Transanal endoscopic versus total mesorectal laparoscopic resections of T2-N0 low rectal cancers after neoadjuvant treatment: a prospective randomized trial with a 3-years minimum follow-up period

Optimisation of Organ Preservation treatment strategies in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy: Additional contact X-ray brachytherapy versus eXtending the observation period and local excision (OPAXX) - protocol for two multicentre, parallel, single-arm, phase II studies

INTRODUCTION

Standard treatment for patients with intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer is (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. In recent years, organ preservation aiming at improving quality of life has been explored. Patients with a complete clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy can be managed safely with a watch-and-wait approach. However, the optimal organ-preserving treatment strategy for patients with a good, but not complete clinical response remains unclear. The aim of the OPAXX study is to determine the rate of organ preservation that can be achieved in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy by additional local treatment options.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The OPAXX study is a Dutch multicentre study that investigates the efficacy of two additional local treatments aiming at organ preservation in patients with a good, but not complete response to neoadjuvant treatment (ie near-complete response or a small residual tumour mass <3 cm). The sample size will be 168 patients in total. Patients will be randomised (1:1) between two parallel single-arm phase II studies: study arm 1 involves additional contact X-ray brachytherapy (an intraluminal radiation boost), while in study arm 2 the observation period is extended followed by a second response evaluation and optional transanal local excision. The primary endpoint of the study is the rate of successful organ preservation at 1 year following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include toxicity, morbidity, oncological and functional outcomes at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Finally, an observational cohort study for patients who are not eligible for randomisation is conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol has been approved by the medical ethics committee of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (METC20.1276/M20PAX). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The trial results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05772923.

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for stage I rectal cancer. Despite major advances and increasing enthusiasm for modern endoscopic local excision (LE), uncertainty remains regarding its oncologic equivalence and safety relative to radical resection (RR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the oncologic, operative, and functional outcomes of modern endoscopic LE compared to RR surgery in adults with stage I rectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present), four trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials database), two thesis and proceedings databases, and relevant scientific societies' publications in February 2022. We performed handsearching and reference checking and contacted study authors of ongoing trials to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with stage I rectal cancer comparing any modern LE techniques to any RR techniques with or without the use of neo/adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) and standard errors for time-to-event data and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, using generic inverse variance and random-effects methods. We regrouped surgical complications from the included studies into major and minor according to the standard Clavien-Dindo classification. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in data synthesis with a combined total of 266 participants with stage I rectal cancer (T1-2N0M0), if not stated otherwise. Surgery was performed in university hospital settings. The mean age of participants was above 60, and median follow-up ranged from 17.5 months to 9.6 years. Regarding the use of co-interventions, one study used neoadjuvant CRT in all participants (T2 cancers); one study used short-course radiotherapy in the LE group (T1-T2 cancers); one study used adjuvant CRT selectively in high-risk patients undergoing RR (T1-T2 cancers); and the fourth study did not use any CRT (T1 cancers). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high for oncologic and morbidity outcomes across studies. All studies had at least one key domain with a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported separate outcomes for T1 versus T2 or for high-risk features. Low-certainty evidence suggests that RR may result in an improvement in disease-free survival compared to LE (3 trials, 212 participants; HR 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 4.24). This would translate into a three-year disease-recurrence risk of 27% (95% CI 14 to 50%) versus 15% after LE and RR, respectively. Regarding sphincter function, only one study provided objective results and reported short-term deterioration in stool frequency, flatulence, incontinence, abdominal pain, and embarrassment about bowel function in the RR group. At three years, the LE group had superiority in overall stool frequency, embarrassment about bowel function, and diarrhea. Local excision may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR (3 trials, 207 participants; HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool studies for local recurrence, but the included studies individually reported comparable local recurrence rates for LE and RR (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if the risk of major postoperative complications may be lower with LE compared with RR (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence; corresponding to 5.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 14.1%) risk for LE versus 11% for RR). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of minor postoperative complications is probably lower after LE (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.85); corresponding to an absolute risk of 14% (95% CI 8% to 26%) for LE compared to 30.1% for RR. One study reported an 11% rate of temporary stoma after LE versus 82% in the RR group. Another study reported a 46% rate of temporary or permanent stomas after RR and none after LE. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of LE compared with RR on quality of life. Only one study reported standard quality of life function, in favor of LE, with a 90% or greater probability of superiority in overall quality of life, role, social, and emotional functions, body image, and health anxiety. Other studies reported a significantly shorter postoperative period to oral intake, bowel movement, and off-bed activities in the LE group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, LE may decrease disease-free survival in early rectal cancer. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that LE may have little to no effect on cancer-related survival compared to RR for the treatment of stage I rectal cancer. Based on low-certainty evidence, it is unclear if LE may have a lower major complication rate, but probably causes a large reduction in minor complication rate. Limited data based on one study suggest better sphincter function, quality of life, or genitourinary function after LE. Limitations exist with respect to the applicability of these findings. We identified only four eligible studies with a low number of total participants, subjecting the results to imprecision. Risk of bias had a serious impact on the quality of evidence. More RCTs are needed to answer our review question with greater certainty and to compare local and distant metastasis rates. Data on important patient outcomes such as sphincter function and quality of life are very limited. Results of currently ongoing trials will likely impact the results of this review. Future trials should accurately report and compare outcomes according to the stage and high-risk features of rectal tumors, and evaluate quality of life, sphincter, and genitourinary outcomes. The role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as an emerging co-intervention for improving oncologic outcomes after LE needs to be further defined.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

A Meta-analysis of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery versus Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

Background  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) has been suggested as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in the treatment of early rectal cancers. The extended role of TEMS for higher stage rectal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy is also experimented. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the oncological outcomes and report on the evidence-based clinical supremacy of either technique.

