Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

Contemporary perioperative care strategies

Background

Historically, the preoperative and postoperative care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer was provided by surgeons. Contemporary perioperative care is a truly multidisciplinary endeavour with implications for cancer-specific outcomes.

Methods

A literature review was performed querying PubMed and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1966 to 2012 on specific perioperative interventions with the potential to improve the outcomes of surgical oncology patients. Keywords used were: fast-track, enhanced recovery, accelerated rehabilitation, multimodal and perioperative care. Specific interventions included normothermia, hyperoxygenation, surgical-site infection, skin preparation, transfusion, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, radiotherapy, perioperative steroids and monoclonal antibodies. Included articles had to be randomized controlled trials, prospective or nationwide series, or systematic reviews/meta-analyses, published in English, French or German.

Results

Important elements of modern perioperative care that improve recovery of patients and outcomes in surgical oncology include accelerated recovery pathways, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, hyperoxygenation, maintenance of normothermia, avoidance of blood transfusion and cautious use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, promotion of laparoscopic surgery, chlorhexidine–alcohol skin preparation and multidisciplinary meetings to determine multimodal therapy.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary management of perioperative patient care has improved outcomes.

Multicentre study of circumferential margin positivity and outcomes following abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Background

Rectal cancer outcomes following abdominoperineal excision (APE) have been inferior to those for anterior resection, including more positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs). An erroneously conservative interpretation of APE (rather than a radical resection termed ‘extralevator’) has been proposed as the cause. In this multicentre study, factors contributing to CRM positivity were examined following APE according to its original description.

Methods

Data were collected from five hospital databases up to June 2011 including small- and larger-volume units (3 hospitals had 5 or fewer and 2 hospitals had more than 5 APE procedures per year). Primary outcome measures were CRM status; secondary outcomes were local recurrence and death.

Results

Of 327 patients, 302 patients had complete data for analysis. Some 50·0 per cent of patients had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Histopathological examination showed that 62·9 per cent had tumour category T3 or T4 cancers, 42·1 per cent had node-positive disease and the CRM positivity rate was 13·9 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed only pathological tumour category pT4 (odds ratio 19·92, 95 per cent confidence interval 6·48 to 68·61) and node positivity (odds ratio 3·04, 1·32 to 8·05) to be risk factors for a positive circumferential margin. CRM positivity was a risk factor for local recurrence (P = 0·022) and decreased overall survival (P = 0·001). Hospital volume had no impact on the likelihood of CRM positivity (P = 0·435).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing APE by appropriately trained surgeons using a standardized approach, margin positivity was dictated by tumour stage, but not by centre or surgeon.

Randomized clinical trial of endoluminal locoregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

In selected patients with early low rectal cancer, locoregional excision combined with neoadjuvant therapy may be an alternative treatment option to total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

This prospective randomized trial compared endoluminal locoregional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus laparoscopic TME in the treatment of patients with small non-advanced low rectal cancer. Patients with rectal cancer staged clinically as cT2 N0 M0, histological grade G1-2, with a tumour less than 3 cm in diameter, within 6 cm of the anal verge, were randomized to ELRR or TME. All patients underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

Fifty patients in each group were analysed. Overall tumour downstaging and downsizing rates after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were 51 and 26 per cent respectively, and were similar in both groups. All patients had R0 resection with tumour-free resection margins. At long-term follow-up, local recurrence had developed in four patients (8 per cent) after ELRR and three (6 per cent) after TME. Distant metastases were observed in two patients (4 per cent) in each group. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival (P = 0·686).

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, ELRR had similar oncological results to TME. Unique Protocol ID: URBINO-LEZ-1995; registration number: NCT01609504 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Progress in rectal cancer treatment

The dramatic improvement in local control of rectal cancer observed during the last decades is to be attributed to attention to surgical technique and to the introduction of neoadjuvant therapy regimens. Nevertheless, systemic relapse remains frequent and is currently insufficiently addressed. Intensification of neoadjuvant therapy by incorporating chemotherapy with or without targeted agents before the start of (chemo)radiation or during the waiting period to surgery may present an opportunity to improve overall survival. An increasing number of patients can nowadays undergo sphincter preserving surgery. In selected patients, local excision or even a "wait and see" approach may be feasible following active neoadjuvant therapy. Molecular and genetic biomarkers as well as innovative imaging techniques may in the future allow better selection of patients for this treatment option. Controversy persists concerning the selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy after neoadjuvant regimens. The currently available evidence suggests that in complete pathological responders long-term outcome is excellent and adjuvant therapy may be omitted. The results of ongoing trials will help to establish the ideal tailored approach in resectable rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: an overview

The treatment of rectal cancer has evolved from being solely a surgical endeavor to a multidisciplinary practice. Despite the improvement in outcomes conferred by the addition of chemoradiation therapy to rectal cancer treatment, advances in surgical technique have significantly increased rates of sphincter preservation and the avoidance of a permanent stoma. In recent years, intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer has been offered and performed in patients as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection. An overview of this procedure, including indications, oncological and functional results based on current literature, is presented herein.

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.

Abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: is the pelvic drain externalization site an independent risk factor for perineal wound healing?

Aim. The aim of this paper is to investigate if the insertion of the pelvic drainage tube via the perineal wound could be considered as an independent risk factor for perineal healing disorders, after abdominoperineal resection for rectal malignancy. Patients and Methods. The last two decades, 75 patients underwent elective abdominoperineal resection for malignancy. In 42 patients (56%), the pelvic drain catheter was inserted through the perineal wound (PW group), while in the remaining 33 (44%) through a puncture skin wound of the perineum (SW group). Patients' data with respect to age (P = 0.136), stage (P > 0.05), sex (P = 0.188) and comorbidity (P = 0.128) were similar in both groups. 25 patients (PW versus SW: 8 versus 17, P = 0.0026) underwent neoadjuvant radio/chemotherapy. Results. The overall morbidity rate was 36%, but a significant increase was revealed in PW group (52.4% versus 9%, P = 0.0007). In 33.3% of the patients in the PW group, perineal healing was delayed, while in the SW group, no delay was noted. Perineal healing disorders were revealed as the main source of increased morbidity in this group. Conclusion. The insertion of the pelvic drain tube through the perineal wound should be considered as an independent risk factor predisposing to perineal healing disorders.