Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Without Routine Gastro-Pancreatico-Colic Trunk Dissection: Survival Outcomes and Morbidity for 567 Cases

Purpose: It is unclear whether the principles of open complete mesocolic excision (CME) can be safely applied to laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, definitions vary over how radical optimal CME surgery should be. We report morbidity and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic CME without routine gastro-pancreatico-colic trunk (GPCT) dissection. Materials and Methods: An observational study with consecutive data for patients with Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma who underwent elective laparoscopic resection between 2006 and 2015. Data were retrieved for demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment, and histology from prospectively maintained databases. Standardized, routinely video recorded, laparoscopic resections were performed in two United Kingdom centers from The National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were reported using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Results: Laparoscopic CME was performed in 567 patients, 52.7% (288/546) women, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 73 (65-80) years. Median (IQR) length of stay was 4 (3-5) days with 4.0 (2.2-5.7)-year follow-up. Significant DFS predictors (hazard ratio [HR]) by multivariable Cox regression were age >80 years (1.9), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 3 and 4 (HR = 1.1), right colon cancer (1.7), UICC stage III (3.4), and intramesocolic grade (2.2). Overall 4-year DFS (95% confidence interval) was 81.3% (77-85). Four-year DFS by UICC grades I, II, and III was 94.6% (89-99), 83.4% (77-88), and 72.2% (66-78), respectively (log-rank P = .001). Morbidity by Clavien-Dindo grade was III 18 (3.2%), IV 4 (0.7%) and V 7 (1.2%). Conclusion: This large series suggests standardized laparoscopic CME without routine GPCT dissection has a low morbidity and achieves equivalent outcomes to the most radical open CME techniques.

Variations in the management of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer: results from a multicentre observational study of 383 patients

AIM

The concept of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer (SPECC) encompasses complex polyps not amenable to routine snare polypectomy or where malignancy cannot be excluded. Surgical resection (SR) offers definitive treatment, but is overtreatment for the majority which are benign and amenable to less invasive endoscopic resection (ER). The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the management and outcomes of significant colorectal polyps.

METHOD

This was a retrospective observational study of significant colorectal polyps, defined as nonpedunculated lesions of ≥ 20 mm size, diagnosed across nine UK hospitals in 2014. Inclusion criteria were endoscopically or histologically benign polyps at biopsy.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients were treated by primary ER (87.2%) or SR (12.8%). Overall, 108/383 (28%) polyps were detected in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Primary SR was associated with a significantly longer length of stay and major complications (P < 0.01). Of the ER polyps, 290/334 (86.8%) patients were treated without undergoing surgery. The commonest indication for secondary surgery was unexpected polyp cancer, and of these cases 60% had no residual cancer in the specimen. Incidence of unexpected cancer was 10.7% (n = 41) and was similar between ER and SR groups (P = 0.11). On multivariate analysis, a polyp size of > 30 mm and non-BCSP status were independent risk factors for primary SR [OR 2.51 (95% CI 1.08-5.82), P = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

ER is safe and feasible for treating significant colorectal polyps. Robust accreditation within the BCSP has led to improvements in management, with lower rates of SR compared with non-BCSP patients. Standardization, training in polyp assessment and treatment within a multidisciplinary team may help to select appropriate treatment strategies and improve outcomes.

Session 4: Trying to augment response with chemotherapy: a triumph of hope over experience?

As part of an approach to improve tumour regression and increase the proportion of patients with complete clinical and radiological response, Dr Perez reviews the methods and evidence base for augmenting therapy and thus augmenting response rates preoperatively. Much of the data reviewed were in the context of patients undergoing a watch-and-wait approach for rectal cancer after initial treatment with chemoradiotherapy.

