Comparison of pathological outcomes after transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a prospective study using data from randomized control trial

Essential updates 2022-2023: Surgical and adjuvant therapies for locally advanced colorectal cancer

Pivotal articles that had been published between 2022 and 2023 on surgical and perioperative adjuvant treatments for locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) were reviewed. This review focuses on new evidence in the following areas: optimization of surgical procedures for colon cancer, including the optimal length of bowel resection and use of the no-touch isolation technique; minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, such as laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic surgery; neoadjuvant treatments for rectal cancer, including total neoadjuvant therapy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer; and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for Stage II and III colon cancer. Although the current understanding may not enable perfect decision-making for patients and medical professionals, ongoing advancements are expected to result in more effective personalized treatment plans, ultimately improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients.

Cytological Analysis of the Surgical Field During Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

An unexpectedly large number of patients experienced local recurrence with transanal total mesorectal excision in Norway. This appears to be associated with cancer cell spillage during surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the surgical field cytology during transanal total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single center between June and December 2020.

PATIENTS

Forty patients with rectal cancer underwent transanal total mesorectal excision. After irrigation of the surgical field, the water specimens were cytologically evaluated at 6 representative steps. The first sample was used as an initial control. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth samples were collected after the first pursestring suture, rectotomy, the second pursestring suture, specimen resection, and anastomosis, respectively. The clinicopathological features and intraoperative complications of the patients were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was to evaluate the presence of cancer cells in washing cytological samples.

RESULTS

Of the 40 consecutive patients enrolled in this study, 18 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Incomplete first pursestring suture and rectal perforation were observed in 4 (10.0%) and 3 (7.5%) cases, respectively. In the first sample, 31 patients (77.5%) had malignant cells. Malignant findings were detected in 2 patients (5.0%) from the second to fifth samples. None of the sixth sample exhibited any malignant findings.

LIMITATIONS

This single-center study had a small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells were initially detected by cytology, but only a few were observed throughout the procedure; however, cancer cells were not detected in the final surgical field. Further follow-up and novel studies are required to obtain clinically significant findings using cytology during transanal total mesorectal excision. See Video Abstract .

ANLISIS CITOLGICO DEL CAMPO QUIRRGICO DURANTE LA ESCISIN TOTAL DEL MESORRECTO TRANSANAL PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Un número inesperadamente grande de pacientes experimentó recurrencia local con la escisión total del mesorrecto transanal en Noruega. Esto parece estar asociado con el derrame de células cancerosas durante la cirugía.OBJETIVO:Investigar la citología del campo quirúrgico durante la escisión total del mesorrecto transanal.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte prospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un solo centro entre junio y diciembre de 2020.PACIENTES:Cuarenta pacientes con cáncer de recto se sometieron a escisión total del mesorrecto transanal. Después de la irrigación del campo quirúrgico, las muestras de agua se evaluaron citológicamente en seis pasos representativos. La primera muestra se utilizó como control inicial. La segunda, tercera, cuarta, quinta y sexta muestras se recolectaron después de la primera sutura en bolsa de tabaco, la rectotomía, la segunda sutura en bolsa de tabaco, la resección de la muestra y la anastomosis, respectivamente. Se revisaron las características clínico-patológicas y las complicaciones intraoperatorias de los pacientes.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue evaluar la presencia de células cancerosas en el lavado de muestras citológicas.RESULTADOS:De los 40 pacientes consecutivos inscritos en este estudio, 18 pacientes se sometieron a quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Se observaron la primera sutura en bolsa de tabaco incompleta y perforación rectal en cuatro (10,0%) y tres (7,5%) casos, respectivamente. En la primera muestra, 31 (77,5%) pacientes tenían células malignas. Se detectaron hallazgos malignos en dos pacientes (5,0%) de la segunda a la quinta muestra. Ninguno de la sexta muestra demostraron hallazgos malignos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio unicéntrico tuvo un tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:Inicialmente se detectaron células cancerosas mediante citología, pero solo se observaron unas pocas durante todo el procedimiento; sin embargo, no se detectaron células cancerosas en el campo quirúrgico final. Se requieren más seguimientos y estudios novedosos para obtener hallazgos clínicamente significativos mediante citología durante la escisión total del mesorrecto transanal. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

