Redefining the boundaries of advanced pelvic oncology surgery

Oligometastatic Disease Is Not an Absolute Contraindication to Pelvic Exenteration in Selected Patients With Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer has evolved dramatically in recent decades. As the boundaries of exenterative surgery continue to be pushed, one of the unanswered and controversial questions is the role of radical salvage surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer in the setting of oligometastatic disease.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of synchronous or previously treated distant metastases on survival after pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

A high-volume specialist exenteration center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive adult patients undergoing pelvic exenteration with curative intent for locally recurrent rectal cancer between 1994 and 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall survival from time of pelvic exenteration.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients included, 193 (64%) were men, and the median age at the time of pelvic exenteration was 62 years (range, 29-86). The median time from primary rectal cancer surgery to pelvic exenteration was 35 months (range, 4-191). In total, 56 patients (19%) had a history of metastatic disease, of whom 42 (14%) had previously treated metastases and 18 patients (6%) had synchronous metastatic disease (including 4 patients with both synchronous and previously treated metastases). Five-year overall survival rate and median overall survival was 41% and 45 months, respectively. There was a trend toward poorer 5-year overall survival in patients with a history of metastatic disease compared to those without (25% vs 45%); however, this did not reach statistical significance ( p = 0.110), possibly due to a lack of statistical power. Five-year overall survival was 27%, 25%, and 45% for patients with synchronous metastases, previously treated metastases, and no history of metastases, respectively ( p = 0.260).

LIMITATIONS

Findings may not be applicable beyond highly selected patients treated at specialized exenteration centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival is achievable in highly selected patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer and synchronous or previously treated distant metastases. Therefore, oligometastatic disease should not be considered an absolute contraindication to exenterative surgery. See Video Abstract .

LA ENFERMEDAD OLIGOMETASTSICA NO ES UNA CONTRAINDICACIN ABSOLUTA PARA LA EXENTERACIN PLVICA EN PACIENTES SELECCIONADOS CON CNCER RECTAL LOCALMENTE RECURRENTE

ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento del cáncer rectal localmente recurrente ha evolucionado drásticamente en las últimas décadas. A medida que se siguen ampliando los límites de la cirugía exenterativa, una de las preguntas sin respuesta y controvertidas es el papel de la cirugía radical de rescate para el cáncer rectal localmente recurrente en el contexto de la enfermedad oligometastásica.OBJETIVO:Investigar el impacto de las metástasis distantes sincrónicas o tratadas previamente en la supervivencia después de la exenteración pélvica para el cáncer rectal localmente recurrente.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.ESTABLECIMIENTO:Un centro de exenteración especializado de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos consecutivos sometidos a exenteración pélvica con intención curativa para cáncer rectal localmente recurrente entre 1994 y 2023.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Supervivencia general desde el momento de la exenteración pélvica.RESULTADOS:De los 300 pacientes incluidos, 193 (64%) eran varones y la edad media fue de 62 años (rango 29-86). La mediana de tiempo desde la cirugía del cáncer rectal primario hasta la exenteración pélvica fue de 35 meses (rango 4-191). En total, 56 pacientes (19%) tenían antecedentes de enfermedad metastásica; de los cuales 42 (14%) habían sido tratados por metástasis previamente y 18 pacientes (6%) tenían enfermedad metastásica sincrónica (incluidos 4 pacientes con metástasis tanto sincrónicas como tratadas previamente). La supervivencia global a 5 años y la mediana de supervivencia global fueron del 41% y 45 meses, respectivamente. Hubo una tendencia hacia una peor supervivencia global a 5 años en pacientes con antecedentes de enfermedad metastásica en comparación con los que no la tenían (25% frente a 45%); sin embargo, esto no alcanzó la significación estadística ( p = 0,110), posiblemente debido a la falta de poder estadístico. La supervivencia global a los 5 años fue del 27%, 25% y 45% para los pacientes con metástasis sincrónicas, metástasis tratadas previamente y sin antecedentes de metástasis, respectivamente ( p = 0,260).LIMITACIONES:Los hallazgos pueden no ser aplicables más allá de pacientes altamente seleccionados tratados en centros de exenteración especializados.CONCLUSIONES:La supervivencia a largo plazo es alcanzable en pacientes altamente seleccionados con cáncer rectal localmente recurrente y metástasis distantes sincrónicas o tratadas previamente. Por lo tanto, la enfermedad oligometastásica no debe considerarse una contraindicación absoluta para la cirugía de exenteración. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Survivorship issues in long-term survivors of locally recurrent rectal cancer: A qualitative study

AIM

There are increasing numbers of long-term survivors following curative treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC); however, their experiences remain relatively underreported. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify the long-term survivorship issues relevant to these patients.

