Does pathologic response of rectal cancer influence postoperative morbidity after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision?

Does Pathological Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy Influence Postoperative Morbidity in Rectal Cancer after Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision?

PURPOSE

It is still unclear if pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients treated for rectal cancer causes worse postoperative outcomes, especially after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Worse postoperative outcomes might be an argument for an organ preserving watch and wait strategy in fragile patients and patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether patients treated for rectal cancer who had pCR to neoadjuvant therapy develop worse postoperative outcomes after TaTME than patients without complete response.

METHODS

Comparative retrospective analysis (with nearest neighbor matching algorithm) of postoperative outcomes in two groups of patients, with pCR, n = 15 and without pCR (non-pCR), n = 57. All patients were operated on only by one surgical approach, TaTME, for middle and distal rectal tumors. All procedures were performed by one surgical team between 2014 and 2020 at the University Hospital Brno in Czech Republic.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was comparable between the groups (pCR group - 53.8% vs. non-pCR - 38.6%, p = 0.381). Anastomotic leak (AL) was observed in 33.3% of patients with pCR and in 17.5% of patients in the non-pCR group without statistical significance (p = 0.281).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to affect postoperative morbidity in rectal cancer after TaTME. Therefore, in patients with complete response who are not adherent to W&W surveillance, surgical resection can be perform without increased postoperative complications.

Effect of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative complications of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Standard total mesorectal resection has become an important treatment option for locally advanced or high-risk rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. 15-27% of patients can achieve pathological complete response (PCR) after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT). However, the relationship between PCR and postoperative complications remains an important unsolved problem. The objective of this study was to determine whether PCR was associated with the rate of postoperative complications.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was implemented following the recommendations from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched electronic literature by PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Major outcomes of interest included anastomotic leakage, surgical-site infection, reoperation, and any postoperative complications. Other outcomes comprised postoperative hemorrhage, ileus, and mortality.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand two hundred ninety patients in 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that patients with PCR did not have a higher risk of anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.92-1.62, p = 0.17), reoperation (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, p = 0.22), and any postoperative complications (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.91-1.15, p = 0.72) than patients with non-PCR. However, the meta-analysis showed that the PCR group was superior to the non-PCR group in terms of surgical-site infection (9.38% vs. 12.44%OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.98; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

PCR might not be related to the occurrence of postoperative complications in rectal cancer patients following nCRT. In addition, PCR might be associated with a lower risk of surgical-site infection.

Effects of Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy on Postoperative Complications in Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) is an important treatment approach for rectal cancer. The relationship, however, between nRT and postoperative complications is still controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate such concerns.

Methods

The electronic literature from 1983 to 2021 was searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Postoperative complications after nRT were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated by the random-effects model. Statistical analysis was conducted by Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 14.

Results

A total of 23,723 patients from 49 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that nRT increased the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) compared to upfront surgery (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41; p=0.004). Subgroup analysis suggested that both long-course (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40; p=0.02) and short-course radiotherapy (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.02-1.53; p=0.04) increased the incidence of AL. In addition, nRT was the main risk factor for wound infection and pelvic abscess. The pooled data in randomized controlled trials, however, indicated that nRT was not associated with AL (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.82-1.26; p=0.91).

Conclusions

nRT may increase the risk of AL, wound infection, and pelvic abscess compared to upfront surgery among patients with rectal cancer.

Anastomotic leak risk in complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The oncological benefits of achieving a complete pathological response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer are well defined. How a pathological response affects anastomotic healing or leak rates is not clear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare anastomotic leak rates among patients who did and did not achieve a complete pathological response.

