Is rectal washout effective for preventing localized recurrence after anterior resection for rectal cancer?

Mueller matrix polarization parameters correlate with local recurrence in patients with stage III colorectal cancer

The peri-tumoural stroma has been explored as a useful source of prognostic information in colorectal cancer. Using Mueller matrix (MM) polarized light microscopy for quantification of unstained histology slides, the current study assesses the prognostic potential of polarimetric characteristics of peri-tumoural collagenous stroma architecture in 38 human stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) patient samples. Specifically, Mueller matrix transformation and polar decomposition parameters were tested for association with 5-year patient local recurrence outcomes. The results show that some of these polarimetric parameters were significantly different (p value < 0.05) for the recurrence versus the no-recurrence patient cohorts (Mann-Whitney U test). MM parameters may thus be prognostically valuable towards improving clinical management/treatment stratification in CRC patients.

The influence of intraoperative rectal washout on local recurrence of colorectal cancer following curative resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of rectal washout in preventing local recurrence of distal colorectal cancer following curative resection.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed after a literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry. The study was reported using PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was incidence of local recurrence of cancer after distal colonic and rectal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

After screening, 8 studies with a total sample size of 6739 patients were identified. At 5-year follow-up, local recurrence in the washout group (WO) was 6.08% compared to 9.48% in the no-washout group (NWO) group (OR 0.63, 95% CI = 0.51-0.78, Chi² = 6.76, df = 7, p = 0.45). The relative risk reduction was 36.9%. To exclude a 36.9% relative risk reduction from 9.48 to 6.08% with a 5% significance level and 80% power a randomized control trial would require a total sample size of 1946 participants distributed equally between the two treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

It is safe to recommend the use of rectal washout for left sided and rectal tumour resections. It is a simple and safe step during colorectal surgery that appears to improve long-term oncological outcomes and was not reported to be associated with any complications.

Effect of rectal washout on local recurrence of rectal cancer in the era of total mesorectal excision: Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Presence of intraluminal viable cancer cells implanting into the anastomosis has been proposed as a potential cause for developing local recurrence in patients undergoing anterior resection for rectal cancer. Rectal washout has been proposed as a method to prevent this from happening. There have been conflicting reports in literature regarding the effect of rectal washout on local recurrence. We aim to look at the role of rectal washout in preventing local recurrence of rectal cancer in patients undergoing total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review of studies evaluating the role of rectal washout on rectal cancer local recurrence was performed using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE and non-English language literature search using CiNii (Japanese) and CNKI (Chinese). Inclusion criteria were use of TME, comparison of rectal washout with no washout, and evaluation of local recurrence as outcome.

RESULTS

Four studies were identified according to inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed a protective effect of rectal washout on local recurrence (OR 0.45 95% CI 0.45-0.75). However, one of the studies included had more than 90% weightage. Excluding this study from analysis showed no difference on local recurrence with rectal washout (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.37-2.36).

CONCLUSION

The effect of rectal washout on rectal cancer local recurrence in patients who undergo TME is questionable and needs to be evaluated further by prospective studies.

Is Intraluminal Washout Necessary for Patients with Sigmoid Colon Cancer to Eliminate Exfoliated Cancer Cells as in Patients with Rectal Cancer? A Pilot Study at a Single Institute

Objectives:

Rectal stump washout has been widely performed to prevent the implantation of exfoliated cancer cells (ECCs) in patients with rectal cancer. However, it remains unclear whether intraluminal washout before transection is required in patients with sigmoid colon cancer. Therefore, this pilot study was conducted to elucidate the necessity of intraluminal washout for sigmoid colon cancer patients in comparison with rectal cancer patients by cytological assessments.

Methods:

A total of 16 patients with sigmoid colon cancer and 24 patients with rectal cancer who underwent sigmoidectomy or anterior resection with anastomosis using double-stapling technique were enrolled. A transanal washout sample was collected before washout and after irrigation with 500 and 1,000 mL of saline. Cytological assessments were conducted according to the Papanicolaou classification, and class IV and V cells were defined as malignant.