Methods  Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the oncological and perioperative outcomes of TEMS and a radical TME. A local recurrence and postoperative complications were analyzed as primary end points. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and duration of hospital stay were compared as secondary end points.

Results  There was no statistical difference in the local recurrence or postoperative complications with a risk ratio of 1.898 and 0.753 and p -values of 0.296 and 0.306, respectively, for TEMS and TME. A marked statistical significance in favor of TEMS was observed for secondary end points. There was standard difference in means of −4.697, −6.940, and −5.685 with p -values of 0.001, 0.005, and 0.001 for blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay, respectively.

Conclusion  TEMS procedure is a viable alternative to TME in the treatment of early rectal cancers. An extended role of TEMS after neoadjuvant therapy may also be offered to a selected group of patients. TME surgery remains the standard of care in more advanced rectal cancers.

Long-term outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for clinical complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in T2-3 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Organ sparing by the transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) procedure is a treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and complete clinical response (cCR).

AIMS

To assess the surgical and long-term oncological outcomes of TEM for the treatment in T2-3 rectal cancer after CRT and cCR.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients with rectal cancer who underwent TEM after CRT and cCR from April 2011 to March 2020.

RESULTS

52 patients underwent TEM during a period of 9 years. This group of patients included 27 females and 25 males. The median age was 62 (32-86) years, lesion size was 2.5 (1-4) cm, and lesion distance from the anal verge 7.3 (4-10) cm. Median operative time was 79.5 (25-120) min and hospital stay was 1 day (14 h-4 days). Morbidity rate was 13.5% and reoperation rate due to major complications was 3.8%. Final histological findings confirmed 34 (65.4%) patients with ypT0, 7 (13.5%), 6 (11.5%), and 5 (9.6%) patients with carcinoma ypT1, ypT2, and ypT3, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 86 (5-107) months, 1 (2.4%) patient had local recurrences and 3 (7.3%) distant metastases. The 5-year disease-free survival was 91.7% and 5-year overall survival 89.5%.

CONCLUSION

Our experience has shown significant rates of ypT0 and ypT1 associated with excellent long-term results. Performing TEM to treat T2-3N0 rectal cancer after CRT and cCR appears to be an oncologically safe and effective procedure.

Adjuvant Radiation Survival Benefits in Patients with Stage 1B Rectal Cancer: A Population-based Study from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result Database (1973-2010)

Introduction

Rectal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States. Currently, total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard therapy for patients with T2N0 (stage IB) rectal cancer. Whether adjuvant radiation therapy provides a survival benefit to these patients or exposes them to unnecessary toxicity remains controversial and unproven to date. This study examined a large cohort of Stage 1B rectal cancer patients who underwent surgical resection and received adjuvant radiation in order to determine the demographic, clinical, and pathologic factors impacting prognosis and survival.

Methods

Demographic and clinical data on 4,054 Stage 1B rectal cancer patients were abstracted from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database (1973-2010). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS v20.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) using the chi-square test, paired t-test, multivariate analysis, and Kaplan-Meier functions.

Results

Among 4,054 patients with stage IB rectal cancer, 2,364 (58.3%) had surgery only, 1,477 (36.4%) received combination surgery and radiation (CSR), 139 (3.4%) received radiation only, and 74 (1.8%) received no therapy. Most stage IB patients in the surgery only and CSR groups were male (65.8 and 64%) and Caucasian (78.2% and 74.2%), p<0.001. Patients receiving CSR were younger than those undergoing surgery alone (63 vs. 69 years, p<0.001). More tumors in the CSR group were 2-4 cm (53.6%), followed by > 4 cm (24%), while fewer were <cm (22.4%). Histologically, most of the tumors in the CSR group were moderately differentiated (83.5%) and adenocarcinoma NOS (95.5%), followed by poorly (9.3%) and mucinous adenocarcinoma (4.5%), well-differentiated (6.8%), and undifferentiated (0.4%). Overall survival was prolonged in the CSR group compared to the surgery-only group (5.85 years vs. 5.44 years, p<0.001), although cancer-specific survival did not differ (6.33 years vs. 6.42 years, p=0.143). Multivariate analysis identified age>60 (OR 2.4), poorly differentiated (OR 1.7) or undifferentiated grade (OR 2.6), and tumor size >2 cm (OR 1.5) as independently associated with increased mortality in the CSR group (p<0.05) while female gender conferred a survival advantage (OR 0.8), p<0.01.

Conclusions

In the current cohort, CSR was utilized most often in young male Caucasian patients presenting with less advanced disease as compared to other treatment groups. The overall survival is prolonged and overall mortality is lower in patients receiving CSR; however, increased cancer-related mortality with the use of CSR implies that survival benefits may be attributable to favorable non-tumor-related factors such as age, gender, and race. CSR should not replace surgery alone as the standard of care for all Stage IB rectal cancer patients at this time. However, all T2N0 rectal cancer patients should be enrolled in randomized control trials to allow for more defined multimodality management to optimize clinical outcomes for these patients.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma

AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2-3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2-3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended.

