A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era

Longitudinal Analysis of Local Recurrence and Survival After Transanal Abdominal Transanal Radical Proctosigmoidectomy for Low Rectal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy was developed in 1984 as a sphincter preservation surgery in patients with low rectal cancers after preoperative radiation therapy. While serving as a catalyst for disruptive sphincter preservation surgery, it continues to be used and evolve. With the controversy over safety and local recurrence in other sphincter-preserving surgery, review of transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy long-term oncologic outcomes is warranted.

OBJECTIVE

To assess local recurrence and survival after transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

Tertiary rectal cancer referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with low adenocarcinoma (≤5 cm anorectal ring) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and then transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy for curative resection between 1998 and 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Local recurrence rates and overall survival rates.

RESULTS

Of 255 included patients, 67.8% were men (n = 173); the mean age was 58.7 years (SD 11.5) and the mean BMI was 27.1 (SD 5.4), with 50.2% (n = 128) having ASA class II and 49.8% (n = 127) having ASA class III/IV. The mean tumor size was 4.8 cm (SD 1.9), the majority of patients had clinical T3 disease (81.8%; n = 184), and 52.1% had nodal disease (n = 100). The median radiation dose was 5400 cGy, with 73.7% (n = 149) achieving good response and 90.2% (n = 230) receiving minimally invasive surgery. The complete total mesorectal excision rate was 94.3%, and 100% of patients (n = 255) had negative distal margins. The mean number of examined lymph nodes were 13.9 (SD 10.7). After a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 5.1% of patients (n = 13) developed local recurrence at a median time of 29.6 months. The 5-year overall survival was 84.1% (95% CI, 78.8-89.4).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review with risk of bias and lack of generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

In this longitudinal study, the transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy demonstrated excellent long-term locoregional control and survival in very low rectal cancers. The superior transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy outcomes are durable over time, warranting expansion of the sphincter-preserving surgery technique. See Video Abstract .

ANLISIS LONGITUDINAL DE LA RECURRENCIA LOCAL Y LA SUPERVIVENCIA DESPUS DE LA PROCTOSIGMOIDECTOMA RADICAL TRANSANAL ABDOMINAL TATA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO BAJO TRATADO CON QUIMIORRADIACIN NEOADYUVANTE

ANTECEDENTES:La proctosigmoidectomía radical transanal abdominal se desarrolló en 1984 como una cirugía de preservación del esfínter en cánceres de recto bajo después de la radiación preoperatoria. Si bien sirve como catalizador para la cirugía disruptiva de preservación del esfínter, continúa utilizándose y evolucionando. Con la controversia sobre la seguridad y la recurrencia local en otras cirugías que preservan el esfínter, se justifica la revisión de los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo de la proctosigmoidectomía radical transanal abdominal.OBJETIVO:Evaluar localmente después de Proctosigmoidectomía Radical Transanal Abdominal Transanal después de quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.AJUSTES:Centro terciario de referencia para el cáncer de recto.PACIENTES:Adenocarcinoma bajo (=/ Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Female
• Retrospective Studies
• Longitudinal Studies
• Neoadjuvant Therapy
• Rectal Neoplasms/surgery
• Adenocarcinoma/therapy
• Adenocarcinoma/pathology
• Neoplasm Staging

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

John H Marks Lankenau Medical Center, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania
Thais Reif de Paula
Hela Saidi
Taylor P Ikner
Henry Schoonyoung
Gerald Marks
Deborah S Keller

Collapse

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence after radical surgical treatment

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Recurrence of rectal cancer affects from 4% to even 50% of patients after surgical treatment. The incidence may be influenced by numerous factors depending on the patient, the characteristics of the tumor and the type and quality of the surgical technique used.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics of rectal cancer recurrence, identify potential risk factors and role of patient surveillance after primary resection of rectal cancer.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> The study comprised patients operated on due to recurrence of rectal cancer at the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery of Medical University of Lodz between 2014 and 2020, who were in the follow-up program at the hospital's outpatient clinic after the primary surgery. Risk factors for disease recurrence were sought by analyzing the characteristics of the primary tumor, treatment history and postoperative care.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Twenty-nine patients were included in the study, the majority (51.7%) of the patients were men. The largest group was represented by patients with stage II and III disease. The most frequently performed primary surgery was low anterior resection (LAR) (62.8%). 35% of patients received neoadjuvant treatment prior to primary surgery. We demonstrated that the lack of neoadjuvant treatment before primary surgery increases the risk of cancer recurrence nine times. Higher stage of disease at the point of primary surgery is associated with nearly seven times the risk of recurrence compared to stage I disease.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Optimal preoperative staging, reasonable neoadjuvant treatment, proper surgical technique and precise follow-up regimen are essential for further improvement of rectal cancer outcomes.</br>.

Evaluation of Predictive and Prognostic Importance of Lung Immune Prognostic Index in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The systemic inflammatory response (SIR) is known as an important factor associated with tumorigenesis and tumor progression, and can be reflected by inflammatory markers. One of the markers that reflect this is the lung immune prognostic index (LIPI). It is based on a derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. We aimed to investigate the significance of LIPI in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we stratified the patients according to LIPI score as good LIPI and intermediate (int)/poor LIPI. According to pathological response to NACRT, we divided the patients into two groups as those with complete response (CR) or near-CR, and those with partial response (PR) or poor/no response. We classified CR and near-CR as good response. We evaluated the predictive and prognostic significance of LIPI for NACRT response, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We included 137 patients in the results, with 72 (52.6%) having good LIPI and 65 (47.4%) having int/poor LIPI. The median follow-up period was 44.7 months (range: 10-105 months). Thirteen patients (18.0%) in the good LIPI group and 22 patients (34.0%) in the int/poor LIPI group achieved good response. In multivariate analysis, we found only the LIPI score as an independent risk factor (hazard ratio (HR): 2.4, p = 0.04) for NACRT response. Median DFS was 89.2 months (95% CI: 11.4-167.0) in the int/poor LIPI group; however, the DFS of all study populations and patients in the good LIPI group did not reach the median value. In multivariate analysis for DFS, we identified abdominoperineal resection (APR) (HR: 2.21, p = 0.02), presence of tumor deposit (HR: 2.96, p = 0.003), and int/poor LIPI score (HR: 2.07, p = 0.02) as separate risk variables. OS of all study populations and the patients in the LIPI groups did not reach the median value. In multivariate analysis for OS, we identified APR (HR: 2.74, p = 0.02), surgical margin positivity (HR: 12.94, p < 0.001), and adjuvant CT (HR: 0.20, p = 0.002) as separate risk variables for OS.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study investigating the predictive and prognostic significance of LIPI in LARC patients treated with NACRT. The results revealed that int/poor LIPI was associated with a higher rate of good response but shorter DFS compared to good LIPI. The baseline LIPI score serves as an easily accessible and useful prognostic index, and it has significant potential for making appropriate treatment decisions in LARC.

Anastomotic leak after minimally invasive anterior resection for rectal cancer with high versus low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although many efforts have been made to decrease the incidence of anastomotic leak (AL), it remains one of the most serious complications of rectal cancer surgery. Many previous studies have reported an association between the ligation level of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) (high or low) and the incidence of AL after rectal cancer surgery. However, we cannot draw a solid conclusion because of the low quality and heterogeneity of those studies. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of the IMA ligation level on the occurrence of AL after minimally invasive anterior resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS/DESIGN

Patients with primary rectal cancer without distant metastases will be included after screening. They will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive high or low ligation of the IMA. The primary endpoint is AL incidence; secondary endpoints are quality of life; urinary, sexual, and defecatory functions; and 3-year disease-free survival. We hypothesized that the incidence rate of AL would be 15% and 5% in the high- and low-ligation groups, respectively. With a two-sided α of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, the sample size is calculated to be 314 patients (157 per group), considering a 10% dropout rate.