Results:

Before washout, exfoliated cancer cells were found in 15 of 24 (62.5%) patients with rectal cancer and in 1 of 16 (6.2%) patients with sigmoid colon cancer (p < 0.001). Distal-free margin from the tumor was significantly shorter in patients with cancer cells (p = 0.002), and the length of the distal-free margin was significantly associated with the tumor location. After irrigation with 500 and 1,000 mL of saline, no cancer cell was found in all patients with sigmoid colon cancer, whereas ECCs were still found in five patients with rectal cancer (20.8%).

Conclusions:

Intraluminal washout with 1,000 mL may be sufficient for sigmoid colon cancer patients with longer distal-free margin. A large-scale, randomized controlled study is necessary to confirm these results.

The effect of rectal washout on local recurrence following rectal cancer surgery

Introduction Local recurrence after surgery for rectal cancer is associated with significant morbidity and debilitating symptoms. Intraoperative rectal washout has been linked to a reduction in local recurrence but there is no conclusive evidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether performing rectal washout had any effect on the incidence of local recurrence in patients undergoing anterior resection for rectal cancer in the context of the current surgical management. Methods A total of 395 consecutive patients who underwent anterior resection with or without rectal washout for rectal cancer between January 2003 and July 2009 at a high volume single institution were analysed retrospectively. A standardised process for performing washout was used and all patients had standardised surgery in the form of total mesorectal excision. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy was used on a selected basis. Patients were followed up for five years and local recurrence rates were compared in the two groups. Results Of the 395 patients, 297 had rectal washout and 98 did not. Both groups were well matched with regard to various important clinical, operative and histopathological characteristics. Overall, the local recurrence rate was 5.3%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of local recurrence between the washout group (5.7%) and the no washout group (4.1%). Conclusions Among our cohort of patients, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of local recurrence after anterior resection with or without rectal washout. This suggests that other factors are more significant in the development of local recurrence.

The importance of rectal washout for the oncological outcome after Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer: analysis of population-based data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

During rectal cancer surgery the bowel may contain viable, exfoliated cancer cells, a potential source for local recurrence (LR). The amount and viability of these cells can be reduced using intraoperative rectal washout, a procedure that reduces the LR risk after anterior resection. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of washout on oncological outcome when performed in Hartmann's procedure (HP) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A national cohort study on data for patients registered from 1995 to 2007 in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry was carried out. The final analysis included patients belonging to TNM stages I-III who had undergone R0 HP with a registered 5-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 patients were analysed (686 washout and 502 no washout). No differences were detected between the washout group and the no washout group concerning rates of LR [7% (49/686) vs. 10% (49/502); p = 0.13], distant metastasis (DM) [17% (119/686) vs. 18% (93/502); p = 0.65], and overall recurrence (OAR) [21% (145/686) vs. 24% (120/502); p = 0.29]. For both groups, the 5-year cancer-specific survival was below 50%. In multivariate analysis, washout neither decreased the risk of LR, DM, or OAR nor increased overall or the cancer-specific 5-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcome did not improve when washout was performed in HP for rectal cancer.

Benefit of rectal washout for anterior resection and left sided resections

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of rectal wash out in preventing local recurrence for patients who undergo anterior resection for recto-sigmoid cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A best evidence topic was constructed according to a structured protocol. Medline 1948-2015 and EMBASE 1980 to 2015 using the OVID interface: ( Rectal) AND (Washout) AND (Anterior Resection). In addition, the reference lists of the relevant papers were searched.

OUTCOMES

Eight papers among the 17 relevant articles were identified as representing the best evidence including 3 prospective non-randomized studies, 1 retrospective non randomized study and 4 meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of current evidence, rectal washout does not stop local recurrence of cancer after anterior resection or left sided colonic resection, but it may reduce the rate of local recurrence. A randomised controlled trial to address this issue would formally answer this question.