The role of transanal compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (taTME vs. lapTME) for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer in obese patients: outcomes of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

To compare the rate of sphincter-saving interventions between transanal and laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in this particular group of patients. A multicentre observational study was conducted using a prospective database, including patients diagnosed with rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, who underwent minimally invasive elective surgery over a 5-year period. Exclusion criteria were (1) sphincter and/or puborectalis invasion; (2) multi-visceral resections; (3) palliative surgeries. The study population was divided into two groups according to the intervention: transanal or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. The primary outcome was the rate of sphincter-saving surgery. Secondary outcomes included conversion, postoperative complications, quality of the specimen, and survival. A total of 93 patients were included; 40 (43%) transanal total mesorectal excision were compared to 53 (57%) laparoscopic. In addition, 35 cases of transanal approach were case-matched with an equal number of laparoscopic approaches, based on gender, tumor's height, and neoadjuvant therapy. In both groups, 43% of the patients had low rectal cancer; however, the rate of sphincter-saving surgery was significantly higher in the transanal group (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.003). There were no conversions to open surgery in the transanal group, compared to 2 cases in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.246). The percentage of major complications was similar, including the rate of anastomotic leakage (10% transanal vs. 19% laparoscopic, p = 0.835). In our experience, higher percentages of sphincter-saving procedures and lower conversion rates are potential benefits of using the transanal approach in a complex surgical setting population of obese patients with mid-low rectal tumors when compared to laparoscopic.

Comparing perioperative and oncological outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analysis of the results of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and laparoscopic TME (laTME) regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes have been conducted. Due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies in the included literature, the conclusions are unreliable. This study included RCTs and prospective studies for analysis to obtain more reliable conclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted up to June 2023. To assess the quality, the Cochrane quality assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were then analyzed. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies, comprising 5056 patients, were included in the analysis, of which 6 were RCTs and 16 were prospective studies. The conversion rate in the taTME group was significantly lower than that in the laTME group (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.22, P < 0.01), and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was longer (MD 0.99 mm, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32 mm, P < 0.01), with a lower rate of positive CRM involvement (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, anastomotic leakage, uroschesis, obstruction, secondary operation, hospital stay, urethral injury, readmission, mortality rate within 30 days, mesorectal resection quality, number of harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, local recurrence, and distance recurrence (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, which is based on RCTs and prospective studies, taTME appears to have an advantage over laTME in terms of conversion rate and CRM involvement.

Impact of trans-anal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision on the surgical and pathologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: - 0.97, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: single center study on risk factors for major complications

Purpose

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) as a novel surgical approach for mid and low rectal cancer has gained significant research interest in recent years. The main objective of this study is to identify the risk factors associated with major complications after TaTME and evaluate the perioperative clinical outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer who underwent TaTME surgery and were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University from January 2018 to May 2023. Univariate and multivariate regression methods were employed to analyze the risk factors influencing the occurrence of major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V).

Results

This study included a total of 179 eligible cases, with no perioperative deaths. The overall incidence of early complications was 25.1%, with a rate of 10.1% for mild complications and 15.0% for major complications. The postoperative anastomotic leakage rate within 30 days was 6.7%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that male (P=0.030), pathological T ≥ 3 (P=0.018) and manual anastomosis (P=0.009) were independent risk factors for the development of major complications after surgery.

Conclusion

In this study, the incidence of early complications and anastomotic leakage rate in TaTME were both relatively low. Male, pathological T stage ≥ 3 and manual anastomosis were independent risk factors for the occurrence of major complications in a cohort of patients with mid and low rectal cancer undergoing TaTME.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a technique where rectal dissection is begun transanally in a "bottom-up" fashion. This technique facilitates dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and allows the establishment of the distal margin for rectal cancer. TaTME has proven its utility in facilitating low rectal dissection with significantly lower conversion rates and acceptable perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. However, taTME remains a challenging technique to learn and adopt. This article describes the technique, indications, and outcomes of taTME in rectal cancer during the last decade.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

Background

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.

Methods

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).