Comparison of transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy and standard total mesorectal excision in the treatment of clinical T2 low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Some clinical trials demonstrated local resection for clinical T1 rectal cancer was safe and effective. But for clinical T2 rectal cancer, the results were controversial. Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is proven to reduce the opportunity of advanced rectal cancer recurrence in various researches. The objective of this Meta-Analysis was to evaluate the oncological outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with or without NT comparing with conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of clinical T2 rectal cancer.To search for the relevant studies, an electronic search was done from the databases of Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in this meta-analysis. We compared the effectiveness of transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without NT and standard total mesorectal excision in the treatment of T2 Rectal Cancer. 1RCT and 3nRCTs including 121 TEM patients (TEM + NT: 59, TEM: 62) and 174 TME patients with T2 rectal cancer were retrieved. Compared with TME, there were no significant differences in the outcomes of local recurrence, overall recurrence, overall survival between TEM + NT group. However in compassion with TME, TEM without NT was associated with an increased local recurrence, overall recurrence, and a shorter overall survival, with individual ORs being 3.04 (95% Cl: 1.17-7.90; I2 = 0%), 5.67 (95% Cl: 1.58-20.38; I2 = 0%) and 0.12 (95% Cl: 0.02-0.65; I2 = 0%), respectively. Compared with TME, TEM after NT may be a feasible and safe organ preservative approach for patients with clinical T2 low rectal cancer. But for those without NT, TEM always seem be associated with worse oncological outcomes.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery

Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) techniques encompass a variety of approaches, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery. These allow a surgeon to perform local excision of rectal lesions with minimal morbidity and the potential to spare the need for proctectomy. As understanding of the long-term outcomes from these procedures has evolved, so have the indications for TES. In this study, we review the development of TES, its early results, and the evolution of new surgical techniques. In addition, we evaluate the most recent research on indications and outcomes in rectal cancer.

Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO)

In rectal cancer management, accurate staging by magnetic resonance imaging, neo-adjuvant treatment with the use of radiotherapy, and total mesorectal excision have resulted in remarkable improvement in the oncological outcomes. However, there is substantial discrepancy in the therapeutic approach and failure to adhere to international guidelines among different Greek-Cypriot hospitals. The present guidelines aim to aid the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, considering both the local special characteristics of our healthcare system and the international relevant agreements (ESMO, EURECCA). Following background discussion and online communication sessions for feedback among the members of an executive team, a consensus rectal cancer management was obtained. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology voting system on two rounds to achieve further consensus by invited multidisciplinary international experts on colorectal cancer. Statements were considered of high, moderate or low consensus if they were voted by ≥80%, 60-80%, or <60%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. One hundred and two statements were developed and voted by 100 experts. The mean rate of abstention per statement was 12.5% (range: 2-45%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a high consensus. Guidelines and algorithms of diagnosis and treatment were proposed. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized.

Management of colorectal T1 carcinoma treated by endoscopic resection from the Western perspective

Detection of early colorectal cancer is expected to rise in light of national colorectal cancer screening programs. This The present review article delineates current endoscopic risk assessments, differentiating invasive from non-invasive neoplasia, for high likelihood of lymph node metastasis in early colorectal cancer, also termed high-risk early colorectal cancer, and endoscopic and surgical resection methods from a Western hemisphere perspective.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was developed by Professor Gerhard Buess 30 years ago at the dawn of minimally invasive surgery. TEM utilizes a closed proctoscopic system whereby endoluminal surgery is accomplished with high-definition magnification, constant CO2 insufflation, and long-shafted instruments. The end result is a more precise excision and closure compared to conventional instrumentation. Virtually any benign lesion can be addressed with this technology; however, proper patient selection is paramount when using it for cancer.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer: single center experience

INTRODUCTION

The use of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is increasing due to the ability to perform minimally invasive local treatment with large full-thickness local excision under improved vision.

AIM

To evaluate the initial experience with TEM for early rectal cancer in a single center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From February 2010 to November 2013 a total of 20 patients underwent TEM for early rectal cancer. Nine were women and 11 men, age range 39 to 88 years (median: 71 years). The postoperative surveillance protocol, which includes rigid proctoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and endorectal ultrasound every 3 months during the first 2 years, was applied to all patients after TEM.

RESULTS

Final histology revealed 14 (70%) lesions to be T1 and 6 (30%) T2 cancers. There were no postoperative complications. All 6 patients in the pT2 group and those in the pT1 group with unfavorable histology were offered adjuvant chemoradiotherapy or immediate radical surgery. Patients were followed up from 2 to 35 months (median: 21 months). There was one local recurrence (5%) in a patient who refused to undergo abdominoperineal excision for T1 low rectal cancer, had unfavorable histology after TEM, and for which reason underwent postoperative chemoradiation. The patient had abdominoperineal resection 7 months after TEM (rpT2N0M0). One patient was lost to follow-up. The rest of the patients are alive and disease-free.

CONCLUSIONS

In our hands, TEM was an alternative to total mesorectal excision in patients with low-risk early rectal cancer. Further follow-up is necessary to evaluate recurrence and survival rates after TEM for patients with invasive rectal cancer.

Can We Predict Complete or Major Response after Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer by Noninvasive Methods? Results of a Prospective Study on 61 Patients

Rectal preservation has been proposed as an alternative to radical resection in patients with presumed complete or major response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital rectal examination (DRE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict major or complete rectal cancer response to CRT. Over 2 years, 61 patients underwent radical resection after CRT for rectal cancer. DRE and MRI were carried out before and 6 to 8 weeks after the end of CRT. Data from DRE and MRI post-CRT were compared with pathological examinations. At pathological examination, major/complete responses were recorded for tumors classified ypT1N0 and ypT0N0, respectively. DRE post-CRT showed major/complete response in 26 cases, of which 14 (54%) were confirmed by pathology. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of DRE to predict major/complete response were 54 and 88 per cent, respectively. MRI post-CRT showed major/complete response in 12 cases, of which nine (75%) were confirmed by pathology. The PPV and NPV of MRI to predict major/complete response were 75 and 82 per cent, respectively. Data from DRE and RMI post-CRT were concordant in 45 patients. The PPV and NPV of concordant DRE and MRI to predict major/complete response were 82 and 91 per cent, respectively. DRE and MRI do not appear to be sufficiently accurate for safe selection of patients appropriate for a rectum-sparing strategy because the risk of leaving an invasive tumor untreated is 18 per cent.

Tricks to decrease the suture line dehiscence rate during endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)

BACKGROUND

ELRR by TEM is a valid alternative to TME in selected patients with early low rectal cancer, with similar long-term oncological results and better Quality of Life. The authors' policy is to close the residual defect, with possibly a higher risk of dehiscence from tension on the suture line. Aim is to evaluate if a modified technique may reduce the risk of dehiscence.