Reasonable application of rectal washout in surgery for rectal cancer: Influence on prognosis and recurrence

The growth of residual tumor cells may cause postoperative colorectal anastomotic recurrence, which mainly exists in the intestine; however, rectal washout can significantly reduce the number of free tumor cells in the intestinal cavity and decrease the local recurrence rate. Clinical application of rectal washout has been tried in operation, but the effect remains controversial. This paper mainly introduces the method of rectal washout, washout fluid type, amount of washout fluid, relation of rectal washout with local recurrence, with emphasis on the influence of reasonable application of rectal washout on prognosis and recurrence of rectal cancer after surgery.

Intra-operative rectal washout with saline solution can effectively prevent anastomotic recurrence: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rectal washout with saline solution may theoretically prevent anastomotic recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer, although exact clinical effects have not yet been determined. In order to derive a more precise estimation of the relationship, the present meta-analysis was performed.

METHOD

Relevant studies were identified by a search of Medline, Embase and Google Website with no restrictions to September 1, 2013, and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

5 trials (642 participants) were included to assess the association between rectal washout with saline solution and anastomotic recurrence. The rate of anastomotic recurrence (AR) was 6.23% (40/642), with the pooled OR derived from the five studies being 0.32 (95 % CI=0.15-0.70, P=0.004). The pooled OR derived from the TME and radical resection subgroups were 0.72 (95%CI=0.16-3.12, P=0.66) and 0.51 (95%CI=0.13-1.96, P=0.32), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Results from this analysis show that intra-operative rectal washout with mere saline solution largely reduces the risk of anastomotic recurrences in patients with resectable rectal cancer.

Association between irrigation fluids, washout volumes and risk of local recurrence of anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 427 cases and 492 controls

BACKGROUND

Rectal washout can prevent local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Few studies have focused particularly on the association between irrigation fluids volume or agents and the risk of local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between irrigation fluids types, volumes of rectal washout and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies were identified by a search of Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register, Wanfang databases and Google Website from their inception until October 18,2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting the association between rectal washout types and volumes and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible studies used rectal washout. Control groups were defined as no washout.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Random-effects model were used to obtain summary estimates of RR and 95% CI, with Stata version 11 and RevMan 5.2.5 softwares used. The quality of report was appraised in reference to the MINORS item.

RESULTS

Of the 919 rectal cancer patients in 8 included studies, a total of 61(6.64%) cases of local recurrence were reported, with a pooled RR 0.51 (95%CI = 0.28-0.92, P = 0.03). The RRs 0.37 and 0.39 in normal saline and washout volume (≥ 1500 ml normal saline) subgroup, respectively, indicated that rectal washout with normal saline, or ≥ 1500 ml in volume could significantly reduce local recurrence (LR) rate (95% CI = 0.17-0.79, P = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.18-0.87, P = 0.02) after anterior resection for cancer.

LIMITATION

The included studies were non-randomized observational studies, with diversity of study designs.

CONCLUSION

Rectal washout with normal saline alone can reduce the risk of local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer, and 1.5 liters rectal washout in volume is recommended.

Association between irrigation fluids, washout volumes and risk of local recurrence of anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 427 cases and 492 controls

BACKGROUND

Rectal washout can prevent local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Few studies have focused particularly on the association between irrigation fluids volume or agents and the risk of local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between irrigation fluids types, volumes of rectal washout and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies were identified by a search of Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register, Wanfang databases and Google Website from their inception until October 18,2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting the association between rectal washout types and volumes and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible studies used rectal washout. Control groups were defined as no washout.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Random-effects model were used to obtain summary estimates of RR and 95% CI, with Stata version 11 and RevMan 5.2.5 softwares used. The quality of report was appraised in reference to the MINORS item.