METHOD

Adults who remained disease free >3 years following treatment for LRRC were invited to participate in an international multicentre study. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted either in person, via telephone or via Microsoft Teams and were analysed using a framework method of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 26 participants were recruited from 11 sites in seven countries. Sixteen (61.5%) participants were male, the median age was 70.5 (33.0-85.0) years, participants were a median of 5.0 (3.0-17.0) years posttreatment, most had undergone surgery for LRRC (n = 24, 92.3%), two participants received neoadjuvant chemo/radiation for LRRC with a complete response. Eight major survivorship themes were identified: (1) experience of long-term follow-up care, (2) unmet needs and areas for improvement, (3) long-term physical effects of cancer and treatment, (4) living with a stoma, urostomy or other urinary device, (5) long-term psychological impact, (6) impact on sexual function and intimate relationships, (7) impact on daily life and (8) feelings surrounding life now, adapting and the future.

CONCLUSION

Participants experienced a wide range of long-term survivorship issues, reflecting the complexity of both LRRC and its treatment. Despite this, most had adapted well. Further work regarding survivorship care in LRRC is required to address the unmet needs and issues highlighted in this study, such as support regarding sexual function.

Registry-based study comparing health-related quality of life between patients with primary rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

National clinical registries offer the benefits of a comprehensive dataset, particularly when linked with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This aim of this study was to utilise UK registry data to assess cross-sectional differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with primary rectal (PRC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the COloRECTal cancer Repository (CORECT-R) and the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer - Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) datasets. Propensity score matching was undertaken in a 1:1 ratio using two covariates: age and sex. The primary outcome was the FACT-C Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 and clinical significance using effect size (ES) and minimally important clinical difference (MCID).

RESULTS

A matched cohort with 72 patients in each group was identified. Overall FACT-C CCS scores were worse in patients with LRRC from a statistical (11.80 vs 18.03, p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful perspective (ES 1.63, MCID 6.23). Patients with PRC reported better digestion (p < 0.001, ES 0.85), better control over their bowels (p < 0.001, ES 1.03) and increased appetite (p < 0.001, ES 1.74, MCID 2.08). Patients with LRRC reported worse stomach swelling (p < 0,001, ES 0.97) and more diarrhoea (p < 0.001, ES 0.92), however they reported better body image (p < 0.001, ES 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Patients with LRRC reported significantly worse overall scores in the FACT-C CCS from both a statistical and clinical perspective, demonstrating the ability of the FACT-C to distinguish between these patient groups and the benefits of the inclusion of PROs within colorectal cancer registries, specifically including patients with advanced/recurrent disease.

IMPACT organizational survey highlighting provision of services for patients with locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer across Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

Locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer represents a complex clinical entity, which requires multidisciplinary decision-making and management. The aim of this work is to understand the provision of clinical services in this cohort of patients across Great Britain and Ireland (GB&I) as a key essential step to help facilitate future service development and improvement.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, organizational survey was sent to all colorectal cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) across GB&I. It consisted of 12 key questions addressing the provision of specialist services and advanced surgical techniques. Results are reported in line with the CHERRIES guideline.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five MDTs across GB&I participated, with 142 English, 13 Welsh, 14 Scottish, 3 Northern Irish and 3 Irish MDTs. The overall response rate was 93.5% (175/187). Ninety (51.4%) hospital sites reported having a specialist dedicated or subsection MDT. Specialist advanced nursing support was available in 46 (26.2%) hospitals, with a dedicated advanced colorectal cancer outpatient clinic available in 31 (17.7%) hospitals. One hundred and thirteen MDTs (64.5%) offered surgery for advanced colonic cancer, 82 (46.8%) for recurrent colonic cancer, 58 (33.1%) for advanced rectal cancer and 39 (22.2%) for recurrent rectal cancer. A variable number of MDTs offered specialist surgical techniques, including distal sacrectomy [33 (18.9%)], high sacrectomy [16 (9.1%)], complex vascular resection ± reconstruction [33 (18.9%)] and extended lymphadenectomy (pelvic sidewall or para-aortic) [44 (25.1%)].

CONCLUSION

The IMPACT organizational survey highlights the current variation in the delivery and provision of clinical services for patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer across Great Britain and Ireland.

Current perioperative care in patients undergoing a beyond total mesorectal excision procedure for rectal cancer: What are the differences with the colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocol?

AIM

Patients requiring a beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) will probably benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, implementation of ERAS protocols in such groups of patients is considered challenging. The aims of this study were to evaluate ERAS-related outcomes of patients with LARC or LRRC undergoing bTME and to investigate the possibility of designing a tailored ERAS protocol.

