvant therapies is therefore critical to outcomes, where studies have clearly shown that fit older patients experience the same benefits and toxicities of chemotherapy as do younger patients and that when normalized for preexisting medical conditions,that older patients tolerate major operative procedures designed with curative oncological intent. At present, our problem is the lack of true evidence-based medicine specifically designed with age in mind, which effectively limits surgical decision making in disease-based strategies. This can only be achieved by the utilization of more standardized, comprehensive geriatric assessments to identify vulnerable older patients, aggressive pre-habilitation with amelioration of vulnerability causation, improvement of patient-centered longitudinal outcomes, and an improved surgical and medical understanding of relatively subtle decreases in organ functioning, social support mechanisms and impairments of health-related quality of life as a feature specifically of advanced age.