Do patients requiring a multivisceral resection for rectal cancer have worse oncologic outcomes than patients undergoing only abdominoperineal resection?

Multivisceral resection of advanced colon and rectal cancer: a prospective multicenter observational study with propensity score analysis of the morbidity, mortality, and survival

Objectives

In the surgical treatment of colorectal carcinoma (CRC), 1 in 10 patients has a peritumorous adhesion or tumor infiltration in the adjacent tissue or organs. Accordingly, multivisceral resection (MVR) must be performed in these patients. This prospective multicenter observational study aimed to analyze the possible differences between non-multivisceral resection (nMVR) and MVR in terms of early postoperative and long-term oncological treatment outcomes. We also aimed to determine the factors influencing overall survival.

Methods

The data of 25,321 patients from 364 hospitals who had undergone surgery for CRC (the Union for International Cancer Control stages I-III) during a defined period were evaluated. MVR was defined as (partial) resection of the tumor-bearing organ along with resection of the adherent and adjacent organs or tissues. In addition to the patients' personal, diagnosis (tumor findings), and therapy data, demographic data were also recorded and the early postoperative outcome was determined. Furthermore, the long-term survival of each patient was investigated, and a "matched-pair" analysis was performed.

Results

From 2008 to 2015, the MVR rates were 9.9 % (n=1,551) for colon cancer (colon CA) and 10.6 % (n=1,027) for rectal cancer (rectal CA). CRC was more common in men (colon CA: 53.4 %; rectal CA: 62.0 %) than in women; all MVR groups had high proportions of women (53.6 % vs. 55.2 %; pairs of values in previously mentioned order). Resection of another organ frequently occurred (75.6 % vs. 63.7 %). The MVR group had a high prevalence of intraoperative (5.8 %; 12.1 %) and postoperative surgical complications (30.8 % vs. 36.4 %; each p<0.001). Wound infections (colon CA: 7.1 %) and anastomotic insufficiencies (rectal CA: 8.3 %) frequently occurred after MVR. The morbidity rates of the MVR groups were also determined (43.7 % vs. 47.2 %). The hospital mortality rates were 4.9 % in the colon CA-related MVR group and 3.8 % in the rectal CA-related MVR group and were significantly increased compared with those of the nMVR group (both p<0.001). Results of the matched-pair analysis showed that the morbidity rates in both MVR groups (colon CA: 42.9 % vs. 34.3 %; rectal CA: 46.3 % vs. 37.2 %; each p<0.001) were significantly increased. The hospital lethality rate tended to increase in the colon CA-related MVR group (4.8 % vs. 3.7 %; p=0.084), while it significantly increased in the rectal CA-related MVR group (3.4 % vs. 3.0 %; p=0.005). Moreover, the 5-year (yr) overall survival rates were 53.9 % (nMVR: 69.5 %; p<0.001) in the colon CA group and 56.8 % (nMVR: 69.4 %; p<0.001) in the rectal CA group. Comparison of individual T stages (MVR vs. nMVR) showed no significant differences in the survival outcomes (p<0.05); however, according to the matched-pair analysis, a significant difference was observed in the survival outcomes of those with pT4 colon CA (40.6 % vs. 50.2 %; p=0.017). By contrast, the local recurrence rates after MVR were not significantly different (7.0 % vs. 5.8 %; both p>0.05). The risk factors common to both tumor types were advanced age (>79 yr), pT stage, sex, and morbidity (each hazard ratio: >1; p<0.05).

Conclusions

MVR allows curation by R0 resection with adequate long-term survival. For colon or rectal CA, MVR tended to be associated with reduced 5-year overall survival rates (significant only for pT4 colon CA based on the MPA results), as well as, with a significant increase in morbidity rates in both tumor entities. In the overall data, MVR was associated with significant increases in hospital lethality rates, as indicated by the matched-pair analysis (significant only for rectal CA).

Significance of multivisceral resections in oncologic surgery: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Multivisceral resections (MVR) are often necessary to reach clear resections margins but are associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. Factors associated with favorable oncologic outcomes and elevated morbidity rates are not clearly defined.

AIM

To systematically review the literature on oncologic long-term outcomes and morbidity and mortality in cancer surgery a systematic review of the literature was performed.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for relevant articles (published from 2000 to 2018). Retrieved abstracts were independently screened for relevance and data were extracted from selected studies by two researchers.

RESULTS

Included were 37 studies with 3112 patients receiving MVR for colorectal cancer (1095 for colon cancer, 1357 for rectal cancer, and in 660 patients origin was not specified). The most common resected organs were the small intestine, bladder and reproductive organs. Median postoperative morbidity rate was 37.9% (range: 7% to 76.6%) and median postoperative mortality rate was 1.3% (range: 0% to 10%). The median conversion rate for laparoscopic MVR was 7.9% (range: 4.5% to 33%). The median blood loss was lower after laparoscopic MVR compared to the open approach (60 mL vs 638 mL). Lymph-node harvest after laparoscopic MVR was comparable. Report on survival rates was heterogeneous, but the 5-year overall-survival rate ranged from 36.7% to 90%, being worst in recurrent rectal cancer patients with a median 5-year overall survival of 23%. R0 -resection, primary disease setting and no lymph-node or lymphovascular involvement were the strongest predictors for long-term survival. The presence of true malignant adhesions was not exclusively associated with poorer prognosis.

Included were 16 studies with 1.600 patients receiving MVR for gastric cancer. The rate of morbidity ranged from 11.8% to 59.8%, and the main postoperative complications were pancreatic fistulas and pancreatitis, anastomotic leakage, cardiopulmonary events and post-operative bleedings. Total mortality was between 0% and 13.6% with an R0 -resection achieved in 38.4% to 100% of patients. Patients after R0 resection had 5-year overall survival rates of 24.1% to 37.8%.

CONCLUSION

MVR provides, in a selected subset of patients, the possibility for good long-term results with acceptable morbidity rates. Unlikelihood of achieving R0 -status, lymphovascular- and lymph -node involvement, recurrent disease setting and the presence of metastatic disease should be regarded as relative contraindications for MVR.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism in rectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) following rectal surgery is a significant and preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, yet the true prevalence is not well established. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the available literature and determined its prevalence following rectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review assessed the prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. In addition, we evaluated whether subgroups (open vs. minimally invasive or benign vs. malignant resections) impacted on its prevalence or rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).

RESULT

Thirty-eight studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The aggregate prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery was 1.25% (95% CI 0.86-1.63), with DVT and PE occurring in 0.68% (95% CI 0.48-0.89) and 0.57% (95% CI 0.47-0.68) of patients. VTE following cancer and benign resection was 1.59% (95% CI 0.60-1.23 and 1.5% (95% CI 0.89-2.12) respectively. The prevalence of VTE in patients having minimally invasive resection was lower than those having open surgery [0.58% (16/2770) vs. 2.22% (250/11278); RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86].

CONCLUSION

This review observed that there is sparse evidence on prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. It provides aggregated data and analysis of available literature, showing overall prevalence is low, especially in those having minimally invasive procedures.