METHOD

This study was divided into four phases. Phase one consisted of a literature study to compare functional recovery and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. In phase two, outcomes on ERAS care elements in bTME were retrospectively evaluated. In phase three, differences in ERAS-related outcomes and compliance of the colorectal ERAS protocol in patients who had undergone bTME were studied. In phase four, multidisciplinary team meetings were held to develop an ERAS protocol for bTME patients.

RESULTS

Seven studies reported on ERAS-related outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. Median length of hospital stay was 9-19 days, median stay in the intensive care unit was 2-4 days and 30-day postoperative major complication rates were 22.6%-61.3%. Seventy-five bTME patients were included for retrospective analysis. In these patients, length of stay was 9.0 days and major postoperative complications were observed in 40.0%. The overall ERAS compliance was 44.4%. Compared with the colorectal ERAS protocol, the largest differences in management were observed in the use of epidural anaesthesia, the postoperative use of urethral catheters, oral intake and mobilization.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC are substantially different from patients treated with the colorectal ERAS protocol, regarding ERAS-related outcomes. A tailored, multimodal ERAS protocol with specific modifications was developed by an expert multidisciplinary team for patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC.

Re-Do Plastic Reconstruction for Locally Advanced and Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Following a beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) Operation-Key Considerations

Innovation in surgery and pelvic oncology have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenteration for CRC. However, surgical approaches and outcomes following repeat exenteration and reconstruction are not well described. The resulting defect from a second beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) presents a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. The aim of this study was to explore reconstructive options for patients undergoing repeat beyond TME for recurrent CRC following previous beyond TME and regional reconstruction. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for relevant articles, yielding 2353 studies. However, following full text review and the application of the inclusion criteria, all the studies were excluded. This study demonstrated the lack of reporting on re-do reconstruction techniques following repeat exenteration for recurrent CRC. Based on this finding, we conducted a point-by-point discussion of certain key aspects that should be taken into consideration when approaching this patient cohort.

Why Is Surgery Still Done after Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer in Romania?

The incidence and mortality of cervical cancer are high in Romania compared to other European countries, particularly for locally advanced cervical cancer cases, which are predominant at the time of diagnosis. Widely accepted therapeutic guidelines indicate that the treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer consists of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (total dose 85-90 Gy at point A), with surgery not being necessary as it does not lead to improved survival and results in significant additional morbidity. In Romania, the treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer differs, involving lower-dose chemoradiotherapy (total dose 60-65 Gy at point A), followed by surgery, which, under these circumstances, ensures better local control. In this regard, we attempted to evaluate the role and necessity of surgery in Romania, considering that in our study, residual lesions were found in 55.84% of cases on resected specimens, especially in cases with unfavorable histology (adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma). This type of surgery was associated with significant morbidity (28.22%) in our study. The recurrence rate was 24.21% for operated-on patients compared to 62% for non-operated-on patients receiving suboptimal concurrent chemotherapy alone. In conclusion, in Romania, surgery will continue to play a predominant role until radiotherapy achieves the desired effectiveness for local control.

Development of a risk prediction tool for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration: protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) surgery represents the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer (LARRC). Given the potential morbidity, whether or not PE should be recommended for an individual patient presents a major decisional conflict. This study aims to identify the outcomes of PE for which there is consensus among patients, carers and clinicians regarding their importance in guiding treatment decision-making, and to develop a risk prediction tool which predicts these outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted at a specialist PE centre, and employ a mixed-methods study design, divided into three distinct phases. In phase 1, outcomes of PE will be identified through a comprehensive systematic review of the literature (phase 1a), followed by exploration of the experiences of individuals who have undergone PE for LARRC and their carers (phase 1b, target sample size 10-20 patients and 5-10 carers). In phase 2, a survey of patients, their carers and clinicians will be conducted using Delphi methodology to explore consensus around the outcomes of highest priority and the level of influence each outcome should have on treatment decision-making. In phase 3 a, risk prediction tool will be developed using data from a single PE referral centre (estimated sample size 500 patients) to predict priority outcomes using multivariate modelling, and externally validated using data from an international PE collaboration.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted for phases 1 and 2 (X22-0422 and 2022/ETH02659) and for maintenance of the database used in phase 3 (X13-0283 and HREC/13/RPAH/504). Informed consent will be obtained from participants in phases 1b and 2; a waiver of consent for secondary use of data in phase 3 will be sought. Study results will be submitted for publication in international and/or national peer reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351909.