DISCUSSION

Although many studies have compared the short- and long-term outcomes of high and low ligation of the IMA in rectal cancer surgery, it is still debatable. This trial aims to help draw a more solid conclusion regarding the association between the IMA ligation level and AL incidence after rectal cancer surgery. We also hope to contribute to standardizing the method of rectal cancer surgery in this trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service KCT0003523. Registered on February 18, 2019.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

Transanal total mesorectal excision combined with intersphincteric resection has similar long-term oncological outcomes to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) or intersphincteric resection (ISR) has recently proven to be a valid and safe surgical procedure for low rectal cancer. However, studies focusing on the combination of these two technologies are limited. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative results, long-term oncologic outcomes, and anorectal functions of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing taTME combined with ISR, by comparing with those of patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (laAPR).

Methods

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 200 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laAPR (n = 100) or taTME combined with ISR (n = 100) between September 2013 and November 2019 were included. Patient demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, oncological outcomes, and anal functional results were analysed.

Results

Patients in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group had less intraoperative blood loss (79.6 ± 72.6 vs 107.3 ± 65.1 mL, P = 0.005) and a lower rate of post-operative complications (22.0% vs 44.0%, P < 0.001) than those in the laAPR group. The overall local recurrence rates were 7.0% in both groups within 3 years after surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 86.3% in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group and 75.1% in the laAPR group (P = 0.056), while the 3-year overall survival rates were 96.7% and 94.2%, respectively (P = 0.319). There were 39 patients (45.3%) in the taTME-combined-with-ISR group who developed major low anterior resection syndrome, whereas 61 patients (70.9%) had good post-operative anal function (Wexner incontinence score ≤ 10).

Conclusion

We found similar long-term oncological outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laAPR and those undergoing taTME combined with ISR. Patients receiving taTME combined with ISR had acceptable post-operative anorectal function.

Postoperative pain management after concomitant sacrectomy for locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To assess pain management in patients post-sacrectomy, focusing on opioid use, and to identify the factors associated with postoperative pain.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) with concomitant sacrectomy at one of two hospitals between 2007 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. We examined the use of opioids preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were classified into high and low sacrectomy groups based on the sacral bone resection level passing through the S3 vertebra.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Opioid use was significantly higher in the high sacrectomy group than in the low sacrectomy group at all times assessed: on postoperative days 7, 14, 30, 90, 180, and 365. Opioid use 3 months after locally recurrent rectal cancer surgery was significantly higher in patients with local re-recurrence of the tumor than in those without re-recurrence (p < 0.05), and the median morphine-equivalent opioid use 3 months postoperatively was significantly higher in the high sacrectomy group (30 vs. 0 mg/day; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use after concomitant sacrectomy for LRRC was higher in the high sacrectomy group. Prolonged postoperative pain or increasing pain was associated with local recurrence.

Comparative survival risks in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection and sphincter-saving operation for rectal cancer: a 10-year cohort analysis using propensity score matching

PURPOSE

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been considered to have a higher risk of local recurrence and poorer survival outcome than sphincter-saving operation (SSO) in patients with rectal cancer. This study compared long-term oncologic outcomes and prognostic parameters in propensity score-matched patients who underwent APR and SSO.

METHODS

This study analyzed 958 consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by APR or SSO between 2005 and 2015. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust baseline characteristics, including clinical stage, tumor distance from the anal verge, and tumor size.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the APR group had larger and lower tumors and showed significantly shorter 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) than the SSO group (64.5% vs. 75.8%, p = 0.01). After propensity score matching, there were no significant between-group differences in local (9.5% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.59) and systemic (27.9% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.3) recurrence rates, and 5-year DFS (67.5% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.49) and overall survival (80.8% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.65) rates. A lower number of lymph nodes retrieved was independently associated with recurrence and survival outcomes in the APR group, whereas poorly differentiated histology was an independent associated parameter in the SSO group. Advanced stage and perineural invasion were identified as independent prognostic parameters in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the long-term oncologic outcomes of APR were comparable to those of SSO. Because prognostic parameters associated with oncologic outcomes differed between the respective procedures, correctable parameters could be ameliorated through complete total mesorectal excision and personalized systemic treatment.

Right colon, left colon, and rectal cancer have different oncologic and quality of life outcomes

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer patients are commonly considered a single entity in outcomes studies. This is particularly true for quality of life (QOL) studies. This study aims to compare oncologic and QOL outcomes between right colon, left colon, and rectal cancer in patients operated on in a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients with pathological stages I-III colorectal adenocarcinoma electively operated on with curative intent between 2000 and 2010. Patient characteristics, perioperative and oncologic outcomes, and QOL were compared according to cancer location.

RESULTS

Two-thousand sixty-five (606 right colon cancer [RCC], 366 left colon cancer [LCC], and 1093 rectal cancer [RC]) patients met the inclusion criteria. LCC had better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in the non-adjusted analysis (p < 0.001) and better OS in multivariate analysis adjusted by age, gender, ASA, chemotherapy, and pathological stage (p = 0.024). Although RCC had worse OS and DFS in non-adjusted survival analysis than LCC and RC, when adjusted for the factors above, RCC had better survival outcomes than RC, but not LCC. COX regression analysis showed age (p < 0.001), gender (p = 0.016), ASA (p < 0.001), pathological stage (p < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.043), and cancer location (p = 0.024) were independently associated with OS. Age (p < 0.001), gender (p = 0.030), ASA (p = 0.004), and pathological stage (p < 0.001) were independently associated with DFS. Patients with RC reported more sexual dysfunction and work restrictions than colon cancers (p = 0.015 and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In an adjusted multivariate analysis, colon cancers demonstrated better survival outcomes when compared to rectal cancers.

Population-level utilisation of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for the treatment of rectal cancer

PURPOSE

International clinical guidelines recommend long- or short-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. This study aims to examine variation in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer and identify patient and hospital factors that underpin this variation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a retrospective, consecutive cohort study using statewide hospitalisation and radiotherapy data from New South Wales, Australia, 2013-2018. Included participants had a primary rectal adenocarcinoma and underwent surgical resection. Factors associated with the use or not of any neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and short versus long-course were explored using multilevel logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 2912 people included in the study, 43% received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. There was significant variation in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy depending on geographic location. Abdominoperineal excision (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53-2.28) and having surgery in a public hospital (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.92-2.87) were both predictors of use. Among those receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 17% received short-course therapy, with short-course declining over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer is highly variable, with differences only partially explained by assessable patient-or hospital-level factors. Understanding neoadjuvant radiotherapy utilisation patterns may assist in identifying barriers and opportunities to improve adherence to clinical guidelines.

Predictors of undergoing multivisceral resection, margin status and survival in Dutch patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this nationwide observational study was to evaluate factors associated with multivisceral resection (MVR), margin status and overall survival in locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with (y)pT4, cM0 CRC between 2006 and 2017 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox-proportional hazards modelling was used for survival analysis, stratified for T4a and T4b. Annual hospital volume cut-off was 75 for colon and 40 for rectal resections.