METHODS

Three major databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were searched. Predetermined inclusion criteria included prospective and retrospective articles published in English reporting complete pathological response and anastomotic leak rates following total mesorectal excision in ≥ 30 patients with rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision. The primary outcomes measured included complete pathological response and 30-day postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

From a total of 8919 patients with rectal cancer in 7 studies, 4165 fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The majority (> 80%) of patients had clinical stage II or III disease. A defunctioning loop ileostomy was formed in 76.5%. A total of 589 (14.1%) patients achieved a pCR of whom 63 (10.7%) developed an anastomotic leak compared to 272/3576 (7.6%) patients without a pCR (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Patients with complete pathological response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision may be at higher risk of anastomotic leak than incomplete responders. This may need to be taken into account when counseling patients about the relative risks of organ preservation versus anterior resection.

Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus total mesorectal excision: a case-matched study in 110 selected high-risk patients with rectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this comparative study was to report a 10-year experience of an organ preservation strategy by local excision (LE) in selected high-risk patients (aged patients and/or patients with severe comorbidity and/or indication for abdominoperineal excision) versus total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for patients with locally advanced (T3-T4 and/or N+) low and mid rectal cancer with suspicion of complete tumour response (CTR) or near-CTR.

METHOD

Thirty-nine patients with rectal cancer who underwent LE after RCT for suspicion of CTR were matched to 71 patients who underwent TME according to body mass index, gender, tumour location and ypTNM stage. Operative, oncological and functional results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In the LE group, ypT0, ypTis or ypT1N0R0 were noted in 28/39 (72%). Overall morbidity was observed in 10/39 (26%) in LE vs 46/71 in the TME group (65%) (P = 0.001). Severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was noted in 1/39 patients from the LE group (3%) vs 3/71 (4%) from the TME group (P = 1.000). After a mean follow-up of 63 ± 4 months (range 56-70 months), local recurrence was noted in 2/39 (5%) from the LE group vs 2/71 (3%) from the TME group (P = 0.601). Definitive stoma was noted in 2/39 (6%) from the LE group vs 8/71 (12%) from the TME group (P = 0.489). Major low anterior resection syndrome was noted in 5/23 (22%) from LE group vs 11/33 (33%) from the TME group (P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of response prediction after RCT was 72% after LE. In high-risk patients, LE represents a safe alternative to TME with better functional results and the same long-term oncological outcome.

Pathologic complete response is associated with decreased morbidity following rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the relationship between pathologic complete response (pCR) and post-operative complications following rectal cancer resection. The objective of this study was to compare the rates of morbidity among pCR patients and non-pCR patients and to identify factors that predict pCR morbidity in a large national database.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted proctectomy data (2016-18). Patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by proctectomy were included, and divided into pCR and non-pCR groups according to final stage. The groups were compared with Student's t-test, Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the association between pCR status and post-operative morbidity while adjusting for key covariates.

RESULTS

244 pCR and 1656 non-pCR patients were included. pCR patients had higher body mass index (28.1 ± 6.2 vs. 29.1 ± 5.9 kg/m²; p = 0.01) and lower pre-operative stage (T stage, p = 0.03; N stage, p < 0.001). The groups were equivalent with respect to surgical approach, type of surgery, and operative time (p > 0.05). Post-operative complications in pCR patients were less frequent than in non-pCR patients (23.0% vs. 29.3%; p = 0.04). This association was robust to adjustment for confounders in logistic regression, as patients with pCR had decreased odds of post-operative morbidity (OR 0.66, CI [0.43, 0.96], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

pCR is associated with fewer post-operative complications compared to non-pCR, suggesting that pCR is not a marker of severe pelvic fibrosis. This difference may be due to underlying tumor biology, and associated increased technical challenges resecting larger, non-responsive tumors.

