Oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer patients with a ≤1-cm distal resection margin

From Diversion to Permanence: Trends in Ostomy Creation in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Rectal cancer surgery has undergone transformative advancements over the past few decades, evolving from radical, high-morbidity procedures to more refined techniques focused on both oncological outcomes and the preservation of anorectal function. This review provides a brief overview of the history of rectal cancer surgery, highlighting key innovations in imaging, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive techniques that have significantly reduced the need for permanent and temporary ostomies. Additionally, the current indications for both permanent and temporary ostomies are reviewed, including a discussion of associated complications, such as non-reversal, parastomal hernias, stomal prolapse, stenosis, and skin-related issues, along with strategies and techniques to mitigate these complications. This review underscores the importance of ongoing innovation and individualized surgical planning to enhance patient outcomes in rectal cancer care by understanding the historical context, contemporary practices, and associated challenges.

Determining the optimal distal resection margin in rectal cancer patients by imaging of large pathological sections: An experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the distal resection margin in sphincter-sparing surgery in patients with low rectal cancer based on imaging of large pathological sections.

METHODS

Patients who underwent sphincter-sparing surgery for ultralow rectal cancer at Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital within the period from January 2016 to March 2022 were tracked and observed. The clinical and pathological data of the patients were collected and analyzed. The EVOS fluorescence automatic cell imaging system was used for imaging large pathological sections. Follow-up patient data were acquired mainly by sending the patients letters and contacting them via phone calls, and during outpatient visits.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients (25 males, 21 females) aged 27 to 86 years participated in the present study. Regarding clinical staging, there were 9, 10, 16, and 10 cases with stages I, II, III, and IV low rectal cancer, respectively. The surgical time was 273.82 ± 111.51 minutes, the blood loss was 123.78 ± 150.91 mL, the postoperative exhaust time was 3.67 ± 1.85 days, and the postoperative discharge time was 10.36 ± 5.41 days. There were 8 patients with complications, including 3 cases of pulmonary infection, 2 cases of intestinal obstruction, one case of pleural effusion, and one case of stoma necrosis. The longest and shortest distal resection margins (distances between the cutting edges and the tumor edges) were 3 cm and 1 cm, respectively. The minimum length of the extension areas of the tumor lesions in the 46 images of large pathological sections was 0.1 mm, and the maximum length was 15 mm. Among the tumor lesions, 91.30% (42/46) had an extension area length of ≤5 mm, and 97.83% (45/46) had an extension area length of ≤10 mm. The length of the extension zone was not related to clinical pathological parameters (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In the vast majority of cases, the distal resection margin was at least 1 cm; thus, "No Evidence of Disease" could have been achieved. Additional high-powered randomized trials are needed to confirm the results of the present study.

Quality assessment of surgery for colorectal cancer: Where do we stand?

Quality assurance in surgery has been one of the most important topics of debate among colorectal surgeons in the past decade. It has produced new surgical standards that led in part to the impressive oncological outcomes we see in many units today. Total mesorectal excision, complete mesocolic excision (CME), and the Japanese D3 lymphadenectomy are now benchmark techniques embraced by many surgeons and widely recommended by surgical societies. However, there are still ongoing discrepancies in outcomes largely based on surgeon performance. This is one of the main reasons why many countries have shifted colorectal cancer surgery only to high volume centers. Defining markers of surgical quality is thus a perquisite to ensure that standards and oncological outcomes are met at an institutional level. With the evolution of CME surgery, various quality markers have been described, mostly based on measurements on the surgical specimen and lymph node yield, while others have proposed radiological markers (i.e. arterial stumps) measured on postoperative scans as part of the routine cancer follow-up. There is no ideal marker; however, taken together and assembled into a new score or set of criteria may become a future point of reference for reporting outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in research studies and defining subspecialization requirements both at an individual and hospital level.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