RESULTS

A total of 11.930 patients were included and 2410 patients (20.2%) underwent MVR. Factors associated with MVR for colon and rectal cancer besides cT4 category were more recent diagnosis (OR 3.61, CI 95% 3.06-4.25 (colon) and OR 2.72, CI 95% 1.82-4.08 (rectum)) and high hospital volume (OR 1.20, CI 95% 1.05-1.38 (colon) and OR 2.17, CI 95% 1.55-3.04 (rectum)). Patients ≥70 year were less likely to undergo MVR for colon cancer (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.90). Risk factors for incomplete resection were cT4 (OR 3.08, CI 95% 2.35-4.04 (colon) and OR 1.82, CI 95% 1.13-2.94 (rectum)) and poor/undifferentiated tumors (OR 1.41, CI 95% 1.14-1.72 (colon) and OR 1.69, CI 95% 1.05-2.74 (rectum)). More recent diagnosis was independently associated with less incomplete resections in colon cancer (OR 0.58, CI 95% 0.40-0.76). Independent predictors of survival were age, resection margin, nodal status and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not MVR.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of locally advanced CRC with MVR at population level was influenced by year of diagnosis and hospital volume. Margin status in colon cancer improved substantially over time.

Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction Over the last decades, treatment for rectal cancer has substantially improved with development of new surgical options and treatment modalities. With the improvement of survival, functional outcome and quality of life are getting more attention.

Study objective To provide an overview of current modalities in rectal cancer treatment, with particular emphasis on functional outcomes and quality of life.

Results Functional outcomes after rectal cancer treatment are influenced by patient and tumor characteristics, surgical technique, the use of preoperative radiotherapy and the method and level of anastomosis. Sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer often results in poor functional outcomes that impair quality of life, referred to as low anterior resection syndrome. Abdominoperineal resection imposes the need for a permanent stoma but avoids the risk of this syndrome. Contrary to general belief, long-term quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma is similar to those after sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Conclusion All patients should be informed about the risks of treatment modalities. Decision on rectal cancer treatment should be individualized since not all patients may benefit from a sphincter preserving surgery “at any price”. Non-resection treatment should be the future focus to avoid the need of a permanent stoma and bowel dysfunction.

Cylindrical abdominoperineal resection rationale, technique and controversies

Surgery remains the cornerstone in rectal cancer treatment. Abdominoperineal excision (APE), described more than 100 years ago, remains as an important procedure for the treatment of selected advanced distal tumors with direct invasion of the anal sphincter or preoperative fecal incontinence. Historically, oncological outcomes of patients undergoing APE have been worse when compared to sphincter preserving operations. More recently, it has been suggested that patients undergoing APE for distal rectal cancer are more likely to have positive circumferential resection margins and intraoperative perforation, known surrogate markers for local recurrence. Recently, an alternative approach known as “Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision” has been described in an effort to improve rates of circumferential margin positivity possibly resulting in better oncological outcomes compared to the standard procedure. The objective of this paper is to provide a technical description and compare available data of both Extralevator and Standard abdominal perineal excision techniques.

High Versus Low Ligation of the Inferior Mesenteric Artery During Rectal Resection for Cancer: Oncological Outcomes After Three Years of Follow-Up From the HIGHLOW Trial

Objectives

To determine the disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence in patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with either high or low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA).

Background

The level of IMA ligation during anterior rectal resection with TME is still a matter of debate, especially in terms of oncological adequacy.

Methods

Between June 2014 and December 2016, patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) and TME in 6 Italian nonacademic hospitals were randomized into 2 groups in the HIGHLOW Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153801) according to the level of IMA ligation: high ligation (HL) versus low ligation (LL). DFS, DSS, and recurrence were inquired. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and every 6 months thereafter. Patients and tumor characteristics as well as surgical outcomes were analyzed to identify risk factors for recurrence.

Results

One hundred ninety-six patients from the HIGHLOW trial were analyzed. Median follow-up for DFS was 40.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 6-64.7) and 40 (IQR, 7.6-67.8), while median follow-up for DSS was 41.2 (IQR, 10.7-64.7) and 42.7 (IQR, 6-67.6) in the HL and LL groups, respectively. The 3-year DFS rate of HL and LL patients was 82.2% and 82.1% (P = 0.874), respectively. The 3-year DSS for HL and LL patients was 92.1% and 93.4% (P = 0.897), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the local recurrence rate (2% HL vs 2.1% LL), in the regional recurrence rate (3% HL vs 2.1% LL), and in the distant recurrence rate (12.9% HL vs 13.7% LL). Multivariate analysis found conversion to open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.68; P = 0.001) and higher stage of disease (HR, 7.73; P < 0.001) to be significant determinant for DFS.

Conclusions

The level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation during LAR and TME for rectal cancer does not affect DFS, DSS, and recurrence.

Is extralevator abdominoperineal resection necessary for low rectal carcinoma in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy era?

Background: We aimed to compare the short-term surgical and early surgical oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and extralevator APR (ELAPR) in patients with low rectal carcinoma that have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), whose abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically.Methods: One hundred and four patients who underwent APR or ELAPR for stage II/III low rectal carcinoma NACRT between 2013 and 2016 were evaluated by reviewing the standard charts for colorectal carcinoma.Results: Median follow-up for patients in APR group was 56 months(24-67 months) and 52 months(27-64 months) for ELAPR group. The postoperative complication rates were higher in ELAPR than in APR (perineal wound infection 38% vs. 22.5%(p = .03), perineal wound dehiscence 57% vs. 25%(p = .01), persistent perineal pain 28.5% vs. 13%(p = .01), urinary dysfunction 23% vs. 14.5%(p = .02), reoperation 16.5% vs. 4.8%(p = .03), respectively). Circumferential resection margin positivity, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and the rate of intra-operative perforation of the tumor were similar for both surgical techniques. Local recurrence rates at postoperative 2 years were also similar after APR and ELAPR (8% vs. 9.5%, p = .2).Conclusion: We conclude that in the era of routinely used NACRT, ELAPR is not superior to conventional APR for stage II/III low rectal carcinomas. ELAPR is associated with increased morbidity and has no short-term surgical oncological advantage over APR.

Transperineal minimally invasive APE: preliminary outcomes in a multicenter cohort

Background

Abdominoperineal excision (APE) for rectal cancer is associated with a relatively high risk of positive margins and postoperative morbidity, particularly related to perineal wound healing problems. It is unknown whether the use of a minimally invasive approach for the perineal part of these procedures can improve postoperative outcomes without oncological compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of minimally invasive transperineal abdominoperineal excision (TpAPE)

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included all patients having TpAPE for primary low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the intraoperative complication rate. Secondary endpoints included major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3), histopathology results, and perineal wound healing.

Results

A total of 32 TpAPE procedures were performed in five centers. A bilateral extralevator APE (ELAPE) was performed in 17 patients (53%), a unilateral ELAPE in 7 (22%), and an APE in 8 (25%). Intraoperative complications occurred in five cases (16%) and severe postoperative morbidity in three cases (9%). There were no perioperative deaths. A positive margin (R1) was observed in four patients (13%) and specimen perforation occurred in two (6%). The unilateral extralevator TpAPE group had worse specimen quality and a higher proportion of R1 resections than the bilateral ELAPE or standard APE groups. The rate of uncomplicated perineal wound healing was 53% (n = 17) and three patients (9%) required surgical reintervention.

Conclusions

TpAPE seems to be feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and a relatively low rate of perineal wound dehiscence, while histopathological outcomes remain suboptimal. Additional evaluation of the viability of this technique is needed in the form of a prospective trial with standardization of the procedure, indication, audit of outcomes and performed by surgeons with vast experience in transanal total mesorectal excision.

YpN0 rectal cancer patients with sterilized lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are of greater risk of recurrence

BACKGROUND

Indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in ypN0 rectal cancer patients after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is debated. The clinical significance of the presence of sterilized lymph nodes (LNS) in ypN0 patients remains to be determined.