METHODS

The latest series of 50 patients undergoing ELRR was analyzed and patients were divided in two consecutive groups. In Group A, 25 patients underwent ELRR by TEM with the authors' standard technique. In Group B, a subsequent series of 25 patients also underwent ELRR, but the perirectal residual cavity was filled with a hemostatic agent prior to rectal wall closure. After suture completion, the rectal ampulla was stuffed with gauzes to avoid the formation of a perirectal fluid collection, by enlarging the volume of the residual rectal ampulla. A transanal Foley catheter was positioned for gas evacuation.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mean tumor distance from the anal verge, mean lesion diameter, mean operative time, and pathological staging between the two groups. Neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (n-RCT) in Groups A and B was performed in 6 and 2 patients, respectively. Suture line dehiscence in Group A occurred in 3 patients (12%) and in group B it was nil. In patients who experienced a dehiscence, mean lesion diameter was 6.3 cm (range 6-7). None of these patients had undergone n-RCT.

CONCLUSION

After ELRR by TEM, suture line dehiscence is presumably related to the wider size of the residual cavity. Obliteration of the residual perirectal space with hemostatic agent and by gauzes' introduction in the rectal ampulla may reduce the risk of postoperative perirectal abscess and thus reduce the suture line dehiscence rate.

Treatment of rectal cancer by transanal endoscopic microsurgery: Experience with 425 patients

AIM: To describe our experience in treating rectal cancer by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), report morbidity and mortality and oncological outcome.

METHODS: A total of 425 patients with rectal cancer (120 T1, 185 T2, 120 T3 lesions) were staged by digital rectal examination, rectoscopy, transanal endosonography, magnetic resonance imaging and/or computed tomography. Patients with T1-N0 lesions and favourable histological features underwent TEM immediately. Patients with preoperative stage T2-T3-N0 underwent preoperative high-dose radiotherapy; from 1997 those aged less than 70 years and in good general health also underwent preoperative chemotherapy. Patients with T2-T3-N0 lesions were restaged 30 d after radiotherapy and were then operated on 40-50 d after neoadjuvant therapy. The instrumentation designed by Buess was used for all procedures.

RESULTS: There were neither perioperative mortality nor intraoperative complications. Conversion to other surgical procedures was never required. Major complications (urethral lesions, perianal or retroperitoneal phlegmon and rectovaginal fistula) occurred in six (1.4%) patients and minor complications (partial suture line dehiscence, stool incontinence and rectal haemorrhage) in 42 (9.9%). Postoperative pain was minimal. Definitive histological examination of the 425 malignant lesions showed 80 (18.8%) pT₀, 153 (36%) pT₁, 151 (35.5%) pT₂, and 41 (9.6%) pT₃ lesions. Eighteen (4.2%) patients (ten pT₂ and eight pT₃) had a local recurrence and 16 (3.8%) had distant metastasis. Cancer-specific survival rates at the end of follow-up were 100% for pT₁ patients (253 mo), 93% for pT₂ patients (255 mo) and 89% for pT₃ patients (239 mo).

CONCLUSION: TEM is a safe and effective procedure to treat rectal cancer in selected patients without evidence of nodal involvement. T2-T3 lesions require preoperative neoadjuvant therapy.

Palliative care and end-stage colorectal cancer management: The surgeon meets the oncologist

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasia in the Western countries, with considerable morbidity and mortality. Every fifth patient with CRC presents with metastatic disease, which is not curable with radical intent in roughly 80% of cases. Traditionally approached surgically, by resection of the primitive tumor or stoma, the management to incurable stage IV CRC patients has significantly changed over the last three decades and is nowadays multidisciplinary, with a pivotal role played by chemotherapy (CHT). This latter have allowed for a dramatic increase in survival, whereas the role of colonic and liver surgery is nowadays matter of debate. Although any generalization is difficult, two main situations are considered, asymptomatic (or minimally symptomatic) and severely symptomatic patients needing aggressive management, including emergency cases. In asymptomatic patients, new CHT regimens allow today long survival in selected patients, also exceeding two years. The role of colonic resection in this group has been challenged in recent years, as it is not clear whether the resection of primary CRC may imply a further increase in survival, thus justifying surgery-related morbidity/mortality in such a class of short-living patients. Secondary surgery of liver metastasis is gaining acceptance since, under new generation CHT regimens, an increasing amount of patients with distant metastasis initially considered non resectable become resectable, with a significant increase in long term survival. The management of CRC emergency patients still represents a major issue in Western countries, and is associated to high morbidity/mortality. Obstruction is traditionally approached surgically by colonic resection, stoma or internal by-pass, although nowadays CRC stenting is a feasible option. Nevertheless, CRC stent has peculiar contraindications and complications, and its long-term cost-effectiveness is questionable, especially in the light of recently increased survival. Perforation is associated with the highest mortality and remains mostly matter for surgeons, by abdominal lavage/drainage, colonic resection and/or stoma. Bleeding and other CRC-related symptoms (pain, tenesmus, etc.) may be managed by several mini-invasive approaches, including radiotherapy, laser therapy and other transanal procedures.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for local excision of benign neoplasms and early-stage rectal cancer: efficacy and outcomes in the first 50 patients

BACKGROUND

Since its inception in 2009, transanal minimally invasive surgery has been used increasingly in the United States and internationally as an alternative to local excision and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local excision of neoplasms in the distal and mid rectum. Despite its increasing acceptance, the clinical benefits of transanal minimally invasive surgery have not yet been validated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the adequacy of transanal minimally invasive surgery for the local excision of benign and malignant lesions of the rectum.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of neoplasms at a single institution.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted by a single group of colorectal surgeons at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Eligible patients with early-stage rectal cancer and benign neoplasms were offered transanal minimally invasive surgery as a means for local excision. Data from these patients were collected prospectively in a registry.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures included the feasibility of transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision, resection quality, and short-term clinical results.