Results

There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I²⁼84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I²⁼48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I²⁼0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I²⁼25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I²⁼31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I²⁼16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I²⁼7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I²⁼1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I²⁼0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I²⁼0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I²⁼0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I²⁼39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I²⁼0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I²⁼0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I²⁼0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I²⁼19.0%, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Primary Colorectal Cancer

Over the last few decades, the colorectal surgery world has seen a paradigm shift in the care of patients. The introduction of minimally invasive techniques led to the development of procedures resulting in reduced patient morbidity and hospital stay. The vetting process of minimally invasive colorectal surgery involved rigorous studies to ensure that oncologic outcomes were not being compromised. In this chapter, we discuss the most relevant randomized controlled trials that support the practice of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The multimodal treatment of rectal cancer has developed rapidly, resulting in improved survival and decreased morbidity and mortality. In this review, we also present the latest evidence behind the multidisciplinary approach to rectal cancer.

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.

Transanal total mesorectal excision after incomplete endoscopic submucosal dissection for early-stage low rectal cancer: A small case series

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal cancer is challenging but is gradually being performed worldwide. It is less invasive than surgical resection and can be performed on lesions in which malignancy cannot be diagnosed. In low rectal cancers, changes such as scarring after ESD may make it challenging to preserve the anus when additional surgical resection is required. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a novel surgical technique involving transanal endoscopic manipulation. It is useful for lesions in the deep pelvis near the anus. Herein, we report six cases of TaTME after ESD for early-stage low rectal cancer that resulted in incomplete resection. As a representative case, a 77-year-old female was referred to our hospital, and colonoscopy revealed low rectal cancer. ESD was performed, and the pathological diagnosis was an invasion of the submucosal layer and microscopic lymphovascular invasion. We performed an additional laparoscopic low anterior resection with TaTME. Lymph node metastasis was observed, and the final diagnosis was pT1b, pN1a, pStage IIIa, and R0. In other cases, the anus can also be preserved, and the distal margin can be secured. TaTME enabled anal preservation without being affected by the ESD scars. It is considered useful for additional resection after ESD of low rectal cancer.

•

Additional resection after ESD for low rectal cancer is difficult.

•

TaTME has become an attractive surgical approach to achieve an accurate DRM.

•

TaTME has made it possible to secure the DRM, even after ESD for low rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision combined with intersphincteric resection has similar long-term oncological outcomes to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) or intersphincteric resection (ISR) has recently proven to be a valid and safe surgical procedure for low rectal cancer. However, studies focusing on the combination of these two technologies are limited. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative results, long-term oncologic outcomes, and anorectal functions of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing taTME combined with ISR, by comparing with those of patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (laAPR).

Methods

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 200 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laAPR (n = 100) or taTME combined with ISR (n = 100) between September 2013 and November 2019 were included. Patient demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, oncological outcomes, and anal functional results were analysed.

Results

Patients in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group had less intraoperative blood loss (79.6 ± 72.6 vs 107.3 ± 65.1 mL, P = 0.005) and a lower rate of post-operative complications (22.0% vs 44.0%, P < 0.001) than those in the laAPR group. The overall local recurrence rates were 7.0% in both groups within 3 years after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 86.3% in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group and 75.1% in the laAPR group (P = 0.056), while the 3-year overall survival rates were 96.7% and 94.2%, respectively (P = 0.319). There were 39 patients (45.3%) in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group who developed major low anterior resection syndrome, whereas 61 patients (70.9%) had good post-operative anal function (Wexner incontinence score ≤ 10).

Conclusion

We found similar long-term oncological outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laAPR and those undergoing taTME combined with ISR. Patients receiving taTME combined with ISR had acceptable post-operative anorectal function.

Three-year outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision versus standard laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Since transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was introduced, it has become an important topic in rectal cancer treatment. Many previous studies reported positive relevant short-term results, histopathological results, and associated complications. Recently, concerns regarding the oncological safety of taTME have been raised due to reports showing high local recurrences (LR) rates. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes between taTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME) for mid-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients who underwent taTME were matched with 208 patients treated by laTME. The primary endpoint was 3-year LR rate; secondary endpoints in this matched-cohort study included the perioperative outcomes and histopathological outcomes.

RESULTS

taTME was associated with lower permanent ostomy rate (1% vs 13.5%) and lower conversion rate (0% vs 3.4%) compared to laTME. A similar quality of resected specimens was detected for each group. In both groups, the local recurrence rate was 3.8%. Within 3 years after surgery, the disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 78.8% in the taTME group and 76.9% in the laTME group (P = 0.640), while the overall survival (OS) rates were 93.3% in the taTME group and 89.9% in the laTME group (P = 0.327).