AIMS

To assess the prognostic value of LNS in ypN0 rectal cancers after neoadjuvant CRT.

METHODS

From 2006-2016, 235 patients underwent TME surgery for non-metastatic mid-low rectal cancer after CRT. A lymph node was considered sterilized if there were signs of treatment response (fibrosis, necrosis or mucus) without residual tumor cells.

RESULTS

180 patients (77%) were classified ypN0 and 55 (23%) ypN+. LNS was present in 20 patients (9%). In ypN0 patients, 5-year OS was similar between patients with and without LNS. In contrast, 5-year DFS was significantly lower in ypN0/LNS + patients (58% vs. 78%, p = 0.043) and was similar to those staged ypN+. In multivariate analysis, two factors were independent predictors of DFS: mesorectal grading (OR = 3.14; 95%CI: 1.10-8.34; p = 0.033) and the presence of LNS (OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.06-11.81, p = 0.042) CONCLUSION: The presence of LNS in ypN0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT is associated with an increased risk of recurrence and may be taken into account for the discussion of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Immediate Perineal Reconstruction After Extralevatory Abdominoperineal Excision: Buried Desepidermised Fasciocutaneous V-Y Advancement Flap

BACKGROUND

According to National Cancer Institute, there are approximately 39,800 rectal cancer cases per year, 25% of which will need an abdominoperineal resection (APR). The key to avoid most of the complications related to pelvic defect that occurs after APR is choosing an appropriate reconstruction option for perineum. This study aims to introduce an easily applicable flap option for closure to address postoperative pelvic defect in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective evaluation of 9 patients who have undergone perineal reconstruction for pelvic defects after extralevatory abdominoperineal excision with rectal cancer between 2014 and 2016. Reconstruction consists of a novel technique defined by our clinic, which is buried desepidermised fasciocutaneous V-Y advancement flap.

RESULTS

All defects are closed successfully. Patients are followed postoperatively for complications such as perineal infection, wound dehiscence, seroma, perineal sinus, or fistula formation. Flaps are evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging postoperatively, for viability and effectiveness on defect closure. Mean follow-up time is 20 (±9) months. Mean average hospital stay is 8 (±2) days. We did not experience any total or partial flap loss or encounter any local complication related to the wound.

CONCLUSIONS

Buried desepidermised fasciocutaneous V-Y advancement flap is a reasonably easy and time-saving operation. It is effective in filling the pelvic dead space while closing the sacral defect after APR and therefore decreases late term complications related to large perineal excision.

A quest for sphincter-saving surgery in ultralow rectal tumours-a single-centre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the progress in the treatment of colorectal cancer, there is still no optimal strategy for tumours located adjacent to the anal sphincter. This study aims to evaluate oncological and functional results of surgery for rectal cancer in unfavourable locations in proximity to anal sphincters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer, which was either initially infiltrating the anal sphincter or located in the close proximity of the sphincter, were included in the study. Patients were submitted to extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR), intersphincteric resection, or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Primary outcomes were perioperative data: operative time, blood loss, complications, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were pathological quality of the specimens and functional outcome 6 months after defunctioning ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

Among patients with cancer adjacent to the anal sphincter, 13 (25%) underwent APR, 14 (27%) patients were submitted to intersphincteric resection, and 25 (48%) patients were treated with the TaTME approach. Operative time was 240 (210-270 IQR) for APR, 212.5 (170-260 IQR) for intersphincteric resection, and 270 (240-330 IQR) for TaTME (p = 0.018). Perioperative morbidity was 31% for APR, 36% for intersphincteric resections, and 12% for the TaTME group (p = 0.181). Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 92% of specimens in the TaTME group, 93% in intersphincteric resections, and 78% in the APR group (p = 0.72). Median circumferential resection margin in APR was 6 mm (4-7 IQR), in intersphincteric resections 7.5 mm (2.5-10 IQR), and in the TaTME group 4 mm (2.8-8 IQR). All patients after intersphincteric resections developed major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Four patients in the TaTME group developed minor LARS, and 21 had major LARS.

CONCLUSION

Sphincter-saving rectal resections are a feasible alternative to APR with good clinical, pathological, and oncological outcomes. Intersphincteric resections and TaTME seem to be equal in terms of clinicopathological results. The functional outcome is yet to be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry (23-07-2018, ID TCTR20180724001 ).

The Estimate of the Impact of Coccyx Resection in Surgical Field Exposure During Abdominal Perineal Resection Using Preoperative High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the improvement in surgical exposure by removal of the coccyx, during abdomino-perineal resection (APR), in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 29 consecutive patients with rectal cancer was carried out. Using MR T2 sagittal series, the solid angle was estimated using the angle determined by the anterior resection margin and the tip of coccyx (no coccyx resection) or the tip of last sacral vertebra (coccyx resection). The solid angle provides an estimate of the tridimensional surface area provided by an original angle resulting in the best estimate of the surgeon's view/exposure to the critical dissecting point of choice (anterior rectal wall). The difference ("Gain") in surgical field exposure by removal of the coccyx was compared by the solid angle variation between the two estimates (with and without the coccyx).

RESULTS

Routine removal of the coccyx determines an average 42% (95% CI 27-57%) gain in surgical field exposure area facing the anterior rectal wall at the level of the prostate/vagina by the surgeon. Fifteen (51%) patients had ≥30% (median) estimated gain in surgical field exposure by coccygectomy. There was no association between BMI, age or gender and estimated gain in surgical field exposure area.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine removal of the coccyx during APR may result in an average increase in 42% in surgical field exposure during APR's perineal dissection. Precise estimation of surgical field exposure gain by removal of the coccyx may be predicted by MR sagittal series for each individual patient.

Baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio in rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

There is uncertainty over the effect of systemic inflammatory response on oncologic outcomes in patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer. We investigated the association between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as markers of systemic inflammation and tumor response and prognosis after treatment.

METHODS

A total of 176 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and curative surgery for rectal cancer were analyzed retrospectively. Pretreatment hematologic parameters and the main clinical factors for patients and tumors were investigated with respect to their relationship with tumor regression and survival.

RESULTS

In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, NLR 2.0 and PLR 133.4 had the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting tumor response. NLR <2.0 and PLR <133.4 were significantly correlated with good tumor response (odds ratio [OR] 2.490, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.264-4.904, p = .008; OR 3.009, 95% CI 1.477-6.127, p < .001). Patients with NLR <2.0 had significantly better 5-year disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate compared to patients with NLR ⩾2.0 in multivariate analysis (86.8% vs 70.7%, p = .014; 92.4% vs 71.9%, p = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated NLR and PLR levels can be considered as predictors of poor pathologic response, and NLR can be considered a prognosticator in patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Association of Plane of Total Mesorectal Excision With Prognosis of Rectal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Previous retrospective studies have shown that surgical quality affects local control in rectal cancer..

Objective

In this secondary end point analysis, we evaluated the prognostic effect of the total mesorectal excision (TME) plane in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial enrolled 1236 patients with cT3-4 and/or node-positive rectal adenocarcinoma from 88 centers in Germany between July 25, 2006, and February 26, 2010.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive treatment with standard fluorouracil-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone (control arm) or oxaliplatin (experimental arm) followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The TME quality (mesorectal, intramesorectal, and muscularis propria plane) was prospectively assessed in 1152 operation specimens. An assessment was performed independently by pathologists and surgeons. The results were correlated with clinicopathologic data and the clinical outcome was tested, including multivariable analysis with the Cox regression model.