Does a transanal drainage tube reduce anastomotic leakage? A matched cohort study in 144 patients undergoing laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of transanal drainage (TD) tube (a Foley catheter) on the anastomotic leak (AL) rate after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer (SSS).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on, all consecutive patients undergoing SSS at our institution between June 2017 and October 2018. All patients had TD for at least 4 days after surgery and constituted the TD group. The patients from TD group were matched to patients who underwent SSS without TD between January 2015 and May 2017 (no-TD group) according to age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, mesorectal excision (total vs partial), and type of anastomosis (stapled vs hand sewn and side-to-end versus end-to-end). The primary endpoint was the AL rate, including both clinical and radiological AL.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients were included. Eighty-nine patients (34%) had a TD tube. After matching, 72 patients were included in each group. Mean TD duration was 3.9 [2.0-5.9] days. No significant differences between groups were observed in the rates of overall AL: 25/72 (35%) (TD) vs 17/72 (22%) (no-TD), (p = 0.14), clinical AL: 13/72 (18%) (TD) vs 7/72 (10%) (no-TD), (p = 0.23), and asymptomatic radiological AL: 12/72 (17%) (TD) vs 9/72 (13%) (no-TD), (p = 0.64). Multivariate analysis showed that male sex (OR 2.92, 95% CI [1.04-8.24]) and preoperative radiochemotherapy (OR 5.66, 95% CI [1.36-23.53]) were associated with AL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case-matched study suggested that a TD tube does not reduce the AL rate after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer.

Population-based study of morbidity risk associated with pathological complete response after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer may induce a pathological complete response (pCR) but increase surgical morbidity due to radiation-induced fibrosis. In this study the association between pCR and postoperative surgical morbidity was investigated.

Methods

Patients in the Netherlands with rectal cancer who underwent nCRT followed by total mesorectal excision between 2009 and 2017 were included. Data were stratified into patients who underwent resection with creation of a primary anastomosis and those who had a permanent stoma procedure. The association between pCR and postoperative morbidity was investigated in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

pCR was observed in 976 (12·2 per cent) of 8003 patients. In 3472 patients who had a primary anastomosis, the presence of pCR was significantly associated with surgical complications (122 of 443 (27·5 per cent) versus 598 of 3029 (19·7 per cent) in those without pCR) and anastomotic leak (35 of 443 (7·9 per cent) versus 173 of 3029 (5·7 per cent) respectively). Multivariable analysis also showed associations between pCR and surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·92) and pCR and anastomotic leak (adjusted OR 1·41, 1·03 to 2·05). Of 4531 patients with a permanent stoma, surgical complications were observed in 120 (22·5 per cent) of 533 patients with a pCR, compared with 798 (20·0 per cent) of 3998 patients with no pCR (adjusted OR 1·17, 0·94 to 1·46).

Conclusion

Patients with a pCR in whom an anastomosis was created were at increased risk of developing an anastomotic leak.

The REAL (REctal Anastomotic Leak) score for prediction of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery is a severe complication associated with poorer oncologic outcome and quality of life. Preoperative assessment of the risk for anastomotic leak is a key component of surgical planning, including the opportunity to create a defunctioning stoma.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the risk factors for anastomotic leak to minimize risk by either not restoring bowel continuity or protecting the anastomosis with a temporary diverting stoma.

METHODS

Potentially relevant studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. This meta-analysis included studies on transabdominal resection for rectal cancer that reported data about anastomotic leak. The risk for anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery was investigated. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were extracted and used to compare anastomotic leak rates. All variables demonstrating a p value < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

Twenty-six centers provided individual data on 9735 patients. Selected preoperative covariates (time before surgery, age, gender, smoking, previous abdominal surgery, BMI, diabetes, ASA, hemoglobin level, TNM classification stage, anastomotic distance) were used as independent factors in a logistic regression model with anastomotic leak as dependent variable. With a threshold value of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve corresponding to 0.0791 in the training set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.585 (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of the model's probability > 0.0791 to identify anastomotic leak were 79.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Accuracy of the threshold value was confirmed in the validation set with 77.8% sensitivity and 35.2% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

We trust that, with further refinement using prospective data, this nomogram based on preoperative risk factors may assist surgeons in decision making. The score is now available online ( http://www.real-score.org ).