The evolution of oncovascular pelvic surgery: A historical perspective

Pelvic exenteration surgery has evolved dramatically in recent decades and now represents the standard of care for many patients with advanced pelvic malignancy. Most recently the use of complex vascular resection and reconstructive techniques have been applied in advanced pelvic oncology surgery at specialist units and these oncovascular techniques are considered one of the frontiers in this field. This article summaries the historical evolution of oncovascular surgery in the pelvis and sets the scene for where this treatment is going. The role of vascular resection and reconstruction in curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancy is an evolving area that is redefining the boundaries of what was historically thought possible.

Clinical algorithm for the management of advanced pelvic tumours involving the aortoiliac axis

Pelvic exenteration offers potentially curative treatment for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic tumours. Laterally infiltrating tumours involving the pelvic sidewall have historically been considered unresectable. Highly specialised exenteration units have accumulated experience with en bloc resection of part or all of the iliac vascular system for tumours with major vessel involvement. These approaches involve complex vascular dissection and reconstructive techniques requiring collaboration with the vascular surgery unit. Adding to the complexity is the paucity of evidence on oncovascular techniques in the pelvis given its developing nature. An algorithm for the workup to determine resectability and the vascular reconstruction approach for advanced pelvic tumours involving the aortoiliac axis is suggested based on current literature and personal experience from the authors' unit.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR.

RESULTS

Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study

Background

Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5-10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients' overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC.

Methods

A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA.

Findings

Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease.

Interpretation

The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice.

Funding

None.

Oncovascular surgery for advanced pelvic malignancy

BACKGROUND

The number of units with experience in extended radical resections for advanced pelvic tumours has grown substantially in recent years. The use of complex vascular resections and reconstructive techniques in these units is expected to increase with experience. This review aimed to provide a cutting-edge overview of this evolving surgical approach to complex pelvic tumours with vascular involvement.

METHODS

This was a narrative review of published data on major vascular resection and reconstruction for advanced pelvic tumours, including preoperative evaluation, techniques used, and outcomes. Advice for treatment decisions is provided, and based on current literature and the personal experience of the authors. Current controversies and future directions are discussed.

RESULTS

Major vascular resection and reconstruction during surgery for advanced pelvic tumours is associated with prolonged operating time (510-678 min) and significant blood loss (median 2-5 l). R0 resection can be achieved in 58-82 per cent at contemporary specialist units. The risk of major complications is similar to that of extended pelvic resection without vascular involvement (30-40 per cent) and perioperative mortality is acceptable (0-4 per cent). Long-term survival is achievable in approximately 50 per cent of patients.

CONCLUSION

En bloc resection of the common or external iliac vessels during exenterative pelvic surgery is a feasible strategy for patients with advanced tumours which infiltrate major pelvic vascular structures. Oncological, morbidity, and survival outcomes appear comparable to more central pelvic tumours. These encouraging outcomes, combined with an increasing interest in extended pelvic resections globally, will likely lead to more exenteration units developing oncovascular experience.

Differences in Surgical Outcomes and Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Pelvic Exenteration Between Locally Advanced Versus Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND

Although pelvic exenteration remains the only curative option for locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer, only limited evidence is available on the differences in surgical and quality-of-life outcomes between the two.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes and identify any differences or predictors of quality of life of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration.

DESIGN

This was a cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

PATIENTS

This study included patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration between July 2008 and March 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures included Short Form 36 version 2 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal score.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients were included in this study. Locally advanced rectal cancer patients had higher rates of R0 resection ( p = 0.003), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy ( p < 0.001), and had greater median overall survival (75.1 vs. 45.8 months), although the latter was clinically but not statistically significant. There was a higher blood loss ( p < 0.001), longer length of stay ( p = 0.039), and longer operative time ( p = 0.002) in the locally recurrent rectal cancer group. This group also had a higher mean baseline physical component summary score and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal score; however, there were no significant differences in complications or quality-of-life outcomes between with the two groups at any time points postoperatively up to 12 months.

LIMITATION

The study was from a specialized experienced center, which could limit its generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer tend to require a more extensive surgery with a longer operative time and more blood loss and longer recovery from surgery, but despite this, their quality of life is comparable to those with locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B1000 .

