Long-term oncologic outcomes of transanal TME compared with transabdominal TME for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-term restoration of bowel continuity after rectal cancer resection and the influence of surgical technique: A nationwide cross-sectional study

AIM

Literature on nationwide long-term permanent stoma rates after rectal cancer resection in the minimally invasive era is scarce. The aim of this population-based study was to provide more insight into the permanent stoma rate with interhospital variability (IHV) depending on surgical technique, with pelvic sepsis, unplanned reinterventions and readmissions as secondary outcomes.

METHOD

Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive resection of rectal cancer (lower border below the sigmoid take-off) in 67 Dutch centres in 2016 were included in this cross-sectional cohort study.

RESULTS

Among 2530 patients, 1470 underwent a restorative resection (58%), 356 a Hartmann's procedure (14%, IHV 0%-42%) and 704 an abdominoperineal resection (28%, IHV 3%-60%). Median follow-up was 51 months. The overall permanent stoma rate at last follow-up was 50% (IHV 13%-79%) and the unintentional permanent stoma rate, permanent stoma after a restorative procedure or an unplanned Hartmann's procedure, was 11% (IHV 0%-29%). A total of 2165 patients (86%) underwent a minimally invasive resection: 1760 conventional (81%), 170 transanal (8%) and 235 robot-assisted (11%). An anastomosis was created in 59%, 80% and 66%, with corresponding unintentional permanent stoma rates of 12%, 24% and 14% (p = 0.001), respectively. When corrected for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, cTNM, distance to the anorectal junction and neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, the minimally invasive technique was not associated with an unintended permanent stoma (p = 0.071) after a restorative procedure.

CONCLUSION

A remarkable IHV in the permanent stoma rate after rectal cancer resection was found. No beneficial influence of transanal or robot-assisted laparoscopy on the unintentional permanent stoma rate was found, although this might be caused by the surgical learning curve. A reduction in IHV and improving preoperative counselling for decision-making for restorative procedures are required.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological outcomes with transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal (taTME) excision is a method used to assist in the radical removal of the rectum. By adopting the concept of natural orifice surgery, it offers potential benefits over conventional techniques. Early enthusiasm for this strategy led to its rapid and widespread adoption. The imposing of a local moratorium was precipitated by the discovery in Norway of an uncommon multifocal pattern of locoregional recurrence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of local recurrence after taTME for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Conforming to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. This included case series and comparative studies between taTME and preferentially laparoscopic procedures published between 2010 and 2021.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1175 studies retrieved. After removal and screening for quality and relevance, the final analysis contained 40 studies. The local recurrence rate following taTME was 3.4% (95% CI 2.9%-3.9%, I2 = 0%) in 4987 patients with follow-up durations ranging from 0.7 to 5.5 years. Compared with laparoscopic TME, local recurrence was not statistically different for the taTME group (p = 0.076); however, it was less probable (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, I2 = 0%). Systemic recurrence and circumferential resection margin status were secondary outcomes; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the local recurrence for regular laparoscopic and transanal TME surgeries may be comparable, suggesting that taTME can be performed without influencing locoregional oncological outcomes in patients treated at specialized institutions and who have been cautiously selected.

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME).

METHODS

Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404).

CONCLUSION

taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Elderly Rectal Cancer: An Updated Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment of rectal cancer patients of advanced age should be modulated by life expectancy and tolerance. Due to the rapid advance of this field, we aim to conduct an updated review of this topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

The field of elderly rectal cancer has advanced a lot. This review covers all the treatment aspects of elderly rectal cancer, including the prognostic factor, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment. We also provide the future aspect of the management of elderly rectal cancer. The advancement of prognostic factor research, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative treatment has made the care of elderly rectal cancer patients better. The future of these fields should focus on the definition of the elderly and the application of particle therapy.

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.

What Is the Comparative Efficacy of Surgical, Endoscopic, Transanal Resection, and Radiotherapy Modalities in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is a significant healthcare burden, and effective treatment is crucial. This research aims to compare the effectiveness of surgical and endoscopic resection, transanal resection, and radiotherapy.

METHODS

A literature analysis was conducted in order to identify relevant studies, by comparing the different surgical approaches and variables affecting treatment decisions. The findings were analyzed and synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview.

RESULTS

Surgical treatment, particularly TME (total mesorectal excision), proved consistent efficacy in achieving complete tumor resection and improving long-term survival. Endoscopic treatment and transanal resection techniques were promising for early-stage tumors but were associated with higher local recurrence rates. Radiotherapy, especially in combination with chemotherapy, played a crucial role in locally advanced cases, improving local control and reducing recurrence risk. Patient data, tumor characteristics, and healthcare system factors were identified as important factors in treatment modality selection.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment, specifically TME, remains the recommended standard approach for rectal cancer, providing excellent oncological outcomes. Endoscopic treatment and transanal resection techniques can be considered for selected early-stage cases, while radiotherapy is beneficial for locally advanced tumors. Treatment decisions should be personalized based on patient and tumor characteristics, considering the available resources and expertise within the healthcare system.

Long-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark: A prospective multicenter study from the late implementation phase

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during an implementation phase on a national level.

METHOD

This is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME in Denmark. Data from four centers were pooled for simultaneous analysis. Short-term data was available from a prior study, and long-term data regarding recurrences, chemotherapy, and mortality was collected.

RESULTS

From August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (n = 85, 74%) with mid-rectal (n = 88, 77%) tumors. The overall local recurrence rate was 7.8% (n = 9) of which six patients also had systemic recurrence. Mean long-term follow-up was 59.4 months, and median time to local recurrence was 24.9 months. Local recurrences occurred predominantly among initial implementation cases. The overall mortality rate was 13% (n = 15). Of the 17 patients with recurrence, 35% (n = 6) died and developed either solely distant recurrence (n = 2, 12%) or in combination with local recurrence (n = 4, 24%).

CONCLUSION

We found acceptable long-term oncological results after TaTME during the implementation phase in Denmark. There was an accumulation of local recurrences in the early phase of the study which emphasizes the importance of thorough training and proctoring when starting the approach.

Hybrid robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection supported by simultaneous trans-perineal approach for anal gland adenocarcinoma with vaginal invasion: a case report

Hybrid surgery (abdominal robotic approach with a trans-anal approach) has been reported to improve oncological outcomes in cases involving advanced cancer or technical difficulties. A 74-year-old woman presented with anal pain and stenosis. Examination revealed palpable sclerosis on the anterior wall at the anal verge with possible vaginal invasion. A biopsy revealed an adenocarcinoma. We performed a two-team robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection combined with resection of the vagina supported by a simultaneous trans-perineal approach. After rendezvous at the posterior side, the abdominal team cut the posterior wall of the vaginal vault while the perineal team confirmed the surgical margin. Histopathological findings identified the tumour as an anal gland adenocarcinoma (pT4b [vagina] N0M0 pathological stage IIC) with a negative circumferential resection margin. Hybrid surgery combined with resection of the posterior wall of the vagina may be performed safely and is a valuable surgical option for multimodal treatment of anal adenocarcinomas.