Development and external validation of a nomogram and online tool to predict bowel dysfunction following restorative rectal cancer resection: the POLARS score

OBJECTIVE

Bowel dysfunction is common following a restorative rectal cancer resection, but symptom severity and the degree of quality of life impairment is highly variable. An internationally validated patient-reported outcome measure, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score, now enables these symptoms to be measured. The study purpose was: (1) to develop a model that predicts postoperative bowel function; (2) externally validate the model and (3) incorporate these findings into a nomogram and online tool in order to individualise patient counselling and aid preoperative consent.

DESIGN

Patients more than 1 year after curative restorative anterior resection (UK, median 54 months; Denmark (DK), 56 months since surgery) were invited to complete The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 version3 (EORTC QLQ-C30 v3), LARS and Wexner incontinence scores. Demographics, tumour characteristics, preoperative/postoperative treatment and surgical procedures were recorded. Using transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, risk factors for bowel dysfunction were independently assessed by advanced linear regression shrinkage techniques for each dataset (UK:DK).

RESULTS

Patients in the development (UK, n=463) and validation (DK, n=938) datasets reported mean (SD) LARS scores of 26 (11) and 24 (11), respectively. Key predictive factors for LARS were: age (at surgery); tumour height, total versus partial mesorectal excision, stoma and preoperative radiotherapy, with satisfactory model calibration and a Mallow's Cp of 7.5 and 5.5, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pre-Operative LARS score (POLARS) is the first nomogram and online tool to predict bowel dysfunction severity prior to anterior resection. Colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologist and nurse specialists may use POLARS to help patients understand their risk of bowel dysfunction and to preoperatively highlight patients who may require additional postoperative support.

A rectal cancer feasibility study with an embedded phase III trial design assessing magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) as a novel biomarker to stratify management by good and poor response to chemoradiotherapy (TRIGGER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer is primarily intended to reduce local recurrence rates by downstaging tumours, enabling an improved likelihood of curative resection. However, in a subset of patients complete tumour regression occurs implying that no viable tumour is present within the surgical specimen. This raises the possibility that surgery may have been avoided. It is also recognised that response to CRT is a key determinant of prognosis. Recent radiological advances enable this response to be assessed pre-operatively using the MRI tumour regression grade (mrTRG). Potentially, this allows modification of the baseline MRI-derived treatment strategy. Hence, in a 'good' mrTRG responder, with little or no evidence of tumour, surgery may be deferred. Conversely, a 'poor response' identifies an adverse prognostic group which may benefit from additional pre-operative therapy.

METHODS/DESIGN

TRIGGER is a multicentre, open, interventional, randomised control feasibility study with an embedded phase III design. Patients with MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma deemed to require CRT will be eligible for recruitment. During CRT, patients will be randomised (1:2) between conventional management, according to baseline MRI, versus mrTRG-directed management. The primary endpoint of the feasibility phase is to assess the rate of patient recruitment and randomisation. Secondary endpoints include the rate of unit recruitment, acute drug toxicity, reproducibility of mrTRG reporting, surgical morbidity, pathological circumferential resection margin involvement, pathology regression grade, residual tumour cell density and surgical/specimen quality rates. The phase III trial will focus on long-term safety, regrowth rates, oncological survival analysis, quality of life and health economics analysis.

DISCUSSION

The TRIGGER trial aims to determine whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer can be recruited and subsequently randomised into a control trial that offers MRI-directed patient management according to radiological response to CRT (mrTRG). The feasibility study will inform a phase III trial design investigating stratified treatment of good and poor responders according to 3-year disease-free survival, colostomy-free survival as well as an increase in cases managed without a major resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02704520 . Registered on 5 February 2016.

Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG)

AIM

To investigate whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tumour regression grading (mrTRG) scale can be taught effectively resulting in a clinically reasonable interobserver agreement (>0.4; moderate to near perfect agreement).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examines the interobserver agreement of mrTRG, between 35 radiologists and a central reviewer. Two workshops were organised for radiologists to assess regression of rectal cancers on MRI staging scans. A range of mrTRGs on 12 patient scans were used for assessment.