DIFERENCIAS EN LOS RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS Y LOS RESULTADOS DE LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN LA EXENTERACIN PLVICA ENTRE EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO Y EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE RECIDIVANTE

ANTECEDENTES:Aunque la exenteración pélvica sigue siendo la única opción curativa para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y el cáncer de recto localmente recurrente, solo hay evidencia limitada disponible sobre las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos y de calidad de vida entre los dos.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados quirúrgicos e identificar cualquier diferencia o predictor de la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y cáncer de recto localmente recurrente sometidos a exenteración pélvica.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en el Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.PACIENTES:Este estudio incluyó pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y cáncer de recto localmente recurrente que se sometieron a exenteración pélvica entre julio de 2008 y marzo de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las principales medidas de resultado incluyeron el formulario corto 36 versión 2 y la puntuación de la evaluación funcional de la terapia del cáncer colorrectal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 271 pacientes fueron incluidos en este estudio. Los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado tuvieron tasas más altas de resección R0 ( p = 0,003), quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante ( p < 0,001) y una mediana de supervivencia general más alta (75,1 frente a 45,8 meses),a pesar de que esta última fue clínica pero no estadísticamente significativa. Hubo una mayor pérdida de sangre ( p < 0,001), una estancia más prolongada ( p = 0,039) y un tiempo operatorio más prolongado ( p = 0,002) en el grupo de cáncer de recto localmente recurrente. También tenían una puntuación de componente físico inicial media más alta y una puntuación de Evaluación funcional de la terapia del cáncer colorrectal; sin embargo, no hubo diferencias significativas en las complicaciones o los resultados de la calidad de vida entre los dos grupos en ningún momento después de la operación hasta los 12 meses.LIMITACIÓN:El estudio fue de un centro especializado con experiencia, lo que podría limitar su generalización.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente recurrente tienden a requerir una cirugía más extensa con un tiempo operatorio más largo y más pérdida de sangre y una recuperación más prolongada de la cirugía, pero a pesar de esto, su calidad de vida es comparable a aquellos con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B1000 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: oncological outcomes with different treatment strategies in two tertiary referral units

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate different treatment strategies in two leading tertiary referral hospitals in Europe.

METHODS

All patients who underwent curative surgery for LRRC between January 2003 and December 2017 in Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (CHE), or Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (KAR), were studied retrospectively. Available MRIs were reviewed to obtain a uniform staging for optimal comparison of both cohorts. The main outcomes studied were overall survival (OS), local re-recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS).

RESULTS

In total, 377 patients were included, of whom 126 and 251 patients came from KAR and CHE respectively. At 5 years, the LRFS rate was 62.3 per cent in KAR versus 42.3 per cent in CHE (P = 0.017), whereas OS and MFS were similar. A clear surgical resection margin (R0) was the strongest prognostic factor for survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.23 (95 per cent c.i. 1.74 to 2.86; P < 0.001), 3.96 (2.87 to 5.47; P < 0.001), and 2.00 (1.48 to 2.69; P < 0.001) for OS, LRFS, and MFS respectively. KAR performed more extensive operations, resulting in more R0 resections than in CHE (76.2 versus 61.4 per cent; P = 0.004), whereas CHE relied more on neoadjuvant treatment and intraoperative radiotherapy, to reduce the morbidity of multivisceral resections (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In radiotherapy-naive patients, neoadjuvant full-course chemoradiation confers the best oncological outcome. However, neoadjuvant therapy does not diminish the need for extended radical surgery to increase R0 resection rates.

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multidisciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments.

Survival and morbidity outcomes after pelvic exenteration for pelvic sarcoma: an institutional series

BACKGROUND

To describe our institutional experience in the management of locally advanced primary, and recurrent pelvic sarcoma through pelvic exenteration (PE).

METHODS

Patients undergoing PE for locally advanced primary or recurrent pelvic sarcoma between 2003 and 2017 were identified from a prospectively maintained database at a single quaternary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia were eligible for review. The primary outcomes measured were surgical resection margin and survival. Secondary outcome measures included 30-day morbidity, in hospital length of stay (LOS) and return to theatre.

RESULTS

There were 29 patients who underwent PE for pelvic sarcoma during the study period, with 55% (n = 16) having advanced primary tumours and 45% (n = 13) having recurrent disease. The R0 resection rate was 52% (n = 15); and five-year-survival of 38% (n = 11). The R0 resection was noted to be higher in patients having primary advanced tumours (56%) compared to those with recurrent disease (46%), however this failed to reach statistical significance in this cohort. There was no recorded 30-day mortality. Grade 3 or higher Clavien-Dindo complications were uncommon (14%), but more likely in patients undergoing surgery for recurrent disease (75%).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients with locally advanced and recurrent disease, more than 50% achieved an R0 resection. Recurrent disease makes R0 resection more difficult and can lead to higher morbidity, need for 30-day re-intervention and longer in hospital LOS. PE surgery remains the only curative option for locally advanced, and recurrent sarcoma in the pelvis, and can be performed with acceptable survival and morbidity outcomes.