Results

Of 1152 German Caucasian participants, 332 (28.8) were women and the mean age was 63 years. The plane of TME was mesorectal in 930 patients (80.7%), intramesorectal in 169 (14.7%), and muscularis propria in 53 (4.6%). In a univariable analysis, the TME plane was significantly associated with 3-year disease-free survival (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 73.1-78.8 vs 61.6-76.0 vs 55.6-81.3, respectively; P = .01), cumulative incidence of local and distant recurrences (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 2.0-4.5 vs 1.2-8.1 vs 2.5-20.5, respectively; P < .001; and mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 17.0-22.4 vs 18.3-32.0 vs 14.2-39.0, respectively; P = .03, respectively), and overall survival (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 88.3-92.3 vs 79.7-91.0 vs 81.6-98.7, respectively; P = .02). In contrast to the pathologist-based evaluation, the assessment of TME plane by the operating surgeon failed to demonstrate prognostic significance for any of these clinical end points. In a multivariable analysis, the plane of surgery (mesorectal vs muscularis propria TME) constituted an independent factor for local recurrence (P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

This phase 3 randomized clinical trial confirms the long-term clinical effect of TME plane quality on local recurrence, as initially reported in the MRC CR07 study. The data highlight the key role of pathologists and surgeons in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00349076.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

Oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection for the treatment of low rectal cancer: A retrospective review of a single UK tertiary centre experience

Background

The use of abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the management of low rectal cancer has received criticism over high rates of incomplete resection due to tumour involvement at the circumferential resection margin. Extralevator abdominoperineal resection has been advocated as a means of improving complete resection. However, Extralevator abdominoperineal resection can result in increased cost, morbidity and reduced quality of life.

This study aims to assess the histological features and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing standard abdominoperineal resection and discusses the potential role of Extralevator abdominoperineal resection in this cohort.

Method

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of rectal cancer patients at a single centre. Patients undergoing standard APR were included from 01/06/2007 to 31/05/2012 to allow a minimum 2-year follow-up. Data was collected on age, gender, co-morbidity, pre-operative stage, neo-adjuvant therapy, histology, recurrence and mortality.

Results

Seventy patients were identified (45 (64%) male, median age 67; (range 36–85)). 12 (17.1%) patients had a positive circumferential resection margin; 4 (6.1%) tumours were located anteriorly, 8 (11%) were located posteriorly or laterally and may potentially have been completely resected with extralevator abdomino-perineal resection, Number-needed to treat = 9. Positive circumferential resection margin was more common in advanced tumours (p < 0.001). Local recurrence was more common with positive circumferential resection margins (16.7% Vs 0%, p = 0.027), with no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival, although there was a tendency towards worse survival in these patients.

Conclusion

Positive circumferential resection margin following APR resulted in significantly increased local recurrence with a trend towards poorer survival outcomes. Extralevator abdomino-perineal resection may have benefited some of these patients with locally advanced tumours and postero-lateral recurrences. However, this has to be balanced against exposing patients to increased risk of adverse events. We would recommend selective use of Extralevator abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced and node-positive tumours although further studies to help refine selection criteria are required with long-term follow-up.

•

A single high-volume Centre, retrospective study.

•

5 years data of low rectal cancer patients undergoing standard abdomino-perineal resection of rectum (APR).

•

Positive CRM is associated with increased local recurrence.

•

This study reports that careful selection of patients for ELAPE is vital.

•

The numbers needed to treat are 9.

•

ELAPE is advisable in locally advanced and postero-lateral low rectal cancers.

Extralevator Abdominal Perineal Excision Versus Standard Abdominal Perineal Excision: Impact on Quality of the Resected Specimen and Postoperative Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) has been associated with a high risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+) and local recurrence rates in the treatment of rectal cancer. An alternative extralevator approach (ELAPE) has been suggested to improve the quality of resection by avoiding coning of the specimen decreasing the risk of tumor perforation and CRM+. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the resected specimen and postoperative complication rates between ELAPE and "standard" APE.

METHODS

All patients between 1998 and 2014 undergoing abdominal perineal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer at a single Institution were reviewed. Between 1998 and 2008, all patients underwent standard APE. In 2009 ELAPE was introduced at our Institution and all patients requiring APE underwent this alternative procedure (ELAPE). The groups were compared according to pathological characteristics, specimen quality (CRM status, perforation and failure to provide the rectum and anus in a single specimen-fragmentation) and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent standard APEs, while 22 underwent ELAPE. There were no differences in CRM+ (10.6 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.70) or tumor perforation rates (8 vs. 0%; p = 0.30) between APE and ELAPE. However, ELAPE were less likely to result in a fragmented specimen (42 vs. 4%; p = 0.002). Advanced pT-stage was also a risk factor for specimen fragmentation (p = 0.03). There were no differences in severe (Grade 3/4) postoperative morbidity (13 vs. 10%; p = 0.5). Perineal wound dehiscences were less frequent among ELAPE (52 vs 13%; p < 0.01). Despite short follow-up (median 21 mo.), 2-year local recurrence-free survival was better for patients undergoing ELAPE when compared to APE (87 vs. 49%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPE may be safely implemented into routine clinical practice with no increase in postoperative morbidity and considerable improvements in the quality of the resected specimen of patients with low rectal cancers.

Sexual and urinary dysfunction following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in male patients: A prospective study

Aims:

Even with the use of nerve-sparing techniques, there is a risk of bladder and sexual dysfunction after total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopic TME is believed to improve this autonomic nerve dysfunction, but this is not demonstrated conclusively in the literature. In Indian patients generally, the stage at which the patients present is late and presumably the risk of autonomic nerve injury is more; however, there is no published data in this respect.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective study in male patients who underwent laparoscopic TME evaluated the bladder and sexual dysfunction using objective standardised scores, measuring residual urine and post-voided volume. The International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function score were used respectively to assess the bladder and sexual dysfunction preoperatively at 1, 3, 6 months and at 1 year.

Results:

Mean age of the study group was 58 years. After laparoscopic TME in male patients, the moderate to severe bladder dysfunction (IPSS <8) is observed in 20.4% of patients at 3 months, and at mean follow-up of 9.2 months, it was seen only in 2.9%. There is more bladder and sexual dysfunction in low rectal tumours compared to mid-rectal tumours. At 3 months, 75% had sexual dysfunction, 55% at median follow-up of the group at 9.2 months.

Conclusion:

After laparoscopic TME, bladder dysfunction is seen in one-fifth of the patients, which recovers in the next 6 months to 1 year. Sexual dysfunction is observed in 75% of patients immediately after TME which improves to 55% over 9.2 months.

10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Only few studies have compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) for rectal cancer with follow-up longer than 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes after LTME and OTME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME or OTME. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

Between April 1994 and August 2005, a total of 153 LTME patients and 154 OTME patients were included. Similarly, 10-year OS and DFS after LTME and OTME were observed: 76.8 versus 70.6 % (P = 0.138) and 69.1 versus 67.6 % (P = 0.508), respectively. Conversion to OTME did not adversely affect OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between LTME and OTME. No significant differences were observed in local recurrence rates after LTME and OTME (6.5 vs. 7.8 %, P = 0.837). Median time until local recurrence was 24.5 (range, 12-56) months after LTME and 22 (6-64) months after OTME (P = 0.777). Poor tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node ratio of 0.25 or more were the independent predictors of poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study with long follow-up did not show significant differences between the two groups in OS and DFS.

