Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer

A systematic review of oncosurgical and quality of life outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term morbidity and survival advantage conferred by R0 resection are well established. However, longer-term outcomes are rarely addressed. This systematic review focuses on long-term oncosurgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following PE for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed®, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE® and Embase® databases was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes following PE for LARC or LRRC. Studies with fewer than 20 patients were excluded.

FINDINGS

A total of 25 papers reported outcomes for 5,489 patients. Of these, 4,744 underwent PE for LARC (57.5%) or LRRC (42.5%). R0 resection rates ranged from 23.2% to 98.4% and from 14.9% to 77.8% respectively. The overall morbidity rates were 17.8-87.0%. The median survival ranged from 12.5 to 140.0 months. None of these studies reported functional outcomes and only four studies reported QoL outcomes. Numerous different metrics and timepoints were utilised, with QoL scores frequently returning to baseline by 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that PE is safe, with a good prospect of R0 resection and acceptable mortality rates in selected patients. Morbidity rates remain high, highlighting the importance of shared decision making with patients. Longer-term oncological outcomes as well as QoL and functional outcomes need to be addressed in future studies. Development of a core outcomes set would facilitate better reporting in this complex and challenging patient group.

Pelvic Exenteration in Advanced, Recurrent or Synchronous Cancers-Last Resort or Therapeutic Option?

First described some 80 years ago, pelvic exenteration remain controversial interventions with variable results and ever-changing indications. The previous studies are not homogenous and have different inclusion criteria (different populations and different disease characteristics) and methodologies (including evaluation of results), making it extremely difficult to properly assess the role of pelvic exenteration in cancer treatment. This study aims to describe the indications of pelvic exenterations, the main prognostic factors of oncologic results, and the possible complications of the intervention. Methods: For this purpose, we conducted a retrospective study of 132 patients who underwent various forms of pelvic exenterations in the Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu" in Bucharest, Romania, between 2013 and 2022, collecting sociodemographic data, characteristics of patients, information on the disease treated, data about the surgical procedure, complications, additional cancer treatments, and oncologic results. Results: The study cohort consists of gynecological, colorectal, and urinary bladder malignancies (one hundred twenty-seven patients) and five patients with complex fistulas between pelvic organs. An R0 resection was possible in 76.38% of cases, while on the rest, positive margins on resection specimens were observed. The early morbidity was 40.63% and the mortality was 2.72%. Long-term outcomes included an overall survival of 43.7 months and a median recurrence-free survival of 24.3 months. The most important determinants of OS are completeness of resection, the colorectal origin of tumor, and the presence/absence of lymphovascular invasion. Conclusions: Although still associated with high morbidity rates, pelvic exenterations can deliver important improvements in oncological outcomes in the long-term and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A good selection of patients and an experienced surgical team can facilitate optimal risks/benefits.

A systematic review of the pathological determinants of outcome following resection by pelvic exenteration of locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite multimodal therapy 5-15% of patients who undergo resection for advanced rectal cancer (LARC) will develop local recurrence. Management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) presents a significant therapeutic challenge and even with modern exenterative surgery, 5-year survival rates are poor at 25-50%. High rates of local and systemic recurrence in this cohort are reflective of the likely biological aggressiveness of these tumour types. This review aims to appraise the current literature identifying pathological factors associated with survival and tumour recurrence in patients undergoing exenterative surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Trials database for all studies assessing pathological factors influencing survival following pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC from 2010 to July 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using QUIPS tool.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes for 2864 patients. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. Resection margin status and nodal disease were the most commonly reported factors. A positive resection margin was demonstrated to be a negative prognostic marker in six studies. Involved lymph nodes and lymphovascular invasion also appear to be negative prognostic markers with tumour stage to be of lesser importance. No studies assessed other adverse tumour features that would not otherwise be included in a standard histopathology report.

CONCLUSION

Pathological resection margin status is widely demonstrated to influence disease free and overall survival following pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. With increasing R0 rates, other adverse tumour features must be explored to help elucidate differences in survival and potentially guide tailored oncological treatment.

Elderly Patients Have Better Quality of Life but Worse Survival Following Pelvic Exenteration: A 25-Year Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

To describe quality of life (QOL) and survival outcomes following pelvic exenteration (PE) in old and young patients.