RESULTS

Of the 919 rectal cancer patients in 8 included studies, a total of 61(6.64%) cases of local recurrence were reported, with a pooled RR 0.51 (95%CI = 0.28-0.92, P = 0.03). The RRs 0.37 and 0.39 in normal saline and washout volume (≥ 1500 ml normal saline) subgroup, respectively, indicated that rectal washout with normal saline, or ≥ 1500 ml in volume could significantly reduce local recurrence (LR) rate (95% CI = 0.17-0.79, P = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.18-0.87, P = 0.02) after anterior resection for cancer.

LIMITATION

The included studies were non-randomized observational studies, with diversity of study designs.

CONCLUSION

Rectal washout with normal saline alone can reduce the risk of local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer, and 1.5 liters rectal washout in volume is recommended.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of rectal washout on risk of local recurrence for cancer

BACKGROUND

It has been shown that intraluminal washout (WO) can prevent local recurrence (LR) of rectal cancer. This meta-analysis was to evaluate the association of rectal WO and the risk of LR after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The relevant studies were identified by a search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register with no restrictions on October 18, 2013, and these studies were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in fixed effects model.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included in our study, yielding a total of 5519 patients, and pooled ORs for overall LR in corresponding subgroups were calculated. Rectal WO was associated with a lower risk for LR (240/4176, 5.75% versus 9.75%, 131/1343, OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.42-0.68, and P < 0.00001) in patients with anterior resection, having total mesorectal excisions (234/3942, 5.93% versus 9.34%, 97/1039, OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46-0.75, and P < 0.00001), and after radical resection (RR; 122/2665, 4.99% versus 8.90%, 74/831, OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78, and P = 0.0005), with an overall LR rate of 6.72% (371/5519). But, the stability of RRs is not high in the total mesorectal excisions or RR subgroup by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of rectal WO decreases risks of LR in patients after anterior resection of cancer.

Intraoperative rectal washout in rectal cancer surgery: a survey of current practice in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Due to concerns about implantation of malignant cells during surgery for rectal cancer, traditionally, intraoperative rectal washout (IORW) has been performed to prevent local recurrence. But with the advent of laparoscopic surgery, many surgeons have abandoned this practice. The aim of this study was to assess current practice among colorectal surgeons in the UK.

METHODS

A 10-item questionnaire was sent by email to 452 consultant surgeons, who were members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland, and had previously agreed to participate in research projects.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 149 responders (n = 149, 33.0%) was 49.2 years. The mean number of years in independent practice was 12.1, and the mean number of rectal cancer cases performed per year was 20.3 and 20.6, in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively. 74.3% of the responders believed that there is an advantage in performing IORWs in rectal cancer resections. Of the 71.8% of all responders who performed laparoscopic rectal cancer resections, 54.8% routinely performed IORWs during laparoscopic resections. However, 87.2% of all responders performed IORWs in open resections for rectal cancer, and 79.2% had routinely performed IORWs before the advent of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Most colorectal surgeons believe that there is an advantage in performing IORWs. Although, most surgeons would routinely perform IORWs in open resections, they do not routinely perform these in laparoscopic resections.

Evaluation of the presence of intraluminal cancer cells following rectal washout in rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The presence of intraluminal tumour cells in colorectal cancer is known, as is their ability to implant in colorectal anastomoses, causing perianastomotic tumour growth. There is no consensus as to the volume and agent to use for rectal washout. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of our current routine for rectal washout in eliminating intraluminal tumour cells.

METHODS

Sixty consecutive patients undergoing low anterior resection or low Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer at our unit were included. After the pelvic dissection was completed, the bowel was cross-clamped distal to the tumour and the prewashout sample (no. 1), was obtained by instilling 50 ml of saline and collecting the return fluid. A rectal washout followed using 500 ml of sterile water, 2 × 500 ml of 70 % ethanol and 500 ml of sterile water (sample no. 2-4) and the postwashout sample (no. 5) was obtained by using 50 ml of saline. The samples were examined and categorized as non-malignant or malignant at the Department of Pathology. The usual pathology report information was also assessed.

