Laparoscopic proctectomy after neoadjuvant therapy: safety and long-term follow-up

Neoadjuvant Therapy and Mini-Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Feasibility and Outcome Analysis from a Single Institution Prospectively Collected Data Base

Aim and background

Neoadjuvant treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma improves local control and represents the standard for locally advanced disease. Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision has been increasingly adopted. It provides magnified visualization of the pelvic cavity, thereby facilitating the mesorectal dissection.

Methods

Consecutive patients with locally advanced/ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma received neoadjuvant treatment and mini-invasive total mesorectal excision at our center. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records by using a prospectively collected data base and focusing on feasibility, tumor response and treatment outcomes.

Results

In a 13-year period, 117 rectal adenocarcinoma patients (80 males and 37 females) received neoadjuvant treatment and mini-invasive total mesorectal excision. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years; pre-treatment stage was I in 10 (9%); IIA in 58 (50%); IIC in 5 (4%); IIIA in 10 (9%); IIIB in 31 (26%) and IV in 3 (2%) patients. All patients received external beam radiation therapy, 79 (67%) combined with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. One-hundred and three patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 14 robotic surgery. Overall, 90 patients (77%) had anterior resection and 27 (23%) had abdominoperineal resection. Down-staging was obtained in 70 patients (66%). No major intraoperative nor delayed surgical complications were observed. At a median follow up of 52 months, 8 patients (7%) had a local relapse, 7 of them along with distant relapse, and 16 (14%) had distant relapse. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 76.5%.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that in a community hospital mini-invasive surgery after neoadjuvant treatment is feasible in real clinical practice and achieves consistent results in term of disease control rate.

Laparoscopic proctectomy: oncologic considerations

The role of laparoscopic proctectomy in rectal cancer has not clearly been defined. Publications on long-term outcomes after laparoscopic proctectomy is lacking and there is a wide variation of practice patterns of rectal cancer management. Current data supports the feasibility of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer but due to surgeon, patient and tumor related factors open technique may be favored. Current series suggest that laparoscopic proctectomy can be performed with similar oncologic adequacy with regards to, circumferential resection margin, distal margin, local recurrence and quality of life. Ongoing trials will provide evidence clarifying the role of laparoscopic proctectomy in rectal cancer. Until then, high-level laparoscopic skills and meticulous preoperative evaluation of both patient and tumor can identify appropriate candidates.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) and open APR.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed. The University HealthSystem Consortium database was accessed and searched for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes between October 2008 and January 2010. Discharge data were collected on patients undergoing laparoscopic APR and open APR.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic APR, and 2,443 underwent open APR. When lower risk patient groups with minor or moderate severity of illness were compared, laparoscopic APR showed lower morbidity, reduced length of stay, reduced cost, and reduced incidence of intensive care unit admission. Comparative analysis showed no significant difference in mortality rate or 30-day readmission. When higher risk patients were compared, there were significantly reduced costs and reduced incidence of intensive care unit cases in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic APR had overall superior perioperative outcomes compared with those undergoing open APR. Laparoscopic APR demonstrates excellent perioperative outcomes in appropriately selected patients.