RESULTS

Kappa agreement ranged from 0.14-0.82 with a median value of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.37-0.77) indicating good overall agreement. Eight (26%) radiologists had very good/near perfect agreement (κ>0.8). Six (19%) radiologists had good agreement (0.8≥κ>0.6) and a further 12 (39%) had moderate agreement (0.6≥κ>0.4). Five (16%) radiologists had a fair agreement (0.4≥κ>0.2) and two had poor agreement (0.2>κ). There was a tendency towards good agreement (skewness: 0.92). In 65.9% and 90% of cases the radiologists were able to correctly highlight good and poor responders, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of the response of rectal cancers to chemoradiation therapy may be performed effectively using mrTRG. Radiologists can be taught the mrTRG scale. Even with minimal training, good agreement with the central reviewer along with effective differentiation between good and intermediate/poor responders can be achieved. Focus should be on facilitating the identification of good responders. It is predicted that with more intensive interactive case-based learning a κ>0.8 is likely to be achieved. Testing and retesting is recommended.

Validation of the English translation of the low anterior resection syndrome score

AIM

Many patients having anterior resection for rectal cancer suffer from severe long-term bowel dysfunction, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The LARS score was developed in Denmark, and Swedish, Spanish and German versions have been validated. The aim of this study was to validate the English translation of the LARS score in British rectal cancer patients.

METHOD

Rectal cancer patients who underwent an anterior resection in 12 UK centres received the LARS score questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a single ad hoc quality of life question. A subgroup of patients received the LARS score questionnaire twice.

RESULTS

The response rate was 80% and 451 patients were included in the analyses. A strong association between LARS score and quality of life (convergent validity) was found (P < 0.01), discriminative validity was good (P < 0.02) and the test-retest reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.83).

CONCLUSION

The English translation of the LARS score has shown good psychometric properties comparable with recently published results from an international multicentre study. Thus, the English translation of the LARS score can be considered a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS.

MR imaging for rectal cancer: the role in staging the primary and response to neoadjuvant therapy

Pre-operative staging is an essential aspect of modern rectal cancer management and radiological assessment is central to this process. An ideal radiological assessment should provide sufficient information to reliably guide pre-operative decision-making. Technical advances allow high-resolution imaging to not only provide prognostic information but to define the anatomy, helping the surgeon to anticipate potential pitfalls during the operation. The main imaging modality for local staging of rectal cancer is Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), as it defines the tumour and relevant anatomy providing the most detail on the important prognostic factors that influence treatment choice. In addition, there is an emerging role for MRI in the assessment of the response to neoadjuvant therapy. This article is an evidence-based review of rectal cancer staging focusing on post-treatment assessment of response using MRI. The discussion extends into the implications for reliably assessing response and how this may influence future rectal cancer management.

The English national low rectal cancer development programme: key messages and future perspectives

AIM

Adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum is clinically challenging because of the need to choose between a wide excision to achieve oncological clearance, on the one hand, and sphincter conservation to maintain anal function, on the other. The English National Low Rectal Cancer Development Programme (LOREC) was developed under the auspices of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland and the English National Cancer Action Team to improve the outcome of low rectal cancer in England.

METHOD

LOREC was initiated focusing on preoperative imaging, selective neoadjuvant therapy, optimal surgical treatment and detailed pathological assessment of the excised specimen. Its key elements were 1-day multidisciplinary team (MDT) workshops, cadaveric surgical training, surgical mentoring, pathological audit and radiological workshops.

RESULTS

Overall, 147 (89.6%) of 164 MDTs from 151 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (some with two MDTs) in England participated in 15 workshops in Basingstoke or Leeds. In addition, 112 surgeons attended a 1-day cadaveric training programme in Bristol, Newcastle or Nottingham, with the main focus on extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic reconstruction, with input from anatomists and from colorectal and plastic surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Optimal staging, selective preoperative chemoradiotherapy and precise surgery were considered as crucial to improve the outcome for patients with low rectal cancer.