RESULTS

In 33 of the 60 patients, cancer cells were identified in the prewashout sample. The rectal washout eliminated intraluminal cancer cells in 30 of the 33 patients. All of the remaining 3 had a higher blood loss (p = 0.026) and a tendency towards more polypoidal tumours (p = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

A rectal washout volume larger than 2,000 ml might be necessary to eliminate all intraluminal tumour cells in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

The effect of intraoperative rectal washout on local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implantation of exfoliated cancer cells has been suggested as a possible mechanism of local recurrence at the site of colorectal anastomosis. Intraoperative rectal washout has been suggested to eliminate free cancer cells; however, there is no conclusive evidence of a beneficial effect of intraoperative rectal washout on local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies published through February 2012 evaluating the impact of intraoperative rectal washout for local recurrence or positive cytology from donuts wash were identified by an electronic literature search. A meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models to compute risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 5,395 patients. Eight studies evaluated overall local recurrence, including anastomotic recurrence, and five of the eight studies evaluated anastomotic recurrence separately. Two studies evaluated positive cytology from donuts wash. Local recurrence rate was 5.79% in the washout group and 10.05% in the no washout group-a difference that was statistically significant (RR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.46-0.71; P < 0.00001). Rectal washout significantly reduced the risk of anastomotic recurrence (RR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.12-0.71; P = 0.007). No influence of rectal washout was observed on positive cytology from donuts wash.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results of this meta-analysis, it may be justified to recommend intraoperative rectal washout to prevent local recurrence in rectal cancer surgery.

Rectal washout and local recurrence in rectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The effectiveness of rectal washout was compared with no washout for the prevention of local recurrence after anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, OVID Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Five nonrandomized studies including a total of 5012 patients were identified. Meta-analysis suggested that rectal washout significantly reduced the local recurrence rate (P < 0.0001; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). It was also significantly lower after washout in patients having radical resection only (P = 0.0004; OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.76), patients treated by a curative resection (P < 0.0001; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.42-0.72) and those undergoing preoperative radiotherapy (P = 0.04; OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the limitations of the design of the included studies the meta-analysis showed that rectal washout is associated with reduced local recurrence and therefore should be routine during anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Superiority of laparoscopic rectal surgery: Towards a new era

While laparoscopic colon surgery has been established to some degree over this decade, laparoscopic rectal surgery is not standard yet because of the difficulty of making a clear surgical field, the lack of precise anatomy of the pelvis, immature procedures of rectal transaction and so on. On the other hand, maintaining a clear surgical field via the magnified laparoscopy may allow easier mobilization of the rectum as far as the levetor muscle level and may result less blood loss and less invasiveness. However, some unique techniques to keep a clear surgical field and knowledge about anatomy of the pelvis are required to achieve the above superior operative outcomes. This review article discusses how to keep a clear operative field, removing normally existing abdominal structures, and how to transact the rectum and restore the discontinuity based on anatomical investigations. According to this review, laparoscopic rectal surgery will become a powerful modality to accomplish a more precise procedure which has been technically impossible so far, actually entering a new era.

Can radiotherapy alone be effective for treating anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer? When the patient decides?

Among pelvic recurrences of rectal cancer following surgical resection, anastomotic recurrences are relatively rare; the literature reports an incidence between 2.4% and 12% of all patients who underwent colorectal anastomosis. The authors report the case of a patient already treated for an early rectal cancer who 1 year after surgery developed a 2 cm recurrence at the colorectal anastomosis. As he refused reoperation, he underwent radiation therapy only (54 Gy) with complete remission. After 8 years of follow-up, the patient is free of any further distant or local recurrence. The authors did not find, to the best of their knowledge, in the literature any similar case of a patient with anastomotic rectal recurrence who has been positively treated by radiotherapy only. The authors focus on its diagnostic and therapeutic problems: although surgical reresection is undoubtedly the best therapeutic option, in the case reported here, radiotherapy alone proved effective.

