Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR.

AIM

To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR.

CONCLUSION

MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative

BACKGROUND

Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration (PE), but is undefined. EPS outcome reporting and descriptors of radicality of PE are inconsistent; therefore, the best approaches for prevention are unknown. To facilitate future research into EPS, the aim of this study is to define a measurable core outcome set, core descriptor set and written definition for EPS. Consensus on strategies to mitigate EPS was also explored.

METHOD

Three-stage consensus methodology was used: longlisting with systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient engagement, and Delphi-piloting; shortlisting with two rounds of modified Delphi; and a confirmatory stage using a modified nominal group technique. This included a selection of measurement instruments, and iterative generation of a written EPS definition.

RESULTS

One hundred and three and 119 participants took part in the modified Delphi and consensus meetings, respectively. This encompassed international patient and healthcare professional representation with multidisciplinary input. Seventy statements were longlisted, seven core outcomes (bowel obstruction, enteroperineal fistula, chronic perineal sinus, infected pelvic collection, bowel obstruction, morbidity from reconstruction, re-intervention, and quality of life), and four core descriptors (magnitude of surgery, radiotherapy-induced damage, methods of reconstruction, and changes in volume of pelvic dead space) reached consensus-where applicable, measurement of these outcomes and descriptors was defined. A written definition for EPS was agreed.

CONCLUSIONS

EPS is an area of unmet research and clinical need. This study provides an agreed definition and core data set for EPS to facilitate further research.

Variation in outcome measurement and reporting in studies of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review

AIM

There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful interpretation and valid synthesis of pooled data and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to assess homogeneity in outcome measures in the current pelvic exenteration literature.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched from 1990 to 25 April 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. All reported outcomes were extracted, merged with those of similar meaning and assigned a domain.

RESULTS

Of 4137 abstracts screened, 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2765 outcomes were reported, of which 17% were accompanied by a definition. There were 1157 unique outcomes, merged into 84 standardized outcomes and assigned one of seven domains. The most reported domains were complications (147 studies, 94%), survival (127, 81%) and surgical outcomes (123, 79%). Resection margins were reported in 122 studies (78%): the definition of a clear resection margin was not provided in 45 studies (37%), it was unclear in 11 studies (9%) and not specified beyond microscopically 'clear' or 'negative' in 31 (28%). Measurements of 2, 1, 0.5 mm and any healthy tissue were all used to define R0 margins.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting in the current pelvic exenteration literature, raising concerns about the validity of comparative or collaborative studies between centres and meta-analyses. Coordinated international collaboration is required to define core outcome sets and benchmarks.