The Impact of Narrow and Infiltrated Distal Margin After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer on Patients' Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered imperative for good prognosis. In this article, the authors systematically reviewed all published literature with specific Mesh terms until the end of year 2019. Thereafter, retrieved articles were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis was conducted comparing local recurrence among 1-cm, 5-mm, and narrow (< 1-mm)/infiltrated margins. Thirty-nine articles were included in the study. Macroscopic distal margin < 1 cm carried a higher incidence of recurrence for those who did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, without affecting neither estimated overall nor disease-free survival. Less than 5-mm margin after radiation therapy is accepted oncologically. Infiltrated margins and narrow margins (< 1 mm) microscopically are associated with higher incidence of local recurrence and shorter overall and disease-free survival. Surgeons should aim at 1-cm safety margin in radiotherapy-naïve patients and microscopic free margin > 1 mm for those who received neoadjuvant therapy. The cost/benefit of reoperation for patients with infiltrated margins is still inadequately studied.

Association of levels of metabolites with the safe margin of rectal cancer surgery: a metabolomics study

Background

Rectal cancer is one of the most lethal of gastrointestinal malignancies. Metabonomics has gradually developed as a convenient, inexpensive and non-destructive technique for the study of cancers.

Methods

A total of 150 tissue samples from 25 rectal cancer patients were analyzed by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS), and 6 tissue samples were collected from each patient (group 1: tumor; group 2: 0.5 cm from tumor; group 3:1 cm from tumor; group 4:2 cm from tumor; group 5:3 cm from tumor and group 6:5 cm from tumor). The differential metabolites of tumor tissues and 5 cm from the tumor (normal tissues) were first selected. The differential metabolites between tumor tissues and normal tissues were regrouped by hierarchical clustering analysis, and further selected by discriminant analysis according to the regrouping of clustering results. The potential safe margin of clinical T(cT)1,cT2 stage rectal cancer and cT3,cT4 stage rectal cancer at the metabolomic level was further identified by observing the changes in the level of differential metabolites within the samples from group 1 to group 6.

Results

We found 22 specific metabolites to distinguish tumor tissue and normal tissue. The most significant changes in metabolite levels were observed at 0.5 cm (cT1, cT2) and 2.0 cm (cT3, cT4) from the tumor, while the changes in the tissues afterwards showed a stable trend.

Conclusions

There are differential metabolites between tumor tissues and normal tissues in rectal cancer. Based on our limited sample size, the safe distal incision margin for rectal cancer surgery in metabolites may be 0.5 cm in patients with cT1 and cT2 stage rectal cancer and 2.0 cm in patients with cT3 and cT4 stage rectal cancer.

Is a Distal Resection Margin of ≤ 1 cm Safe in Patients with Intermediate- to Low-Lying Rectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is generally accepted that the distal resection margin of intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer should be greater than 2 cm and at least 1 cm in special cases. This study intends to investigate whether a distal resection margin ≤ 1 cm affects tumor outcomes for patients with intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Sixteen studies included data for distal resection margins ≤ 1 cm (1684 cases) and > 1 cm (5877 cases), and 5 studies included survival data. Meta-analysis was used to compare the local recurrence rate and long-term survival of patients with distal resection margins > or ≤ 1 cm.

RESULTS

The local recurrence rate in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (9.5%) was 2.3% higher than that in the > 1-cm margin group (7.2%) according to a fixed-effects model (RR [95% CI] 1.42 [1.18, 1.70], P < 0.001). The overall survival results of the five 1-cm margin studies showed an HR (95% CI) of 0.96 (0.75, 1.24) (P = 0.78). Subgroup analysis showed that the local recurrence rate in the subgroup with perioperative treatment was 1.2% lower in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (8.3%) than in the > 1-cm margin group (9.5%) (RR [95% CI] 0.97 [0.63, 1.49], P = 0.90). In the surgery alone subgroup, the local recurrence rate was 4.7% higher in the ≤ 1-cm margin group (12.4%) than in the > 1-cm group (7.7%) (RR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.09, 2.83], P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with intermediate- to low-lying rectal cancer undergoing surgery alone, a distal resection margin ≤ 1 cm may be not safe.

Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery

Background

Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined.

Methods

Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity‐score matching on baseline features was performed.

Results

Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5‐year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity‐score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5‐year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusions

When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.