Predictors and Risk Factors of Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

Background: Patients with rectal cancer who achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) may have a better prognosis and may be eligible for non-operative management. The aim of this research was to identify variables for predicting pCR in rectal cancer patients after nCRT and to define clinical risk factors for poor outcome after pCR to nCRT and radical resection in rectal cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective review was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2013. Non-metastatic rectal cancer patients who received radical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included in this study. Multivariate analysis of the association between clinicopathological characteristics and pCR was performed, and a logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictors for pCR. A nomogram based on the multivariate logistics regression was built with decision curve analyses to evaluate the clinical usefulness. Results: A total of 6,555 patients were included in this study. The proportion of patients with pCR was 20.5% (n = 1,342). The nomogram based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinical T4 and N2 stages were the most significant independent clinical predictors for not achieving pCR, followed by mucinous adenocarcinoma and positive pre-treatment serum CEA results. The 3-year overall survival rate was 92.4% for those with pCR and 88.2% for those without pCR. Among all the pCR patients, mucinous adenocarcinoma patients had the worst survival, with a 3-year overall survival rate of 67.5%, whereas patients with common adenocarcinoma had an overall survival rate of 93.8% (P < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that histology and clinical N2 stage were independent risk factors. Conclusion: Mucinous adenocarcinoma, positive pre-treatment serum CEA results, and clinical T4 and N2 stages may impart difficulty for patients to achieve pCR. Mucinous adenocarcinoma and clinical N2 stage might be indicative of a prognostically unfavorable biological tumor profile with a greater propensity for local or distant recurrence and decreased survival.

Anastomotic leakage after side-to-end anastomosis for rectal cancer: does leakage location matter?

AIM

To assess outcome according to location of anastomotic leakage (AL) after side-to-end stapler or manual low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

All patients presenting with symptomatic or asymptomatic AL after TME and side-to-end low anastomosis for rectal cancer performed from 2005 to 2014 were identified from our prospective database. CT-scans with contrast enema were reviewed to assess location of AL origin.

RESULTS

Among 279 patients who underwent TME with side-to-end anastomosis from 2005 to 2014, 70 patients presented with AL and were included: 43 (61%) patients with AL on the circular anastomosis (CAL) were compared to 27 (39%) with AL on the transverse stapling line of the colonic stump (TAL). CAL and TAL were associated with similar rates of symptomatic AL (63% versus 48%, respectively; p=0.339), severe postoperative morbidity rate (33% versus 18%; p=0.313), and long-term outcomes, including definitive stoma rate (10 versus 11%; p=0.622), and major low anterior resection syndrome rate (56% vs 57%; p=0.961).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that whatever the location of AL on a side-to-end low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after TME for cancer, both short and long-term outcomes are similar. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic vs open rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence on the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic (LRR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, OpenGrey and ClinicalTrials.gov register for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR for rectal cancer and reporting short-term clinical outcomes. Articles published in English from January 1, 1995 to June, 30 2016 that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements checklist for reporting a systematic review was followed. Random-effect models were used to estimate mean differences and risk ratios. The robustness and heterogeneity of the results were explored by performing sensitivity analyses. The pooled effect was considered significant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Overall, 14 RCTs were included. No differences were found in postoperative mortality (P = 0.19) and morbidity (P = 0.75) rates. The mean operative time was 36.67 min longer (95%CI: 27.22-46.11, P < 0.00001), the mean estimated blood loss was 88.80 ml lower (95%CI: -117.25 to -60.34, P < 0.00001), and the mean incision length was 11.17 cm smaller (95%CI: -13.88 to -8.47, P < 0.00001) for LRR than ORR. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses that focused on the four major RCTs. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.71 d shorter (95%CI: -2.84 to -0.58, P < 0.003) for LRR than ORR. Similarly, bowel recovery (i.e., day of the first bowel movement) was 0.68 d shorter (95%CI: -1.00 to -0.36, P < 0.00001) for LRR. The sensitivity analysis did not confirm a significant difference between LRR and ORR for these latter two parameters. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high.

CONCLUSION

LRR is associated with lesser blood loss, smaller incision length, and longer operative times compared to ORR. No differences are observed for postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Is There Any Reason Not to Perform Standard Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision?

The curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is currently based on chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopy has developed considerably because of obvious clinical benefits such as reduced pain and shorter hospital stay. Recently, several prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up have showed that laparoscopy is noninferior to laparotomy with the same oncologic outcomes in terms of survival and local control rate. However, laparoscopic TME remains a challenging procedure requiring a high level of expertise and a long learning curve to ensure an adequate and safe resection. The only relative contraindication of laparoscopic rectal surgery is T4 rectal cancer extended beyond the plane of TME. In this situation, it is reasonable to consider an open resection to avoid an uncomplete resection. In obese and elderly patients, laparoscopic TME also provides the same benefits as in nonobese and younger patients but may be more difficult to achieve. This review summarizes current knowledge on the place of laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus after laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an analysis of 428 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) is a common complication after colorectal resection but data regarding PPOI risk factors after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is lacking. This study aimed to identify risk factors for PPOI after laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) for cancer.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME for cancer from 2005 to 2014 were identified from our prospective database. PPOI was defined as abdominal distension, nausea, and/or vomiting, requiring a nasogastric tube insertion, during the postoperative period.

RESULTS

Among 428 consecutive patients, 65 patients (15%) presented with POI. In multivariate analysis, male gender (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.3 [1.1-4.5]; p = 0.026, age >70 years (OR: 2.0 [1.1-4.0]; p = 0.037)], conversion to open approach (OR 4.9 [1.5-15.4]; p = 0.007), and intra-abdominal surgical site infection (OR 3.8 [1.9-7.5]; p < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factor for PPOI. PPOI risk was 5% in patients without any risk factor but raised to 11, 28, and 54% in patients with 1, 2, or ≥3 risk factors, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PPOI is observed in 15% of the patients after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. We identified four independent factors for PPOI in multivariate analysis: male, gender, age >70, conversion to open approach, and intra-abdominal surgical site infection, leading to the construction of a simple and pragmatic predictive score. This score might help the surgeon to assess patient at risk of PPOI.

Acute toxicity and surgical complications after preoperative (chemo)radiation therapy for rectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

PURPOSE

Preoperative therapy reduces local recurrences and may facilitate surgery in rectal cancer patients. However, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) this treatment is often withheld due to the perceived risk of excessive side-effects, even though evidence is limited. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of preoperative therapy on acute toxicity and post-operative complications in IBD patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Dutch pathology registry (PALGA) was searched for patients with IBD and rectal cancer treated between January 1991 and May 2010. Histopathology and clinical charts were reviewed to confirm IBD diagnosis and evaluate clinical and pathological characteristics.

RESULTS

Out of 161 patients, 66 received preoperative therapy (41%), including short-course radiation therapy (SC-RT), long course radiation therapy (LC-RT), and chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in 32, 13, and 21 patients respectively. Grade≥3 acute toxicity occurred in 0 patients (0.0%), 1 patient (7.7%), and 6 patients (28.6%) respectively (p=0.004). Systemic corticosteroids were used by 10.5% of patients at time of treatment. Grade≥3 post-operative 30-day complication rate (28.1% overall) was not associated with type of preoperative therapy.

CONCLUSION

Results did not show excessive rates of toxicity or post-operative complications and support the use of standard preoperative therapies for rectal cancer (especially SC-RT) in IBD patients with relatively indolent disease. Caution is warranted in patients with active IBD, since the exact impact of active bowel inflammation could not be determined retrospectively. Prospective studies should investigate the influence of active IBD on acute and late toxicity in patients receiving pelvic irradiation.

Pathologic response grade after long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation does not influence morbidity in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer resected by laparoscopy

PURPOSE

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy have lower rates of recurrence compared to those who do not. However, the influences of the pathologic response on surgical complications and survival remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival.