Functional outcome of low rectal resection evaluated by anorectal manometry

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) covers disordered bowel function after rectal resection, leading to deterioration in patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate anorectal function after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) by means of standardized instruments.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical cohort study conducted in a single institution to assess functional outcome of patients 1 year after laparoscopic LAR by means of LARS score and high-resolution anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

In total, 65 patients were enrolled in the study. Mean tumour height was 9.4 ± 1.8 cm; total mesorectal excision during laparoscopic LAR with low end-to-end colorectal anastomosis was performed in all patients. One year after the surgery, minor LARS was detected in 33.9% of patients, major LARS in 36.9% of patients. Anorectal manometry revealed decreased resting pressure and normal squeeze pressure of the anal sphincters in the majority of our patients. Rectal compliance and rectal volume tolerability (first sensation, urge to defaecate and discomfort volume) were significantly reduced. The statistical testing of the correlation between LARS and manometry parameters showed that with increasing seriousness of LARS, values of some parameters (resting pressure, first sensation, urge to defaecate, discomfort volume and rectal compliance) were reduced.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the majority of patients after laparoscopic LAR experience symptoms of minor or major LARS. These patients have decreased resting anal sphincter pressures, decreased rectal volume tolerability and decreased rectal compliance.

Local control of sphincter-preserving procedures and abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer: Propensity score matched analysis

Sphincter‐preserving procedures (SPPs) for surgical treatment of low‐lying rectal tumors have advanced considerably. However, their oncological safety for locally advanced low rectal cancer compared with abdominoperineal resection (APR) is contentious. We retrospectively analyzed cohort data of 1500 consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for stage II‐III rectal cancer between 2010 and 2011. Patients with tumors 2‐5 cm from the anal verge and clinical stage T3‐4 were eligible. Primary outcome was 3‐year local recurrence rate, and confounding effects were minimized by propensity score matching. The study involved 794 patients (456 SPPs and 338 APR). Before matching, candidates for APR were more likely to have lower and advanced lesions, whereas SPPs were carried out more often following preoperative treatment, by laparoscopic approach, and at institutions with higher case volume. After matching, 398 patients (199 each for SPPs and APR) were included in the analysis sample. Postoperative morbidity was similar between the SPPs and APR groups (38% vs 39%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77‐1.27). Margin involvement was present in eight patients in the SPPs group (one and seven at the distal and radial margins, respectively) and in 12 patients in the APR group. No difference in 3‐year local recurrence rate was noted between the two groups (11% vs 14%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42‐1.41). In this observational study, comparability was ensured by adjusting for possible confounding factors. Our results suggest that SPPs and APR for locally advanced low rectal cancer have demonstrably equivalent oncological local control.

A Systematic Review to Assess Resection Margin Status After Abdominoperineal Excision and Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess resection margin status and its impact on survival after abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Resection margin is important to guide therapy and to evaluate patient prognosis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of resection margin status on survival, and a regression analysis to analyze positive resection margin rates reported in the literature.

RESULTS

The analysis included 111 studies reporting on 19,607 participants after abdominoperineal excision, and 30 studies reporting on 1326 participants after pelvic exenteration. The positive resection margin rates for abdominoperineal excision were 14.7% and 24.0% for pelvic exenteration. The overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly worse for patients with positive compared with negative resection margins after abdominoperineal excision [hazard ratio (HR) 2.64, P < 0.01; HR 3.70, P < 0.01, respectively] and after pelvic exenteration (HR 2.23, P < 0.01; HR 2.93, P < 0.01, respectively). For patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision with positive resection margins, the reported tumor sites were 57% anterior, 15% posterior, 10% left or right lateral, 8% circumferential, 10% unspecified. A significant decrease in positive resection margin rates was identified over time for abdominoperineal excision. Although positive resection margin rates did not significantly change with the size of the study, some small size studies reported higher than expected positive resection margin rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection margin status influences survival and a multidisciplinary approach in experienced centers may result in reduced positive resection margins. For advanced anterior rectal cancer, posterior pelvic exenteration instead of abdominoperineal excision may improve resection margins.

Prognostic factors affecting outcomes in multivisceral en bloc resection for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to determine the clinical and pathological factors associated with perioperative morbidity, mortality and oncological outcomes after multivisceral en bloc resection in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS:

Between January 2009 and February 2014, 105 patients with primary colorectal cancer selected for multivisceral resection were identified from a prospective database. Clinical and pathological factors, perioperative morbidity and mortality and outcomes were obtained from medical records. Estimated local recurrence and overall survival were compared using the log-rank method, and Cox regression analysis was used to determine the independence of the studied parameters. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02859155.

RESULTS:

The median age of the patients was 60 (range 23-86) years, 66.7% were female, 80% of tumors were located in the rectum, 11.4% had stage-IV disease, and 54.3% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The organs most frequently resected were ovaries and annexes (37%). Additionally, 30.5% of patients received abdominoperineal resection. Invasion of other organs was confirmed histologically in 53.5% of patients, and R0 resection was obtained in 72% of patients. The overall morbidity rate of patients in this study was 37.1%. Ureter resection and intraoperative blood transfusion were independently associated with an increased number of complications. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1.9%. After 27 (range 5-57) months of follow-up, the mortality and local recurrence rates were 23% and 15%, respectively. Positive margins were associated with a higher recurrence rate. Positive margins, lymph node involvement, stage III/IV disease, and stage IV disease alone were associated with lower overall survival rates. On multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with reduced survival was lymph node involvement.

CONCLUSIONS:

Multivisceral en bloc resection for primary colorectal cancer can be performed with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality and may lead to favorable oncological outcomes.

Superior mesenteric artery first approach versus standard pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The superior mesenteric artery (SMA) first approach was proposed recently as a new modification of the standard pancreaticoduodenectomy. Increasing evidence showed that a periadventiceal dissection of the SMA with early transection of the inflow during pancreaticoduodenectomy associates better early perioperative results, and setup the scene for long-term oncological benefits. The objectives of the current study are to compare the operative results and long-term oncological outcomes of SMA first approach pancreaticoduodenectomy (SMA-PD) with standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (S-PD).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was performed until July 2015. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) comparing SMA-PD with S-PD to be eligible if they included patients with periampullary cancers.

RESULTS

A total of one RCT and thirteen NRCSs met the inclusion criteria, involving 640 patients with SMA-PD and 514 patients with S-PD. The SMA-PD was associated with less intraoperative bleeding, less blood transfusions and higher rate of associated venous resections. The pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying had a significantly lower rate in the SMA-PD group. There were no differences between the two approaches regarding overall complications, major complication rates and in-hospital mortality. There was no difference regarding R0 resection rate, and one-, two- or three-year overall survival. The SMA-PD was associated with a lower local, hepatic and extrahepatic metastatic rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMA-PD is associated with better perioperative outcomes, such as blood loss, transfusion requirements, pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying. Although the one-, two- or three-year overall survival rate is not superior, the SMA-PD has a lower local and metastatic recurrence rate.

[Spincter preservation after selective chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer. Interim results of the OCUM study]

BACKGROUND

In a prospective multicenter observational study (OCUM) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) was selectively administered depending on the risk of local recurrence and based on the distance between tumor and mesorectal fascia in pretherapeutic high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

OBJECTIVE

Frequency and quality of abdominoperineal excision (APE) and sphincter preserving operations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 642 patients treated in 13 hospitals 389 received surgery alone and 253 nRCT followed by surgery. By univariate and multivariate analysis risk factors for APE were determined. Quality parameters were the quality grade of mesorectal excision, the pathohistological involvement of the circumferential resection margin and intraoperative local dissemination of tumor cells.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In 12.8 % of the patients APE was performed. Independent risk factors for APE were tumor location in the lower third of the rectum and the individual hospitals, where APE varied between 0 and 32 %. This variation was chiefly caused by the different case mix. Hospitals with a high APE rate (> 30 %) treated significantly more patients with very low lying carcinomas (< 3 cm above the anal verge) and more advanced tumors. The median height of the tumor in cases of APE was nearly equal in all participating hospitals. Independent on the number of cases the quality of rectal surgery was high. Within the patient groups of primary surgery and nRCT the oncological quality parameter did not significantly differ between sphincter preservation and APE. As far as sphincter preservation is concerned the results justify a selective application of nRCT in patients with rectal carcinoma. The long-term results still have to be awaited.