CONCLUSION

No significant differences regarding 3-year local recurrence rate (3.8%) were observed in the taTME group compared to laTME group.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.

METHODS

We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.

RESULTS

This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

Structured training curriculums for transanal total mesorectal excision in China: refinement is needed

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an alternative for mid-low rectal cancer. In China, this procedure has been performed in high-volume centers with structured training curriculums. The efficacy of the TaTME structured training curriculums in China is still unclear. This multicenter study aimed to explore the effectiveness of the structured training curriculums in China.

METHODS

Seven high-volume centers in China participated in this study. The first 25 patients who underwent TaTME in each center were enrolled. In the cohort, patients were divided into 3 groups. The first 5 procedures (group 1) were performed under proctoring according to the requirement of structured training curriculums. The latter 20 cases without proctoring were split into 2 groups (10 cases in each group, groups 2 and 3) according to the order of operation date. The baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and pathological outcomes were compared between groups 1 and 2, as well as between groups 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL) occurred in 18.6% of the patients in group 2 compared with 5.7% in group 1 (P1=0.08) and 5.0% in group 3 (P2=0.04). Seven (11.3%) patients in group 2 developed defecation disorders whereas no patients had this complication in group 3 (P2=0.02). Compared with group 2, the operative time was shorter (235 vs. 223 min, P2=0.40), while the rates of intraoperative complications (15.7% vs. 5.7%, P2=0.10), postoperative complications (31.3% vs. 25.7%, P2=0.06), AL (20.0% vs. 8.6%, P2=0.04), and positive distal resection margin (DRM) (7.5% vs. 2.9%, P2=0.27) were lower in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of the structured training curriculums was acceptable but needed further improvement. The prevalence of anastomosis-related complications and the quality control of specimens are still not optimal, and measures for refinement (for example, more cases under proctoring) are needed in the curriculums.

Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision in Male Patients with Low Tumor Location after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Background. Since Sylla and Lacy successfully reported the transanal total mesorectal excision in 2010, taTME was considered to have the potential to overcome some problematic laparoscopic cases in male, low advanced rectal cancer. However, the evidence is still lacking. This study compared the short and long outcomes of taTME with laTME in these “challenging” patients to explore the advantages of taTME among the patients. Method. After propensity score matching analysis, 106 patients were included in each group from 325 patients who met the including standard. Statistical analysis was used to compare the differences of perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, and survival results between taTME and laTME groups. Results. The mean time of pelvic operation in the taTME group was significantly shorter than in the laTME group ( $62.2\pm 14.2$ mins vs $81.1\pm 18.9$ mins, $P=0.003$ ). The complication incidence rate and the rate of protective loop ileostomy in the taTME group were significantly lower than those in the laTME group (19.8% vs 38.7%, $P=0.003$ and 70.8% vs 92.5%, $P<0.001$ ). In long-term result, there was no significant difference between the two groups for 3-year OS (87.3% vs 85.4%, $P=0.86$ ) or 3-year DFS (74.9% vs 70.1%, $P=0.92$ ). The 2-year cumulative local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% vs 5.8%, $P=0.22$ ). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that taTME might reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, especially of anastomotic leakage in these “challenging” patients. taTME may be considered to have clear advantages for “challenging” patients.

Clinical Status and Future Prospects of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Low rectal cancer has always posed surgical challenges to gastrointestinal surgeons. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to radical resection for low rectal cancer. Compared with conventional laparoscopic TME (laTME), taTME is relevant to the benefits of better vision of the mesorectal plane, feasibility of operating in a narrow pelvis, and exact definition of distal resection margin, which may lead to a higher possibility of free circumferential resection margin, better quality of TME specimen, and lower conversion rate. Although there are concerns about its long-term oncological outcomes and complex learning curve, taTME is a promising alternative for rectal cancer. In this review, we discuss the application status and prospects of taTME.

Controversies and consensus in transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): Is it a valid choice for rectal cancer?