RESULTS

: Fifty patients underwent transanal minimally invasive surgery between July 2009 and December 2011. Twenty-five benign neoplasms, 23 malignant lesions, and 2 neuroendocrine tumors were excised. All lesions were excised using transanal minimally invasive surgery without conversion to an alternate transanal platform. The average length of stay was 0.6 days (range, 0-6), and 68% of patients were discharged on the day of surgery. The average distance from the anal verge was 8.1 cm (range, 3-14 cm). All lesions were excised completely with only 2 fragmented specimens (4%). All specimens were removed with grossly negative margins, although 3 (6%) were found to have microscopically positive margins on final pathology. There were 2 recurrences (4%) at 6- and 18-month follow-up. Early complications occurred in 3 patients (6%). No long-term complications were observed at a median follow-up of 20 months.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and midterm follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal minimally invasive surgery is an advanced transanal platform that provides a safe and effective method for resecting benign neoplasms, as well as carefully selected, early-stage malignancies of the mid and distal rectum.

Transanal excision with radiation therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of transanal excision (TAE) combined with radiotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma, assess the ability of pretreatment endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to predict failures, and determine the prognostic value of downstaging and complete pathological response.

DESIGN

Retrospective outcomes study.

SETTING

Radiation oncology clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The medical records of patients treated with radiotherapy from 1998 to 2008 and followed for a median of 5.9 years were reviewed.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from selected endpoints at 5 years after treatment were: overall survival, 79%; cause-specific survival, 91%; local control, 90%; and freedom from distant metastasis, 76%. Seven patients (21%) had eventual abdominoperineal resection or lower anterior resection, four patients had local recurrence, and three patients had incomplete treatment or poor margins. T3 lesions clinically staged by EUS were a predictor of local failure (P=0.0110), but not distant metastasis (P=0.35). Patients with either a pathological or clinical T3 lesion did not have a significantly greater rate of metastasis (P=0.096). Patients who were downstaged did not have a significantly different rate of local recurrence or metastasis. Patients who experienced a complete pathological response did not have a significantly different rate of local control or distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early-stage rectal lesions who undergo preoperative or postoperative radiation and TAE have similar outcomes to those who undergo abdominoperineal resection; local recurrence was higher for patients with T3 lesions when both were compared. Abdominal surgery should be considered for these patients. TAE is reasonable when patients are unwilling or unable to tolerate the morbidity of traditional transabdominal surgery.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal tumors: a review

Since its introduction in 1983, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has emerged as a safe and effective method to treat rectal lesions including benign tumors, early rectal cancer, and rectal fistulas and strictures. This minimally invasive technique offers the advantages of superior visualization of the lesion and greater access to proximal lesions with lower margin positivity and specimen fragmentation and lower long-term recurrence rates over traditional transanal excision. In addition, over two decades of scientific data support the use of TEM as a viable alternative to radical excision of the rectum with less morbidity, faster recovery, and greater potential cost savings when performed at specialized centers.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for T1 and T2 Rectal Cancers: A Meta–Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of Outcomes

The objective of this study is to assess transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) as a surgical strategy for stage I rectal cancer. The literature lacks level I and level II evidence of the oncologic competence of TEM. Three randomized controlled, one prospective, and seven retrospective comparative studies were evaluated. End-points included perioperative outcomes, margin involvement, disease-free and overall survival, and recurrence. The number of patients with major (odds ratio (OR) = 0.24,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.91) and overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.38) were significantly lower in TEM. The disease-free survival was higher in standard resection (SR) group compared with TEM (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88). The number of patients with positive margins were less in the SR group (OR = 6.49, 95% CI 1.49-24.91), which was associated with lower local recurrence (OR = 4.92,95% CI 1.81-13.41) and overall recurrence rate (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.15-3.57). No survival advantage was observed in favor of either procedure. TEM had lower rate of positive margins and longer disease-free survival when compared with transanal excision (TAE). TEM seems to be superior to SR concerning morbidity whilst less effective in obtaining negative surgical margins, and it is associated with higher local and overall recurrence. No survival advantage was observed in favor of either procedure. Unfavorable tumor preoperative histology does not seem to influence the selection between TEM and SR. TEM is more effective than TAE in obtaining negative surgical margins and shows a greater disease-free survival.

Minimal invasive single-site surgery in colorectal procedures: Current state of the art

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive single-site (MISS) surgery has recently been applied to colorectal surgery. We aimed to assess the current state of the art and the adequacy of preliminary oncological results.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature using Pubmed, Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. Keywords used were "Single Port" or "Single-Incision" or "LaparoEndoscopic Single Site" or "SILS™" and "Colon" or "Colorectal" and "Surgery".

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles on colorectal MISS surgery have been published from July 2008 to July 2010, presenting data on 149 patients. One study reported analgesic requirement. The final incision length ranged from 2.5 to 8 cm. Only two studies reported fascial incision length. There were two port site hernias in a series of 13 patients (15.38%). Two "fully laparoscopic" MISS procedures with preparation and achievement of the anastomosis completely intracorporeally are reported. Future site of ileostomy was used as the sole access for the procedures in three studies. Lymph node harvesting, resection margins and length of specimen were sufficient in oncological cases.