Mid- and low-rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open treatment-short- and long-term results. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach in the treatment of mid- or low-rectal cancer is still controversial. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal cancer is associated with improved short-time non-oncological outcomes, although high-level evidence showing similar short- and long-term oncological outcomes is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our paper is to study the oncological and non-oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of MedLine, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed by combining various key words.

STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer were included. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane reviewer's handbook. This meta-analysis was based on the recommendation of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.

INTERVENTION(S)

This study analyzes laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were oncological parameters.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs comprising 4,411 patients matched the selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed a significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery in short-time non-oncological outcomes. Although laparoscopic approach increased operation time, it decreases significantly the blood loss and length of hospital stay. No significant difference was noted regarding short- and long-term oncological outcomes, but 4 and 5 years disease-free survival were statistically higher in the open group.

LIMITATIONS

There are still questions about the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer being comparable to the open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that all surgical resections have been performed in high volume centers by expert surgeons, the minimally invasive surgery in patients with extraperitoneal cancer could still be not considered equivalent to open surgery in terms of oncological radicality.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

Distal resection margins in rectal cancer specimens: differences in assessment between surgeons and pathologists and the influence of neoadjuvant chemoradiation

To investigate the discrepancy between the distal resection margin (DRM) assessed by surgeons and pathologists, and the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) on DRM. This study included 67 rectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. DRMs were assessed through four different techniques: in vivo subjective estimative, made by the surgeon before the rectal resection (by palpation and visual estimative); in vivo objective, measured with a ruler before the rectal transection; ex vivo objective, measured right after resection of the specimen; post-fixation objective measurement, conducted by the pathologist. The DRMs subjectively and objectively assessed by the surgeons were not significantly different (3.40 cm vs. 3.45 cm). There was a mean reduction in the length of DRMs of 35.6%, from 3.45 cm objectively measured by the surgeon to 2.20 cm measured by the pathologist. This difference was significant among patients that did not receive nCRT (3.90 cm vs. 2.30 cm, P < 0.001), but not among those who received nCRT (2.30 vs. 2.05 cm). Surgeons are accurate in assessing rectal cancer DRMs. There are significant differences between intraoperative measurements of DRMs and the final pathologic results. However, these differences are not seen when nCRT is used, a finding that may be useful when sphincter preservation is being considered.

Risk factors for local recurrence and long term survival after minimally invasive intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: Multivariate analysis in 161 patients

INTRODUCTION

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anal-sparing technique as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients. Oncological safety is still debated. This study analyses long-term oncological results and evaluates risk factors for local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS) after minimally-invasive ISR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective single-center data were collected from a prospectively maintained colorectal database. A total of 161 patients underwent ISR between 2008 and 2018. OS and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test). Risk factors for OS and LRFS were assessed with Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 55 months. LR occurred in 18 patients. OS and LRFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 80% and 96%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Tumor size (p = 0.035) and clinical T-stage (p = 0.029) were risk factors for LRFS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (HR 2.546 (95% CI: 0.976-6.637); p = 0.056) and clinical T-stage (HR 3.296 (95% CI: 0.941-11.549); p = 0.062) were not significant. Preoperative CEA (p < 0.001), pathological T-stage (p = 0.033), pathological N-stage (p = 0.016) and adjuvant treatment (p = 0.008) were prognostic factors for OS on univariate analysis. Preoperative CEA (HR 4.453 (95% CI: 2.015-9.838); p < 0.001) was a prognostic factor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the oncological safety of minimally-invasive ISR for locally advanced low-lying rectal tumors when performed in experienced centers. Despite not a risk factor for LR, tumor size and, locally advanced T-stage with anterior involvement should be carefully evaluated for optimal surgical strategy. Preoperative CEA is a prognostic factor for OS.

Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) for ultralow rectal cancer: a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery technique

BACKGROUND

In patients with ultralow rectal cancer, surgical resection of the tumor without impairing sphincter function remains a technical challenge. The purpose of this study was to describe a new technique of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery using our independently developed devices, aiming to achieve precise cancer resection and preserve sphincter function in patients with ultralow rectal cancer.