The impact of the introduction of total mesorectal excision on local recurrence rate and survival in rectal cancer: long-term results

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) on local recurrence rate and survival in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 171 consecutive patients underwent anterior or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer. When the TME technique was introduced, the clinical setting, including the surgeons, remained the same. Group 1 (1993-95, n =53) underwent conventional surgery and group 2 (1995-2001, n = 118) underwent TME. All patients were followed for 7 years or until death.

RESULTS

Between the two groups, no statistically significant differences were present with regards to patient-, treatment-, or tumor-related characteristics apart from the time point of radiotherapy. The total local recurrence rates were 11 of 53 (20.8%) in group 1 and 7 of 118 (5.9%) in group 2, and the rates of isolated local recurrences were 6 of 53 (11.3%) in group 1 and 2 of 118 (1.7%) in group 2. Both differences were highly statistically significant. The disease-free survival in groups 1 and 2 was 60.4 and 65.3% at 5 years, and 58.5 and 65.3% at 7 years, respectively. Excluding patients with synchronous or metachronous distant metastasis from the analysis, both the disease-free survival and the cancer-specific survival were statistically significantly better in group 2 than in group 1. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was detected regarding the overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of TME led to an impressive reduction of the local recurrence rate. Survival is mainly determined by the occurrence of distant metastasis, but TME seems to improve survival in patients without systemic disease.

Regional differences in local recurrence rates after rectal cancer surgery

AIM

To analyse a substantial regional difference in local failure rate after rectal cancer surgery focusing on management.

METHOD

National, population-based, prospective registry data were used, including comprehensive 5-year follow up of 3783 patients operated on in the period 1998-2000. Local recurrence rates were compared using crude rate, Kaplan-Meier estimates and competing risk methodology. Resected patients (651 regional and 3132 national) were analysed and subgroup comparisons of management were performed.

RESULTS

The crude local recurrence rate was 13.7% in the regional cohort and 7.1% in the national cohort. The absolute difference of 6.6% may partly be explained by systematic errors of underreporting (≤ 1.4%), differences in patient populations and indications for surgery. A significant difference in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (explaining ≤ 1.0%) and some aspects of surgical strategy were also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that some of the difference in the registered incidence of local recurrence between the regional and the national cohorts remains unexplained and may depend on surgical technique in terms of lack of radicality in removing tumour tissue.

Risk factors of rectal cancer local recurrence: population-based survey and validation of the Swedish rectal cancer registry

AIM

Despite advances in rectal cancer treatment, local recurrence (LR) remains a significant problem. To select high-risk patients for different treatment options aimed at reducing LR, it is essential to identify LR risk factors.

METHOD

Local recurrence and survival rates of 4153 patients registered 1995-1997 in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry were analysed. LR risk factors were analysed by multivariate methods. For LR patients the registry was validated and additional data retrieved.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 45% and 62% respectively. LR was registered in 326 (8%) patients. After R0-resections for tumours in TNM stages I-III, LR developed in 10% of tumours at 0-5 cm, 8% at 6-10 cm and 6% at 11-15 cm above the anal verge. Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) reduced the LR rate irrespective of height [0-5 cm: OR 0.50 (0.30-0.83), 6-10 cm: OR 0.42 (0.25-0.71), and 11-15 cm: OR 0.29 (0.13-0.64)]. Patients without preoperative RT had significantly higher LR risk after rectal perforation [OR 2.50 (1.48-4.24)], and almost significantly decreased LR risk when rectal washout was performed [OR 0.65 (0.43-1.00)]. Preoperative RT prolonged time to LR but did not significantly influence the survival among LR patients. LR was an isolated tumour manifestation in 103 (39%) patients with validated LR.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative RT should be considered for rectal cancer also in the upper third of the rectum. Intraoperative perforation should be avoided, and rectal washout is indicated as valuable. Follow-up for the detection of isolated LR is important. Extended follow up should be considered for patients treated with RT.