CONCLUSIONS

MISS colorectal surgery is a challenging procedure that seems to be safe and feasible, but the existing clinical evidence is limited. In selected cases, and especially when an ileostomy is planned, colorectal surgery may be an ideal indication for MISS surgery leading to a no-scar surgery. Despite preliminary oncological results showing the feasibility of MISS surgery, we want to stress the need to standardize the technique and carefully evaluate its application in oncosurgery under ethical committee control.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: The state of the art

At present time, there is evidence from randomized controlled studies of the success of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of colon cancer with reported smaller incisions, lower morbidity rate and earlier recovery compared to open surgery. Technical limitations and a steep learning curve have limited the wide application of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The present article discusses the current status of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. A review of the more recent retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer including the role of trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery and robotics was performed. A particular emphasis was dedicated to mid and low rectal cancers. Few prospective and RCT trials specifically addressing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are currently available in the literature. Improved short-term outcomes in term of lesser intraoperative blood loss, reduced analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. Concerns have recently been raised in the largest RCT trial of the oncological adequacy of laparoscopy in terms of increased rate of circumferential margin. This data however was not confirmed by other prospective comparative studies. Moreover, a similar local recurrence rate has been reported in RCT and comparative series. Similar findings of overall and disease free survival have been reported but the follow-up time period is too short in all these studies and the few RCT trials currently available do not draw any definitive conclusions. On the basis of available data in the literature, the mini-invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery has some short-term advantages and does not seem to confer any disadvantage in term of local recurrence. With respect to long-term survival, a definitive answer cannot be given at present time as the results of RCT trials focused on long-term survival currently ongoing are still to fully clarify this issue.

Randomized clinical trials in rectal and anal cancers

This article reviews randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between April 2001 and November 2008 on the management of patients with rectal cancer. In total, the authors reviewed 78 RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer. Of these, five met the authors' criteria for level 1a evidence. The article discusses the major RCTs and relevant findings that have impacted clinical management most and includes most but not all RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer published during this period.

Rectal cancer

Surgery is the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment. Oncological cure and overall survival continue to be the main goals, but sparing of the anal sphincter mechanism and functional results are also important. The modern management of rectal cancer is a multidisciplinary approach, and pre-operative staging is of crucial importance when planning treatment in these patients. Pre-operative staging is used to determine the indication for neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection or to determine whether local excision is an option in carefully selected patients with early rectal cancer. Surgery in the form of total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care for mid and distal rectal cancers. Early rectal cancers do not require neoadjuvant therapy. For locally advanced cancers of the lower two-thirds of the rectum, the combination of surgical resection with chemoradiotherapy decreases local recurrence rates and probably improves overall survival. Whereas in the past local excision was only contemplated in patients who were unfit for radical surgery or for local palliation in cases of metastatic disease, over the last number of years there has been increasing interest in local treatment with curative intent in early rectal cancer.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: indications, results and controversies

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was introduced in 1983 as a minimally invasive technique allowing the resection of adenomas and early rectal carcinomas unsuitable for local or colonoscopic excision which would otherwise require major surgery. After 25 years, there is still much debate about the procedure. This article presents the TEM technique, indications, results and complications, focusing on its role in rectal cancer. The controversial points addressed include long-term results, TEM in high-risk T1 lesions, TEM associated with combined modality therapy (CMT) for invasive rectal cancer and salvage therapy after TEM. The future perspectives for TEM are promising and its association with CMT will probably expand the select group of patients who will benefit from the procedure.

Is the increasing role of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery in curation for T1 rectal cancer justified? A systematic review

Driven by the aim to avoid a permanent colostomy and also the morbidity and mortality of major radical surgery for rectal cancer, the proportion of patients with rectal cancer treated by local excision has increased the last ten years or so. In T1 carcinomas local excision is considered a curative option in selected tumors. However, the scientific base upon which this treatment regimen is built remains controversial. In this systematic review we try to elucidate current literature regarding local excision for T1 rectal carcinomas. Several questions are addressed. First, is there enough evidence to propagate LE as a curative option in selected (T1) rectal carcinomas? Second, if LE is justified, which technique should be the method of choice? Third, can we adequately identify, pre- and postoperatively, tumors suitable for LE? Finally, future perspectives are discussed.

The role of minimally invasive treatments in surgical oncology

This article reviews the use of minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic techniques in the field of surgical oncology. It reviews the indications and techniques of the use of minimally invasive surgery for several oncologic indications in general surgery. In particular, it reviews the currently published literature discussing the oncologic outcomes of these techniques.

Local excision for rectal carcinoma

Local excision is an alternative approach to radical proctectomy for rectal cancer, but from an oncologic standpoint, it is a compromise, and its role remains controversial. Careful patient selection is essential because local excision is generally considered only for early rectal cancer with no evidence of nodal metastasis, parameters that can be predicted by clinical examination, and various radiologic modalities with variable accuracy. In this review, we present the literature evaluating the oncologic adequacy of local excision, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery and the results of salvage surgery after local excision. An overview of local excision in the context of perioperative adjuvant therapies is included. Finally, we suggest a treatment algorithm for local excision in rectal cancer.

Bowel dysfunction after treatment for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Rectal cancer is a common disease in Western populations. Improved treatment modalities have resulted in increased survival and tumour control. With increasing survival there is a growing need for knowledge about the long-term side effects and functional results after the treatment.

AIM

To describe the long-term functional outcome in patients treated for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the current literature and to provide an outline of the promising developments within this area.

RESULTS

Standard resectional surgery with loss of the rectal reservoir function results in poor functional results in up to 50-60% of the patients. New methods of surgery including the construction of a neoreservoir and improvement of the technique for local excision have been developed to minimize the functional disturbances without compromising the oncological result. The addition of chemo and/or radiotherapy approximately doubles the risk of poor functional results. During the last decades the techniques for chemo/radiotherapy has been markedly improved with a positive impact on functional outcome. New methods for treatment of functional disturbances e.g. bowel irrigation and sacral nerve stimulation are currently under development.