METHODS

This was a comparative study of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in two European tertiary hospitals between 2004 and 2014. Patients with and without pathologic complete responses were compared in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and survival.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with complete response (ypT0N0) were compared with 141 patients who exhibited non-complete response. No group differences were observed in the postoperative mortality or morbidity rates. The median follow-up time was 57 months (range 1-121). Over this period, 11 (5.8 %) patients, all of whom were in the non-complete response group, exhibited local recurrence. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were significantly better in the complete response group, 92.5 vs. 75.3 % (p = 0.004) and 89 vs. 73.4 % (p = 0.002), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complication rate after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is not associated with the pathologic response grade to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Does neoadjuvant therapy increase the incidence of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for mid and low rectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the association of neoadjuvant therapy with increases in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) after middle and low rectal anterior resection.

METHOD

The electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid were searched between 1980 and 2015. The random effects model was used to model the pooled data to determine the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q test and I² statistics. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analysis was conducted to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant therapy was not shown to increase the incidence of postoperative AL as demonstrated by an OR of 1.16 [95% CI 0.99-1.36; P = 0.07 (random effects model)]. The subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant radiotherapy using the random effects model suggested that it did not increase the rate of postoperative AL (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.97-1.58; P = 0.08). The subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy indicated that the rate of postoperative AL again did not increase with an OR = 1.06 [95% CI 0.86-1.30; P = 0.59 (random effects model)]. The interval to surgery after neoadjuvant therapy and preoperative radiotherapy (short or long course) was not associated with an increased incidence of postoperative AL.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to increase the incidence of postoperative AL after anterior resection for mid and low rectal cancer. In addition, neither the interval to surgery after neoadjuvant therapy nor the radiotherapy regimen increases the rate of postoperative AL.

Oncological impact of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

The effect of anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision (TME) is controversial. This study aimed to assess the influence of symptomatic and asymptomatic anastomotic leakage on oncological outcomes after laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

All patients who underwent restorative laparoscopic TME for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent from 2005 to 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined by CT performed systematically 4-8 weeks after rectal surgery, with no relevant clinical symptoms or laboratory examination findings during the postoperative course.

RESULTS

Of a total of 428 patients, anastomotic leakage was observed in 120 (28·0 per cent) (50 asymptomatic, 70 symptomatic). After a mean follow-up of 40 months, local recurrence was observed in 36 patients (8·4 per cent). Multivariable Cox regression identified three independent risk factors for reduced local recurrence-free survival (LRFS): symptomatic anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) 2·13, 95 per cent c.i. 1·29 to 3·50; P = 0·003), positive resection margin (R1) (OR 2·41, 1·40 to 4·16; P = 0·001) and pT3-4 category (OR 1·77, 1·08 to 2·90; P = 0·022). Patients with no risk factor for reduced LRFS had an estimated 5-year LRFS rate of 87·7(s.d. 3·2) per cent, whereas the rate dropped to 75·3(4·3) per cent with one risk factor, 67(7) per cent with two risk factors, and 14(13) per cent with three risk factors (P < 0·001). Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was not significantly associated with LRFS in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic anastomotic leakage is a risk factor for disease recurrence in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

Colonic prolapse after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a report of 12 cases

BACKGROUND

There are no published data concerning management of patients with exteriorized colonic prolapse (CP) after intersphincteric rectal resection (ISR) and side-to-end coloanal manual anastomosis (CAA) for very low rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to report our experience in 12 consecutive cases of CP following ISR with CAA.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2014, all patients with very low rectal cancer who developed CP after ISR and CAA were reviewed. Demographic and surgical data, prolapse symptoms and treatment were recorded. Postoperative morbidity, functional outcomes and results after prolapse surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