Long-term outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was introduced to improve outcomes for low-lying locally advanced rectal cancers (LARC) not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures. This study investigates prospectively outcomes of patients operated on with ELAPE compared with a similar cohort of patients operated on with conventional APE.

METHODS

After the exclusion of patients without neoadjuvant therapy, in-hospital mortality, and incomplete metastatectomy, we identified 72 consecutive patients who had undergone either conventional APE (n = 36) or ELAPE (n = 36) for LARC ≤6 cm from the anal verge. The primary outcome measure was local recurrence at 5 years, and secondary outcome measures were cause-specific and overall survival.

RESULTS

Median distance from the anal verge was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (2 vs. 4 cm, p = 0.029). Inadvertent bowel perforation could be completely avoided in the ELAPE group, but amounted to 16.7 % in the conventional APE group (p = 0.025). Cumulative local recurrence rate at 5 years was 18.2 % in the APE group compared to 5.9 % in the ELAPE group (p = 0.153). Local recurrence without distant metastases occurred in 15.5 % in the APE group but was not observed in the ELAPE group (p = 0.039). We did not detect significant differences in cause-specific nor in overall survival.

CONCLUSION

ELAPE results in lower local recurrence rates as compared with conventional APE. We conclude that the extralevator approach should be the procedure of choice for advanced low rectal cancer not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures.

Pre-operative staging of rectal cancer: a review of imaging techniques

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of rectal cancer has diversified in recent years, presenting the clinician and patient with increasingly challenging management decisions. At the heart of this decision-making process are two competing interests; more radical but more morbid treatments which optimize oncological outcome, and less radical treatments which preserve organs and function but may pose a greater risk of disease recurrence.

AREAS COVERED

Imaging plays a vital role informing this decision-making process, both by providing prognostic details about the cancer before the start of treatment and by updating this picture as the cancer responds or fails to respond to treatment. There is a range of available imaging modalities, each with its strengths and weaknesses. Optimizing rectal cancer treatment requires a clear understanding of the important questions that imaging needs to answer and the optimum imaging strategy. Expert Commentary: This article provides an evidence-based review of the available imaging techniques and an expert commentary on the best imaging strategy.

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer--Extensive Surgery to Be Used With Discretion Based on 3-Year Local Recurrence Results: A Registry-based, Observational National Cohort Study

Objectives:

The aim of this prospective registry-based population study was to investigate the efficacy of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) regarding local recurrence rates within 3 years after surgery.

Background:

Local recurrence of rectal cancer is more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection. Extralevator abdominoperineal excision was introduced to address this problem. No large-scale studies with long-term oncological outcomes have been published.

Methods:

All Swedish patients operated on with an APE and registered in the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry 2007 to 2009 were included (n = 1397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Local recurrence at 3 years was collected from the registry.

Results:

The local recurrence rates at 3 years [median follow-up, 3.43 years (APE, 3.37 years; ELAPE, 3.41 years; not stated: 3.43 years)] were significantly higher for ELAPE compared with APE (relative risk, 4.91). Perioperative perforation was also associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (relative risk, 3.62). There was no difference in 3-year overall survival between APE and ELAPE. In the subgroup of patients with very low tumors (≤4 cm from the anal verge), no significant difference in the local recurrence rate could be observed.

Conclusions:

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision results in a significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rate as compared with standard APE. Intraoperative perforation seems to be an important risk factor for local recurrence. In addition to significantly increased 3-year local recurrence rates, the significantly increased incidence of wound complications leads to the conclusion that ELAPE should only be considered in selected patients at risk of intraoperative perforation.

Selective extra levator versus conventional abdomino perineal resection: experience from a tertiary-care center

BACKGROUND

To compare extra levator abdomino perineal resection (ELAPER) with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APER) in terms of short-term oncological and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database including all the patients of rectal cancer who underwent APER at Tata Memorial Center between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015. Short-term oncological parameters evaluated included circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM), tumor site perforation, and number of nodes harvested. Peri operative outcomes included blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative perineal wound complications, and 30-day mortality. The χ(2)-test was used to compare the results between the two groups.

RESULTS

Forty-two cases of ELAPER and 78 cases of conventional APER were included in the study. Levator involvement was significantly higher in the ELAPER compared with the conventional group; otherwise, the two groups were comparable in all the aspects. CRM involvement was seen in seven patients (8.9%) in the conventional group compared with three patients (7.14%) in the ELAPER group. Median hospital stay was significantly longer with ELAPER. The univariate analysis of the factors influencing CRM positivity did not show any significance.

CONCLUSIONS

ELAPER should be the preferred approach for low rectal tumors with involvement of levators. For those cases in which levators are not involved, as shown in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the current evidence is insufficient to recommend ELAPER over conventional APER. This stresses the importance of preoperative MRI in determining the best approach for an individual patient.

Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage presents the most feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR). A proximal diversion of the gastrointestinal tract is recommended to avoid septic complications of anastomotic leakage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the benefits and risks of diverting ileostomy (DI) created during laparoscopic LAR because of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective clinical cohort study conducted to assess outcomes of laparoscopic LAR with/without DI in a single institution within a 6-year period.

RESULTS

In total, 151 patients were enrolled in the study (73 patients without DI, 78 patients with DI). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding demographic and clinical features. Overall 30-day morbidity rates were significantly lower in patients without DI (23.3 vs. 42.3 %, P = 0.013). Symptomatic anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in patients without DI (9.6 vs. 2.5 %, P = 0.090); surgical intervention was needed in 6.8 % of patients without DI. Post-operative hospital stay was significantly longer in the group of patients with DI (11.3 ± 8.5 vs. 8.1 ± 6.9 days, P = 0.013). Stoma-related complications occurred in 42 of 78 (53.8 %) patients with DI; some patients had more than one complication. Acute surgery was needed in 9 patients (11.5 %) because of DI-related complications. Small bowel obstruction due to DI semi-rotation around its longitudinal axis was seen in 3 patients (3.8 %) and presents a distinct complication of DI laparoscopic construction. The mean interval between LAR and DI reversal was more than 8 months; only 19.2 % of patients were reversed without delay (≤4 months). Morbidity after DI reversal was 16.6 %; re-laparotomy was necessary in 2.5 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study indicates that DI protects low rectal anastomosis from septic complications at a cost of many stoma-related complications, substantial risk of acute surgery necessity and long stoma periods coupled with decreased quality of life.