Rectal washout and local recurrence of cancer after anterior resection

BACKGROUND

Adenocarcinomas of the rectum shed viable cells, which have the ability to implant. Intraoperative rectal washout decreases the amount and viability of these cells, but there is no conclusive evidence of the effect of rectal washout on local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Data were analysed from a population-based registry of patients who had anterior resection from 1995 to 2002 and were followed for 5 years. Rectal washout was performed at the discretion of the surgeon. National inclusion of patients with rectal cancer and follow-up was near complete (approximately 97 and 98 per cent respectively).

RESULTS

A total of 4677 patients were analysed (3749 who had washout, 851 no washout and 77 with information missing); 52.0 per cent of patients in the washout group and 41.4 per cent in the no-washout group had preoperative radiotherapy (P < 0.001). Local recurrence rates were 6.0 and 10.2 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses produced odds ratios that favoured washout: 0.56 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.43 to 0.72) and 0.61 (0.46 to 0.80) respectively (both P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis restricted to patients who had curative surgery, the odds ratio was 0.59 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.78; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was a more favourable outcome in patients after rectal washout than without.

Oncological outcome after incidental perforation in radical rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

Identification of risk factors of poor oncological outcome in rectal cancer surgery is of utmost importance. This study examines the impact of incidental perforation on the oncological outcome.

METHODS

Using the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry, patients were selected who received major abdominal surgery for rectal cancer between 1995 and 1997 with registered incidental perforation. A control group was also selected for analysis of the oncological outcome after 5-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis was performed. Registry data were validated, and additional data were supplemented from medical records.

RESULTS

After validation and exclusion of non-radically operated patients, 118 patients with incidental perforation and 155 controls in TNM stages I-III were included in the analysis. The rate of local recurrence (LR) [20% (23/118) vs. 8% (12/155) (p = 0.007)] was significantly higher among patients with perforation, whereas the rates of distant metastasis [27% (32/118) vs. 21% (33/155) (p = 0.33)] and overall recurrence (OAR) [35% (41/118) vs. 25% (38/155) (p = 0.087)] were not significantly different between the groups. Overall as well as cancer-specific 5-year survival rates were significantly reduced for the patients with perforation [44 vs. 64% (p = 0.002) and 66 vs. 80% (p = 0.026), respectively]. In the multivariate analysis, perforation was a significant risk factor of increased rates of LR and OAR as well as reduced 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidental perforation in rectal cancer surgery is an important risk factor of poor oncological outcome and should be considered in the discussion concerning postoperative adjuvant treatment as well as the follow-up regime.

Factors influencing local failure in rectal cancer: analysis of 2315 patients from a population-based series

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for local failure in an effort to optimize treatment for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 154 patients with local failure after abdominal resection were identified from a population-based consecutive series of 2315 patients who underwent operations for rectal cancer in the Stockholm region between January 1995 and December 2004. Surgeons trained in total mesorectal excision performed the surgery, and preoperative radiotherapy was given according to defined protocols. Data from the 9 hospitals in the region, prospectively registered in a database, were reviewed with regard to tumor location and stage, radiation therapy, surgical treatment, and follow-up.

RESULTS

In a multivariable analysis, independent risk factors for local failure were distal tumor location and advanced tumor and nodal stage, omission of preoperative radiation, residual disease, and hospitals with lower caseload. Low anterior resection and total mesorectal excision were deployed more often in centers with low failure rates. Discriminators for radiation therapy were patients with male gender, less advanced age, and tumors situated <6 cm from the anal verge.

CONCLUSION

The variability of patient outcome according to local failure depends on tumor stage, nodal stage, and location. Omission of radiation therapy and surgical performance are important additional risk factors to consider when optimizing treatment for rectal cancer.