PERSPECTIVES

To improve the functional outcome in this growing patient population several approaches can be taken. The primary cancer treatment must be improved by minimizing the surgical trauma and optimizing the imaging and radiation techniques. Population screening should be considered in order to find the cancers at an earlier stage, hereby increasing the proportion of patients eligible for local excision without the need for chemo/irradiation. All patients recovering from rectal resection should be examined and registered systematically regarding their functional results and treatment should be offered to the severely affected patients. More studies are still needed to evaluate the efficacy of irrigation and nerve stimulation in this patient group.

The diagnosis and management of rectal cancer: expert discussion and recommendations derived from the 9th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2007

Knowledge of the biology and management of rectal cancer continues to improve. A multidisciplinary approach to a patient with rectal cancer by an experienced expert team is mandatory, to assure optimal diagnosis and staging, surgery, selection of the appropriate neo-adjuvant and adjuvant strategy and chemotherapeutic management. Moreover, optimal symptom management also requires a dedicated team of health care professionals. The introduction of total mesorectal excision has been associated with a decrease in the rate of local failure after surgery. High quality surgery and the achievement of pathological measures of quality are a prerequisite to adequate locoregional control. There are now randomized data in favour of chemoradiotherapy or short course radiotherapy in the preoperative setting. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is more beneficial and has less toxicity for patients with resectable rectal cancer than postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore chemoradiotherapy leads also to downsizing of locally advanced rectal cancer. New strategies that decrease the likelihood of distant metastases after initial treatment need be developed with high priority. Those involved in the care for patients with rectal cancer should be encouraged to participate in well-designed clinical trials, to increase the evidence-based knowledge and to make further progress. Health care workers involved in the care of rectal cancer patients should be encouraged to adopt quality control processes leading to increased expertise.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is a safe and reliable technique even for complex rectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a minimally invasive technique for the excision of rectal lesions, with lower morbidity and mortality rates than open surgery. Following advances in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and endoscopic mucosal resection, this study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TEM in the treatment of complex rectal lesions.

METHODS

All patients were entered into a prospective database. Complex lesions were identified as high (more than 15 cm from anorectal margin), large (maximum dimension over 8 cm), involving two or more rectal quadrants, or recurrent.

RESULTS

Seventy-one lesions (13 carcinomas and 58 tubulovillous adenomas) were identified. The median duration of operation was 60 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 30-80) min, with an estimated median blood loss of 0 (i.q.r. 0-10) ml. Median hospital stay was 2 (i.q.r. 1-3) days. One patient developed postoperative urinary retention and one returned with rectal bleeding that did not require further surgery. Two patients developed rectal strictures after operation that were dilated successfully. There was no recurrence of benign lesions during a median follow-up of 21 (i.q.r. 6.5-35) months.

CONCLUSION

TEM is a safe technique with low associated morbidity, even when used to excise complex rectal lesions. As such it remains the treatment of choice for rectal lesions not requiring primary radical resection.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of selected patients with distal rectal cancer: 15 years experience

BACKGROUND

Local therapy for early rectal cancer is a valid alternative to the classical radical operation, which has a higher morbidity and mortality rate. The use of high-dose preoperative radiation appears to enhance the options for sphincter-saving surgery even for T2-T3 rectal cancer patients with effective local control. The authors report their experience with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) used to manage selected cases of distal rectal cancer without evidence of nodal or distant metastasis (N0-M0).

METHODS

The study enrolled 196 patients with rectal cancer (51 T1, 84 T2, and 61 T3). All the patients staged preoperatively as T2 and T3 underwent preoperative high-dose radiotherapy, and since 1997, patients younger than 70 years in good general condition also have undergone preoperative chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Minor complications were observed in 17 patients (8.6%) and major complications in only 3 patients (1.5%). The definitive histology was 33 pT0 (17%), 73 pT1 (37%), 66 pT2 (34%), and 24 pT3 (12%). Eight patients (5 pT2 and 3 pT3) experienced local recurrence (4.1%). The rectal cancer-specific survival rate at the end of the follow-up period was 100% for pT1, 90% for pT2, and 77% for pT3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1 cancer and favorable histologic features may undergo local excision alone, whereas those with T2 and T3 rectal cancer require preoperative radiochemotherapy. The results in the authors' experience after TEM appear not to be substantially different in terms of local recurrence and survival rate from those described for conventional surgery.

Controversies of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in elderly patients

The cornerstone of treatment for rectal cancer is resectional treatment according to the principles of total mesorectal excision (TME). However, population-based registries show that improvements in outcome after resectional treatment occur mainly in younger patients. Furthermore, 6-month postoperative mortality is significantly increased in elderly patients (> or = 75 years of age) compared with younger patients (< 75 years of age). Several confounding factors, such as treatment-related complications and comorbidity, are thought to be responsible for these disappointing findings. Thus, major resectional treatment is not advantageous for all older patients with rectal cancer. However, the Dutch TME trial showed a good response to a short course of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in elderly patients. Biological responses to cancer treatment seem to change with age, and, therefore, individualised cancer treatments should be used that take into account the heterogeneity of ageing. For elderly patients who retain a good physical and mental condition, treatment that is given to younger patients is deemed appropriate, whereas for those with diminished physiological reserves and comorbid conditions, alternative treatments that keep surgical trauma to a minimum and optimise the use of radiotherapy might be more suitable.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early rectal cancer: time for a trial?

OBJECTIVE

The optimal aim of oncological surgery is to balance cancer outcomes with preservation of function and quality of life. Radical resection (RR) offers the best curative procedure in colorectal cancer but at significant morbidity. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) offers an alternative with less morbidity and better function. Its role remains unclear and needs to be established in the light of new emerging trends in rectal cancer. This review aims to evaluate the use of TEM and its limitations.

METHOD

PubMed and MEDLINE search was performed.