Twelve out of 143 patients (8 %) who underwent ISR with side-to-end CAA for low rectal cancer presented CP: 7/107 ISR (7 %) with partial resection of the internal anal sphincter (IAS) and 5/36 ISR (14 %) with subtotal or total resection of the IAS (NS). CP was diagnosed after a median of 6 months (range 2-72 months) after ISR. All patients with CP suffered from pain and fecal incontinence. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score before surgery was 16.5 (range 12-20). Three patients refused reoperation. Nine patients underwent transanal surgery with prolapse resection (including colonic stump and side-to-end anastomosis) and new end-to-end CAA (with posterior myorraphy in 4 cases). After a median follow-up of 30 months (range 8-87 months), 3/9 patients (33 %) had CP recurrence: One with very poor function was treated by abdominoperineal resection and definitive stoma. The 2 others were successfully reoperated on transanally. Median Wexner fecal incontinence score after CP surgery was 9 (range 0-20). No CP recurrence was noted for the 6 other patients, and function improved in all cases. Thus, at the end of follow-up, 8/9 patients (89 %) had no recurrence after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe surgery must be attempted in these patients who develop CP after ISR with CAA for very low rectal cancer in order to improve function and symptoms. A transanal approach with CP resection and new end-to-end anastomosis appeared to be safe and effective. Larger studies are needed to confirm our results.

Is it time to rethink the rule of total mesorectal excision? A prospective radiological and pathological study in 49 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for T3-T4 and/or N+ mid-rectal tumours, regardless of the exact tumour level. This leads to optimal oncological results but possible impaired functional results. Reducing rectal excision could reduce the functional drawbacks. This study prospectively assessed the risk of N+ or other mesorectal tumour deposit (OTD) below the tumour level by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed after chemoradiotherapy and pathological examination of the TME specimen.

METHOD

Consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancer who underwent TME after chemoradiotherapy were included. A prospective evaluation by postchemoradiotherapy MRI and pathological examination was performed to assess the location of N+ nodes and/or OTDs.

RESULTS

Of 49 consecutive patients, 27 (55%) presented with nodes on postchemoradiotherapy MRI. However, only 12 nodes (size 2-4 mm) in 9 patients (18%) were under the tumour level. On pathological examination, 717 total lymph nodes were found, with 37 N+ and 22 OTD. According to the tumour level: (i) above tumour level, 21/453 nodes were N+ and 6 OTD; (ii) at tumour level, 16/166 nodes were N+ and 15 OTD; (iii) below tumour level, 0/98 nodes (0%) was N+ and only 1 OTD (2%) was noted at 2 cm below tumour level.

CONCLUSION

After chemoradiotherapy, N+ and/or OTD located under the level of the rectal cancer seems to be a very rare event. A postchemoradiotherapy MRI could help detect such patients. For others patients, conservation of the lower rectum with only a subtotal mesorectal excision could possibly improve function.

Persistent Asymptomatic Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Can Diverting Stoma Be Reversed Safely at 6 Months?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery raises the problem of the timing of diverting stoma reversal.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether stoma reversal can be safely performed at 6 months after laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision in patients with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center.

PATIENTS

All of the patients with anastomotic leakage were treated conservatively after sphincter-saving laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main study measure was postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 110 (26%) of 429 patients who presented with anastomotic leakage and were treated conservatively were diagnosed only on CT scan (60 symptomatic (14%) and 50 asymptomatic (12%)). During follow up, 82 (75%) of 110 anastomotic leakages healed spontaneously after a mean delay of 16 ± 6 weeks (range, 4-30 weeks). Among these patients, 7 (9%) of 82 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal. Among the 28 patients remaining, 3 died during follow-up. The remaining 25 patients (23%) presented with persistent asymptomatic anastomotic leakage with chronic sinus >6 months after rectal surgery. Stoma reversal was performed in 19 asymptomatic patients, but 3 (16%) of 19 developed postoperative symptomatic pelvic sepsis after stoma reversal (3/19 vs 7/82 patients; p = 0.217), requiring a redo surgery with transanal colonic pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis (n = 2) or standard coloanal anastomosis (n = 1). Regarding the 6 final patients, abdominal redo surgery was performed because of either symptoms or anastomotic leakage with a large presacral cavity.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In the great majority of patients with persistent anastomotic leakage at 6 months after total mesorectal excision, stoma reversal can be safely performed.