METHODS

Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) was performed on nineteen patients with ultralow rectal cancer between June 2019 and April 2020. With the help of our independently developed devices, surgeons directly and accurately removed the lower edge of the tumor and retained healthy rectal tissue on the nontumorous side. Hand-sewn anastomosis with a mattress suture was used to achieve sturdy anastomosis. Preoperative baseline characteristics, operative details, 90-day postoperative complications, costs, and anal function score at 6 months after surgery were documented.

RESULTS

Nineteen ultralow rectal cancer patients with a median distance to the dentate line of 2.0 cm successfully underwent PPS without serious postoperative complications. Six out of nineteen patients (31.6%) received a prophylactic stoma. The average cost was 62164.1 yuan. At 6 months after surgery, the average Wexner anal function score and the average Vaizey score were both 3 points.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS can be employed to precisely resect rectal tumors and preserve sphincter function in ultralow rectal cancer patients. The use of our devices enhanced surgical efficiency, reduced the need for prophylactic stoma, reduced surgery-related costs, and prevented abdominal surgical incisions.

Prognostic Impact of the Length of the Distal Resection Margin in Rectosigmoid Cancer: An Analysis of the JSCCR Database between 1995 and 2004

Objectives

The necessary and sufficient length of the distal resection margin (l-DRM) for rectosigmoid cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated the validity of the 3-cm l-DRM rule for rectosigmoid cancer in the Japanese classification of colorectal cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 1,443 patients with cT3 and cT4 rectosigmoid cancer who underwent R0 resection in Japanese institutions between 1995 and 2004. We identified the optimal cutoff point of the l-DRM affecting overall survival (OS) rate using a multivariate Cox regression analysis model. Using this cutoff point, the patients were divided into two groups after balancing the potential confounding factors of the l-DRM using propensity score matching, and the OS rates of the two groups were compared.

Results

A multivariate Cox regression analysis model revealed that the l-DRM of 4 cm was the best cutoff point with the greatest impact on OS rate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.84; P = 0.0452) and with the lowest Akaike information criterion value. In the matched cohort study, the OS rate of patients who had l-DRM of 4 cm or more was significantly higher than that of patients who had l-DRM < 4 cm (n = 402; 5-year OS rates, 87.6% vs. 80.3%, respectively; HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.09-2.31; P = 0.0136).

Conclusions

For cT3 and cT4 rectosigmoid cancer, l-DRM of 4 cm may be an appropriate landmark for a curative intent surgery, and we were unable to definitively confirm the validity of the Japanese 3-cm l-DRM rule.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.

Impact of Length of Distal Margin on Outcomes Following Sphincter Preserving Surgery for Middle and Lower Third Rectal Cancers

Outcomes of sphincter preserving surgery for distal rectal cancers improve with clear circumferential resection and distal resection margin. However, the extent of distal resection margin after a complete mesorectal excision is often a cause for debate. We evaluated the outcome of middle and lower third rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter preservation with variable distal resection margin at our center. Patients with biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma within 10 cm from anal verge undergoing sphincter preserving resections were included. Patients with positive circumferential resection margin were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of distal resection margin (< 6 mm, 6-10 mm, > 10 mm) and oncological outcomes were compared. The median age of 242 patients was 50 years and 44 (18.2%) were high-grade tumors. Preoperative chemoradiation was used in 185 (75.2%) patients. Median distal resection margin was 20 mm. Patients in < 10 mm group had a significantly higher proportion of lower third (68.3% vs 39.8%, p = 0.004) and chemoradiation-treated tumors (85.4 vs 74.6%, p = 0.001). A significantly higher percentage required an intersphincteric resection in the < 10 mm group (53.7% vs 14.4%, p = 0.0001). Significantly higher percentage tumors were pT3 in > 10 mm group (45.3% vs. 31.7%) (p = 0.05). The median follow-up was 23 months. There was no difference in the overall, loco-regional, and distant recurrence rates between the three groups. A subcentimeter distal resection margin does not influence loco-regional or distant recurrence rates following sphincter preserving surgery for middle and lower third rectal adenocarcinoma.