[R1 resection in the region of the lower gastrointestinal tract: relevance and therapeutic consequences]

[R1 resection in rectal cancer]

R1 resections in rectal cancer particularly affect the circumferential resection margin (CRM) and lead to increased local recurrence rates, more distant metastases and a poorer prognosis. The proximity of the tumor to the CRM is already sufficient to increases these risks; therefore, according to the guidelines, it is now necessary to distinguish between R0 wide (≥1 mm distance), R0 close (<1 mm) and R1. The surgical technique is decisive for avoiding R1 situations. The preparation follows the boundary layers and envelope fascia in a standardized radical way and if necessary deviates away from these structures and the tumor under en bloc resection of neighboring structures. Neoadjuvant therapy also contributes to the reduction of R1 situations but cannot compensate for inadequate surgical procedures.

Locally recurrent colorectal cancer: results of surgical therapy

PURPOSE

Up to 20 % of colorectal cancer patients develop recurrent disease despite standardized surgical techniques and multimodal treatment strategies. Radical resection is the central component of curative therapy in these cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment results in patients with locoregionally recurrent colorectal cancer.

METHODS

From January 1995 to December 2007, surgery was performed for recurrent colorectal cancer in 82 patients who had undergone curative (R0) resection of their primary tumor. Assessment included patient, tumor and treatment characteristics, postoperative complications, and time without re-recurrence; recurrence-free and overall survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Resection was performed in 60 of the 82 patients (73 %), repeat R0 resection in 52 % (31/60). Patients had a postoperative morbidity of 39 % (31/82), a relaparotomy rate of 13 % (11/82), and a lethality of 7 % (6/82). Forty-eight percent of all surgically-treated patients received a permanent stoma. Re-recurrence was seen in 52 % (16/31). R0 resection was associated with a 5-year survival rate of 35 % (11/31).

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive reinterventions often enable repeat R0 resection. Despite relevant morbidity, the lethality appears to be acceptable. Decisive for the prognosis is re-recurrence.