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel approach to radical surgery for low rectal cancer. taTME is associated with the benefits of a higher rate of free distal resection margins (DRM) under direct visualization, better visualization of the mesorectal plane, and the feasibility of overcoming the restriction of the distal pelvis. Thus, it is increasingly used globally. In this review, we investigated whether taTME yields better short- and long-term outcomes than laparoscopic TME.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-term Outcomes of 1283 Cases from a Nationwide Registry in China

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a promising surgical procedure for mid to low rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the short-term outcomes of Chinese patients treated with transanal total mesorectal excision.

DESIGN

This was an observational study using data from an online registry system.

SETTING

Study participants were recruited from 40 different centers across 15 provinces in China.

PATIENTS

Patients with either benign or malignant rectal disease who underwent transanal total mesorectal excision procedure and were registered in the Chinese Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Registry Collaborative from May 2010 to November 2019 were included.

INTERVENTION

Patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the postoperative complications and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 1283 patients, comprising 888 men (69.2%) and 395 women (39.8%) with a median age of 61 (22-92) years and a median BMI of 23.6 (14.5-46.3) kg/m2, were analyzed. Among 40 participating centers, the average number of registered cases was 32.1±34.7, and 12 centers (30%) registered >40 cases in the registry. Among 849 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision, the conversion rate was 0.5% in the abdominal phase and 1.9% in the perineal phase. Three patients reported urethral injury (0.5%). The postoperative complication rate and the anastomotic leakage incidence were 18.4% and 5.8%. The quality of the total mesorectum excision specimens was found to be complete in 81.9% of patients. In addition, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was 2.8%.

LIMITATIONS

The primary limitation of this registry study was the high percentage of missing data (10.8% overall), and, for some of the analyzed variables, up to 35% of the data was missing. Postoperative complications were not monitored after discharge, resulting in a lower morbidity rate than the 30-day morbidity rate reported in other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes of patients who underwent transanal total mesorectal excision procedures in China were acceptable. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B414.

EXCISIN TOTAL DEL MESORRECTO POR VA TRANSANAL RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DE CASOS DE UN REGISTRO NACIONAL EN CHINA

ANTECEDENTES:La excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal es un procedimiento quirúrgico prometedor para el cáncer de recto medio y bajo.OBJETIVO:Determinar los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes chinos tratados con escisión mesorrectal total transanal.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional con datos de un sistema de registro en línea.AJUSTE:Los participantes del estudio fueron reclutados en 40 centros diferentes en 15 provincias de China.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con enfermedad rectal benigna o maligna que se sometieron a una cirugía de excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal y que se registraron en el Registro Colaborativo de Excisión Total del Mesorrecto por vía Transanal en China desde mayo de 2010 hasta noviembre de 2019.INTERVENCIÓN:Excisión total delmesorrecto por vía transanal.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Complicaciones postoperatorias y resultados patológicos.RESULTADOS:Fueron analizados un total de 1.283 pacientes, que comprendían 888 hombres (69,2%) y 395 mujeres (39,8%) con una mediana de edad de 61 (22-92) años y una mediana de índice de masa corporal de 23,6 (14,5-46,3) kg / m2. Entre los 40 centros participantes, el promedio de casos registrados fue de 32,1 ± 34,7, y 12 centros (30%) inscribieron > 40 casos en el registro. Entre 849 pacientes con cáncer de recto que se sometieron a excisión total del mesorrecto pééor vía transanal asistida por laparoscopia, la tasa de conversión fue del 0,5% en la fase abdominal y del 1,9% en la fase perineal. Tres pacientes refirieron una lesión uretral (0,5%). La tasa de complicaciones posoperatorias y la incidencia de fuga anastomótica fueron del 18,4% y el 5,8%, respectivamente. La calidad de las muestras de excisión total del mesorrecto se evaluó como completa en el 81,9% de los pacientes. Además, la tasa de margen de resección circunferencial positiva fue del 2,8%.LIMITACIONES:La principal limitación del presente estudio de registros fue el alto porcentaje de datos faltantes (10,8% en general), y para algunas de las variables analizadas, faltaba hasta el 35% de los datos. Las complicaciones postoperatorias no fueron verificadas después del alta, lo que resultó en una tasa de morbilidad más baja que la tasa de morbilidad a 30 días informada en otros estudios.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes que se sometieron al procedimiento de excisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal en China fueron aceptables. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B414. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).