BACKGROUND

PE is a management option for complete resection in locally advanced pelvic cancers. Few studies have examined the impact of age on the outcome in elderly patients following PE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing partial and complete PE between 1994 and 2019. Patients were divided into a younger (< 65 years) or older cohort (≥ 65 years) based on their age. QoL was assessed using the SF-36 and FACT-C questionnaires and survival estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

For 710 patients who underwent PE during the study period, FACT-C total score was significantly better in the elderly during the whole follow-up period of 5 years. Mental component score (SF-36) was significantly better at baseline (p = 0.008) and at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.042), in the elderly group. Median overall survival was 75 months in the younger cohort and 53 months in the older cohort (p = 0.004). In subgroup analysis, older patients with recurrent or primary rectal cancer had a median survival of 37 and 70 months, respectively. Postoperative cardiovascular complications were greater in the elderly cohort (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients had better overall QoL but lower survival that is probably related to cardiovascular complications rather than to cancer as both groups had similar R0 resection rate. Hence, the elderly population should be considered equally for PE.

Evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery- resectional trends and survival outcomes over three decades

OBJECTIVE

To examine the changes in exenterative surgery over three decades analysing oncological outcomes and whether changes in surgical approach have led to improved patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgical technology, perioperative care and pattern of disease recurrence have coincided with an evolutionary change in exenterative surgery.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively maintained databases of pelvic exenteration surgery from 1988 to 2018  at two high volume specialised institutions. The total cohort was divided into three major time points (1988-2004, 2005-2010 and 2011 to 2018) to allow comparative analysis. Primary endpoints were overall survival in primary and recurrent disease at each time point. Secondary endpoints included anastomotic leak, blood transfusion, ileus, wound infection rates and evolution of case complexity. Data were analysed using R with a p < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Six hundred and seventy patients underwent exenterative surgery. In 2011-2018 there was an increase in resection of recurrent malignancy with a continuous increase in GI malignancies resected over each time period(p < 0.001,<0.01) and a reduction in gynaecological malignancy(p < 0.001). A significant increase in sacrectomy, pelvic sidewall resection and ileal conduit reconstruction was observed (p < 0.01,<0.001).In 2005-2010 patients had increased rates of ileus and anastomotic leak(p < 0.05). Patients undergoing resection for primary disease had improved overall survival at time points 1988-2004 and 2011-2018 compared to those with recurrent disease(p = 0.007,<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients with primary versus recurrent disease(p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

There has been a significant improvement in survival in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery from primary disease. Case complexity has increased without significant morbidity.

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.

Pelvic exenterations for primary rectal cancer: Analysis from a 10-year national prospective database

AIM

To identify short-term and oncologic outcomes of pelvic exenterations (PE) for locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LAPRC) in patients included in a national prospective database.

METHODS

Few studies report on PE in patients with LAPRC. For this study, we included PE for LAPRC performed between 2006 and 2017, as available, from the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Association of Surgeons [Asociación Española de Cirujanos (AEC)]. Primary endpoints included procedure-associated complications, 5-year local recurrence (LR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A propensity-matched comparison with patients who underwent non-exenterative surgery for low rectal cancers was performed as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Eight-two patients were included. The mean age was 61.8 ± 11.5 years. More than half of the patients experienced at least one complication. Surgical site infections were the most common complication (abdominal wound 18.3%, perineal closure 19.4%). Thirty-three multivisceral resections were performed, including two hepatectomies and four metastasectomies. The long-term outcomes of the 64 patients operated on before 2013 were assessed. The five-year LR was 15.6%, the distant recurrence rate was 21.9%, and OS was 67.2%, with a mean survival of 43.8 mo. R+ve resection increased LR [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.58, 95%CI: 1.04-30.07, P = 0.04]. The quality of the mesorectum was associated with DFS. Perioperative complications were independent predictors of shorter survival (HR = 3.53, 95%CI: 1.12-10.94, P = 0.03). In the propensity-matched analysis, PE was associated with better quality of the specimen and tended to achieve lower LR with similar OS.

CONCLUSION

PE is an extensive procedure, justified if disease-free margins can be obtained. Further studies should define indications, accreditation policy, and quality of life in LAPRC.

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting.

METHODS

This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.