RESULTS

Strongest level of evidence (Level II) favoured TEM over RR and laparoscopic resection in term of mortality and morbidity. There was no difference in recurrence at follow-up of 41 and 56 months but neither study was adequately powered to detect a difference in recurrence/survival. Three retrospective case comparisons (Level III) also favoured TEM over RR but were subject to selection bias. Twenty eight published case series (Level IV) reported varying results due to different cancer stages, study population, full excision, adjuvant therapy and treatment indication. The oncological outcomes in TEM are similar to RR in highly selected cases but with far less mortality (near 0%), morbidity, blood loss, hospital stay and genitourinary/gastrointestinal dysfunction. TEM alone (+/- adjuvant therapy) appears sufficient for 'favourable' T1 tumours. 'Unfavourable' T1 or T2 tumours require adjuvant treatment. TEM should only be used for palliation in T3+ cancers. Seven functional studies reported significant transient dysfunction following TEM with full clinical recovery within a year. TEM is cost-effective providing sufficient cases are performed.

CONCLUSION

Significant heterogeneity limits conclusions from current literature. A trial is required. Alternate end-points to local recurrence may be required in assessing the optimal surgical approach, which balances disease control with quality of life, and probability of noncancer related death.

Outcome of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with T2 rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The use of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local excision of rectal cancer has recently gained wide acceptance as a valid and safe alternative for the surgical treatment of T1 tumors. The adequacy of such treatment for T2 tumors, however, is still controversial. This study was designed to evaluate our results with local excision of T2 cancers.

METHODS

Patients with T2 cancer admitted to our hospital between 1995 and 2005 were offered surgery by transanal endoscopic microsurgery if found medically unfit or were unwilling to undergo radical surgery. Patients who were preoperatively staged as T1 tumor but were found to be pathologically T2 also were included.

RESULTS

Overall, we performed 59 transanal endoscopic microsurgery operations for rectal cancers, of which 21 were for T2 cancers. In 16 (76 percent) of the T2 patients, the tumors were completely removed with clear margins by transanal endoscopic microsurgery and no additional surgery was performed, except for 2 patients who developed radiation-induced complications. Radical surgery was performed in a second operation in five patients because of involved margins and residual disease was found in two. At a median follow-up of three years, all 12 patients who received local excision and radiotherapy remained disease free, whereas a 50 percent recurrence rate was observed in patients who refused adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the feasibility of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of selected patients with T2 rectal cancer. The addition of radiotherapy may decrease the rates of early local recurrence. However, at present, this treatment strategy should not be routinely considered for patients who may undergo radical procedures.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: local recurrence rate following resection of rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a safe and effective treatment for the excision of benign rectal adenomas. In recent years it has been used for the excision of malignant lesions, although its use in this context remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the local recurrence of rectal cancers following local excision by TEM.

METHOD

Forty-two patients with rectal cancer were treated by TEM between 1998 and 2005. However, six patients went on to have immediate radical surgery and are excluded from the study. Of the remaining 36 the treatment intention was for cure in 16 (38.1%), compromise in 17 patients unfit for radical surgery (40.5%), and palliation in three (7.1%).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 75 years (range 41-90). The mean lesion area was 15 cm(2) (range 0.8-42) and mean distance from the dentate line was 6.6 cm (range 0-11). The mean follow up was 34 months (range 4-94). During the follow-up period there have been eight local recurrences (22%). The recurrence rates were 26% (6/23) for pT1, 22% (2/9) for pT2 and 0% (0/4) for pT3 lesions. The mean time to recurrence was 18.3 months (range 5-42).

CONCLUSION

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is a safe procedure with obvious advantages over radical procedures. However, in this study the local recurrence rate is high. The recurrence rate may be an acceptable compromise in elderly or medically unfit patients but is hard to justify for curative intent.

Local excision and transanal endoscopic microsurgery in the management of rectal cancer with a focus on early carcinoma

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) will play an even greater role in the treatment of rectal cancer as the UK national colorectal cancer screening program becomes national. With more rectal tumors being uncovered at earlier stages, a greater emphasis will be placed on treatment options that do not involve radical surgery and the possibility of a stoma. This article reviews the data surrounding TEMS, focusing on its current role in the treatment of early rectal cancer but with a view on how this option may develop in the future, particularly with regards to the more advanced rectal cancers and in view of the improved chemoradiotherapy regimens available. The data is reviewed and some of the more controversial issues discussed.

Combined Modality Treatment of Early Rectal Cancer — the UK Experience

With the introduction of colorectal screening in the UK, more patients will probably be diagnosed with early rectal cancer. The UK has an increasingly elderly population and not all patients diagnosed with early rectal cancer will be suitable for radical surgery. Therefore, a national plan is needed to develop the provision of alternative local treatment with equity of access across the country. Here we review the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology multimodality treatment policy, which has been in clinical practice since 1993 and we discuss its rationale. Clatterbridge is the only centre in the UK offering Papillon-style contact radiotherapy. In total, 220 patients have been treated over 14 years, most of whom were referred from other centres. One hundred and twenty-four patients received Papillon (contact radiotherapy) as part of their multimodality management. The guidelines of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland recommend local treatment for T1 tumours<3 cm in diameter, but this refers to treatment by surgery alone. There are no published national guidelines for radiotherapy. We plan each treatment in stages and achieve excellent local control (93% at 3 years) with low morbidity. We conclude that radical local treatment for cure can be offered safely to carefully selected elderly patients. Close follow-up is necessary so that effective salvage treatment can be offered. Because of a lack of randomised trial evidence, at present local radiotherapy is not yet accepted as an alternative option to the gold standard surgical treatment. Even with international collaboration, a randomised trial will be difficult to complete as the number of cases requiring local radiotherapy is small due to the highly selective nature of the treatment involved. However, an observational phase II trial is planned. In addition, the Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Users Group is also planning a phase II trial using preoperative radiotherapy. These studies will provide evidence to help establish the true role of radiotherapy in early rectal cancer.