Local excision of low rectal cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy: is it safe for all patients with suspicion of complete tumor response?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess if local excision (LE) could be proposed if suspicion of complete tumor response (CR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for low rectal cancer (LRC) and this despite a potential risk of nodes (N+) or other tumor deposits (OTD) left in place. The aim was to assess in patients with LRC treated by CRT: (a) pathologic results of LE and total mesorectal excision (TME) in case of preoperative suspicion of CR and (b) the risk of N+ or OTD on TME if ypT0-Tis-T1 tumor.

PATIENTS

Among 202 patients with LRC after CRT, 33 (16 %) with suspicion of CR underwent LE (n = 20) because of comorbidities and/or indication of definitive stoma or TME (n = 13). Pathologic examination of LE and TME specimens and oncological outcomes were assessed. Furthermore, 40/202 patients with pathologic CR on TME specimen (ypT0-Tis-T1) were assessed for possible N+ or OTD.

RESULTS

In the 33 patients with suspicion of CR: (a) after LE, tumor was ypT0-Tis-T1 in only 15/20 cases (75 %); (b) after TME, tumor was ypT0-Tis-T1 in only 7/13 cases (54 %). Among 40 patients with ypT0-Tis-T1 tumor on TME specimen, 4 (10 %) presented N+ and/or OTD.

CONCLUSION

In LRC with suspicion of CR after CRT, LE deserves a word of caution: 25 % of patients have in fact ypT2-T3 tumors. Furthermore, in patients with ypT0-Tis or T1 on TME specimen, a 10 % risk of N+ and/or ODT is observed. Thus, patient with suspicion of CR after CRT and treated by LE is exposed to a possible incomplete oncologic treatment.

Predictors of Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Some patients with rectal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) and may be eligible for less radical surgery or non-operative management. The aim of this study was to identify variables that predict pCR after nCRT for rectal cancer and to examine the impact of pCR on postoperative complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the NCDB from 2006 to 2011. Patients with rectal cancer who received nCRT followed by radical resection were included in this study. Multivariable analysis of the association between clinicopathologic characteristics and pCR was performed, and propensity-adjusted analysis was used to identify differences in postoperative morbidity between pCR and non-pCR patients.

RESULTS

A total of 23,747 patients were included in the study. Factors associated with pCR included lower tumor grade, lower clinical T and N stage, higher radiation dose, and delaying surgery by more than 6-8 weeks after the end of radiation, while lack of health insurance was linked with a lower likelihood of pCR. Complete response was not associated with an increased risk of major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Several clinical, pathologic, and treatment variables can help to predict which patients are most likely to have pCR after nCRT for rectal cancer. Awareness of these variables can be valuable in counseling patients regarding prognosis and treatment options.

What happens after R1 resection in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A study in 333 consecutive patients

AIM

There are no studies on the respective influence of microscopic involvement at the circumferential (R1c) and the distal margin (R1d) of the surgical specimen on oncological results after laparoscopic mesorectal excision.

METHOD

We studied 333 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic mesorectal excision for cancer. An R1 resection was defined a by a circumferential and/or distal margin of 1 mm or less.

RESULTS

Forty (12%) patients had an R1 resection including R1c [n = 28 (70%)], R1d [n = 7 (18%)] or both [n = 5 (12%)]. After a mean of 28 (0-97) months, comparisons of R1 with R0 resection were as follows: mortality 10% and 4% (NS), overall recurrence 48% and 19% (P < 0.001), 2-year disease-free survival rate 51% and 76% (P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) rate 91% and 96% (NS). For R1c patients mortality was 14% (4% for R0; P = 0.026), overall recurrence 46% (19% for R0; P = 0.028) and 2-year OS 88% (96% for R0; P = 0.025). No significant differences were found between R1d and R0. The metastatic recurrence rate was greater in R1c then R0 (29% vs 12%; P = 0.036) but not for R1d (14% vs 12%; NS). Locoregional recurrence rates of R1c (7%) and R1d (0%) were similar to R0 (4%).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the poorer prognosis observed after R1 resection for rectal cancer is due to circumferential rather than distal involvement. This is mainly related to a higher rate of metastatic recurrence.