Laparoscopic translevator approach to abdominoperineal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma: feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extra-levator approach to abdominal perineal resection (APR) was developed in order to reduce the rates of positive circumferential resection margin. This approach, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We postulate that a less radical resection of the levators done laparoscopically could significantly decrease the rate of perineal complications while ensuring an oncologically adequate specimen. To date, to our knowledge, there are no reports in the literature describing a laparoscopic translevator approach for APR. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience with this approach and assess our short-term oncologic and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic APR with intra-abdominal levator transection for rectal cancer from 2012 to 2014 at a single tertiary care institution. Main outcome measures include: perineal flap rates, post-operative complications, length of stay, distance from tumour to circumferential resection margin, R0 status, and disease recurrence. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise noted.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were identified. Patient age was 61 (range 34-75), and 59 % were male. Pre-operative distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 2.6 cm (0.4-3.9). Post-operative length of stay was 4 (4-6) days. One patient required a perineal flap for reconstruction. Four patients (22 %) had perineal complications (three wound infections and one hernia). No patients reported sexual dysfunction, and one (5 %) developed urinary retention. Five (29 %) patients had a complete pathological response. The circumferential resection margin was 1.5 (0.8-2.5) cm, with no positive margins reported. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was 12 (range 2-30). Follow-up was 9.7 months (range 20 days-23 months), during which one patient developed recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a novel surgical approach to APR that has the potential to both decrease perineal complications and provide excellent oncologic results.

Longterm -ostomy as a quality marker: Comparison of outcomes from a six year series of laparoscopic surgery in MRI defined low rectal cancer

AIM

We propose long-term -ostomy rate following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection must be included as an overall quality indicator of treatment in conjunction with frequently reported and readily available end points.

METHOD

A database was collated prospectively of consecutive rectal cancer resections over a 6-year period. Recorded data included pre-operative MRI (tumour stage and height from the anal-verge), as well as demographics, treatment, local recurrence rate, survival and -ostomy rate as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

65 patients were identified and classified as low-rectal cancer if the tumour on MRI was < 6 cm from the anal verge or middle/upper-rectal cancer if between 6 and 15 cm from the anal-verge and below the peritoneal reflection. Permanent stoma rates including colostomies and non-reversed ileostomies were 31.7% for middle/upper rectal cancer; 62.5% for low-rectal cancer and an overall rate of 42.1% for all rectal cancers. For upper-rectal cancer the rates of local recurrence, predicted mortality, R0 resection and conversion were: 0%, 1.9%, 97.6% and 0% respectively. Corresponding figures for low-rectal cancer were: 4.2%, 2.7%, 95.8% and 0%. There were no significant differences for age, sex, predicted morbidity/mortality, survival, recurrence or leak rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has a comparable permanent -ostomy rate to open rectal cancer surgery. We benchmark 31.7% as the permanent -ostomy rate for upper-rectal cancer and 62.5% for low-rectal cancer following laparoscopic resection, in the context of 96.9% R0 resection and 0% conversion rate in a consecutive series of patients.

URINARY DYSFUNCTION AFTER SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR RECTAL CANCER

BackgroundThe impact on quality of life attributed to treatment for rectal cancer remains high. Deterioration of the urinary function is a relevant complication within that context.ObjectiveTo detect the presence of urinary dysfunction and its risk factors among individuals underwent surgical treatment for rectal cancer.MethodsThe present prospective study analyzed 42 patients from both genders underwent surgical treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent. The version of the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire validated for the Portuguese language was applied at two time-points: immediately before and 6 months after surgery. Risk factors for urinary dysfunction were analysed by means of logistic regression and Student’s t-test.ResultsEight (19%) participants exhibited moderate-to-severe urinary dysfunction 6 months after surgery; the average IPSS increased from 1.43 at baseline to 4.62 six months after surgery (P<0.001). None of the variables assessed as potential risk factors exhibited statistical significance, i.e., age, gender, distance from tumour to anal margin, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, type of surgery, surgical approach (laparoscopy or laparotomy), and duration of surgery.ConclusionThis study identified an incidence of 19% of moderate to severe urinary dysfuction after 6 months surveillance. No risk factor for urinary dysfunction was identified in this population.

Nonoperative management of rectal cancer after chemoradiation opposed to resection after complete clinical response. A comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is the standard treatment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Some authors advocate a nonoperative management (NOM) after complete clinical response (cCR) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). We compare our results with NOM to standard resection in a retrospective analysis.

METHODS

Rectal adenocarcinomas submitted to NOM after CRT between September 2002 and December 2013 were compared to surgical patients that had pathological complete response (pCR) during the same period. Endpoints were Overall Survival (OS), Disease Free Survival (DFS), Local Relapse (LR) and Distant Relapse (DR).

RESULTS

Forty-two NOM patients compared to 69 pCR patients operated after a median interval of 35 weeks after CRT. NOM tumors were distal (83.3% vs 59.4%, p = 0.011), less obstructive (26.2% vs 54.4%, p = 0.005) and had a lower digital rectal score (p = 0.024). Twelve (28.0%) recurrences in NOM group and eight (11.5%) in the surgical group occurred after a follow-up of 47.7 and 46.7 months respectively. Isolated LR occurred in five (11%) NOM patients and one (1.4%) in the surgical group. Four (80%) LR were surgically salvaged in NOM group. No difference in OS was found (71.6% vs 89.9%, p = 0.316) but there was a higher DFS favoring surgical group (60.9% vs 82.8%, p = 0.011). Distal tumors had worse OS compared to proximal tumors in surgical group (5-year OS of 85.5% vs 96.2%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The NOM achieved OS comparable to surgical treatment and spared patients from surgical morbidity but it resulted in more recurrences. This approach cannot be advocated routinely and controlled trials are warranted.

Prognostic analysis of schistosomal rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Schistosomiasis is an infectious disease that affects more than 230 million people worldwide, according to conservative estimates. Some studies published from China and Japan reported that schistosomiasis is a risk factor for colorectal cancer in Asia where the infective species is S. japonicum. However, there have been only few reports of prognosis of patients with schistosomal rectal cancer SRC.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze differences in prognosis between SRC and non-schistosomal rectal cancer(NSRC) with current treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 30 patients with schistosomal rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision operation (TME) was performed. For each patient with schistosomal rectal cancer, a control group who underwent laparoscopic TME with non-schistosomal rectal cancer was matched for age, gender and tumor stage, resulting in 60 cases and controls.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed pathologic N stage (P=0.006) and pathologic TNM stage (P=0.047) statistically significantly correlated with disease-free survival (DFS). Pathologic N stage (P=0.014), pathologic TNM stage (P=0.002), and with/without schistosomiasis (P=0.026) were statistically significantly correlated with overall survival (OS). Schistosomiasis was the only independent prognostic factor for DFS and OS in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of patients with schistosomal rectal cancer is poorer than with non-schistosomal rectal cancer.

The impact of standard protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to assess the influence of standardized protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer histopathology reporting.

METHODS

A standardized protocol was created based on the recommendations of The College of American Pathologists. The impact of this protocol was measured by comparing frequencies of assessed parameters in histopathology reports before and after implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 177 histopathology reports were included in this study. The numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 12.4 ± 5.2 (colon) and 12.6 ± 5.4 (rectum) before protocol; and 17.1 ± 6.5 (colon), and 16.6 ± 7.0 after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. The recommended minimum of 12 lymph nodes was not achieved in 42.8 % (colon) and 45.7 % (rectum) of specimens before, and in 10.4 % (colon) and 17.7 % (rectum) of specimens after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. There were no differences in histopathology assessment of proximal and distal resection margins, grading assessment, TNM staging recording, and number of positive findings of microscopic tumor aggressiveness. The findings of tumor budding, tumor satellites, and assessment of microscopic tumor aggressiveness were more frequent after protocol implementation. Histopathology reports of rectal specimens contained assessments of the macroscopic quality of mesorectum, circumferential resection margin, and neoadjuvant therapy effect (if administered) only after protocol introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized protocol is a valuable and effective tool for improving the quality of histopathology reporting. Its implementation is associated with more precise specimen evaluation, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved completeness of histopathology reports.