Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2007;246:916-921; discussion 921-922. [PMID: 18043092 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31815c29ff]

Short-term outcomes of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection for locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A single-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative safety and specimen characteristics after transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR) versus classical intersphincteric resection (cISR) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

Clinicopathological data of 145 patients (75 undergoing taE-ISR and 70 undergoing cISR after nCRT) were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, perioperative details, and pathological specimen quality of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the taE-ISR group compared to cISR (50.0 (40.0-100.0) ml vs. 70.0 (50.0-100.0) ml, P = 0.034). Two patients (2.6 %) in the taE-ISR group and eight patients (11.4 %) in the cISR group sustained adjacent organ injury (P = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of postoperative complications between the two groups (17.3 % vs. 30.0 %, P = 0.072). However, pelvic abscess (1.3 % vs. 8.6 %, P = 0.042) and rectovaginal fistula (0.0 % vs. 5.7 %, P = 0.036) occurred less often in taE-ISR compared to cISR. The complete resection rate was higher in taE-ISR compared to cISR (98.7 % vs. 91.4 %, P = 0.042). No patients in taE-ISR had positive distal resection margins (DRM), while four patients in cISR had positive DRM (0.0 % vs. 5.7 %, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

taE-ISR after nCRT was associated with higher-quality specimens, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and fewer perioperative complications, attesting to the feasibility and safety of taE-ISR In low-LARC patients.

Intersphincteric resection for low-lying rectal cancer: analysis of risk factors and establishment of a preoperative assessment system for postoperative anal function

PURPOSE

In recent years, intersphincteric resection has increasingly become a viable alternative to abdominoperineal resection due to its significant preservation of the anus. Previous studies have indicated that intersphincteric resection has provides comparable oncological outcomes to APR, but anal incontinence remains a common postoperative complication. we reassessed identify preoperatively controllable and measurable risk factors that may affect anal function following intersphincteric resection, and to attempt to construct a preoperative risk assessment system for anal function after intersphincteric resection, thereby standardizing intersphincteric resection treatment for low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 51 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection surgery between January 2018 and March 2023 and maintained autonomous defecation for one year or more were selected. Using Independent samples t-test, rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and linear regression, we analyzed anal function at 12 months postoperatively and the clinical factors influencing it. Construction of a postoperative fecal incontinence risk assessment scale for ISR based on standardized coefficients in multifactorial linear regression.

RESULTS

Age, clinical T stage, preoperative puborectalis muscle thickness, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were identified as independent factors affecting postoperative anal function.

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, higher clinical T stage, thinner preoperative puborectalis muscle thickness, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy are associated with poorer postoperative anal function. Patients with 0-1 high-risk factors can be recommended for intersphincteric resection treatment; those with 3 high-risk factors should not undergo intersphincteric resection; and patients with 2 high-risk factors should have a thorough discussion regarding the potential risks before a cautious surgical decision is made.

Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation After Rectal Cancer Surgery One-year follow-up of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (FORCE trial)

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effects of pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR) after low anterior resection (LAR) at one-year follow-up.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

After LAR, with restoration of bowel continuity, up to 90% of patients develop anorectal dysfunction, significantly impacting their quality of life. However, standardized treatment is currently unavailable. The FORCE trial demonstrated the beneficial effects of PFR after three months regarding specific domains of the Fecal Incontinence QoL (FIQL) questionnaire and urgency compared to usual care.

METHODS

The FORCE trial is a multicenter, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. All patients undergoing LAR were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or a standardized PFR program. The primary outcome measure is the Wexner incontinence score, and the secondary endpoints included the LARS score, the EORTC colorectal-specific QoL questionnaire, and health- and fecal incontinence-related QoL. Assessments were conducted at baseline before randomization, at three months and one-year follow-ups.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients were included (PFR: n=40, control: n=46). After one year, PFR did not significantly improve Wexner incontinence scores (PFR: -3.33, 95% CI -4.41 to -2.26, control: -2.54, 95% CI -3.54 to -1.54, P=0.30). Similar to the three-month follow-up, patients without near-complete incontinence at baseline showed sustained improvement in fecal incontinence (PFR: -2.82, 95% CI -3.86 to -1.76, control: -1.43, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.50, P=0.06). Significant improvement was reported in the FIQL domains Lifestyle (PFR: 0.51, control: -0.13, P=0.03) and Coping and Behavior (PFR: 0.40, control: -0.24, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

At one-year follow-up, no significant differences were found in fecal incontinence scores; however, PFR was associated with improved fecal incontinence related QoL compared to usual care.

Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery for patients with lower rectal cancer remains unclear compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes for lower rectal cancer patients after ISR and APR through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed through January 12, 2022. The primary outcomes included 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence, perioperative outcomes, and other long-term outcomes. The pooled odds ratios, mean difference, or hazard ratios (HRs) of each outcome measurement and their 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 20 nonrandomized controlled studies were included in the qualitative analysis, with 1217 patients who underwent ISR and 1135 patients who underwent APR. There was no significant difference in 5y-DFS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55-1.29; P =0.43) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.46; P =0.76) between the two groups. Using the results of five studies that reported matched T stage and tumor distance, we performed another pooled analysis. Compared to APR, the ISR group had equal 5y-DFS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.30; P =0.31) and 5y-LRFS (local recurrence-free survival) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.29-1.78; P =0.48). Meanwhile, ISR had equivalent local control as well as perioperative outcomes while significantly reducing the operative time (mean difference: -24.89, 95% CI: -45.21 to -4.57; P =0.02) compared to APR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the long-term survival and safety of patients is not affected by ISR surgery, although this result needs to be carefully considered and requires further study due to the risk of bias and limited data.

Revolutionizing sphincter preservation in ultra-low rectal cancer: exploring the potential of transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR): a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

With the optimization of neoadjuvant treatment regimens, the indications for intersphincteric resection (ISR) have expanded. However, limitations such as unclear surgical field, impaired anal function, and failure of anal preservation still exist. Transanal total mesorectal excision can complement the drawbacks of ISR. Therefore, this study combined these two techniques and proposed transanal endoscopic intersphincteric resection (taE-ISR), aiming to explore the value of this novel technique in anal preservation for ultra-low rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four high-volume centres were involved. After 1:1 propensity score-matching, patients with ultra-low rectal cancer underwent taE-ISR ( n =90) or ISR ( n =90) were included. Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, pathological results, and follow-up were compared between the two groups. A nomogram model was established to assess the potential risks of anal preservation.

RESULTS

The incidence of adjacent organ injury (0.0% vs. 5.6%, P =0.059), positive distal resection margin (1.1% vs. 8.9%, P =0.034), and incomplete specimen (2.2% vs. 13.3%, P =0.012) were lower in taE-ISR group. Moreover, the anal preservation rate was significantly higher in taE-ISR group (97.8% vs. 82.2%, P =0.001). Patients in the taE-ISR group showed a better disease-free survival ( P =0.044) and lower cumulative recurrence ( P =0.022) compared to the ISR group. Surgery procedure, tumour distance, and adjacent organ injury were factors influencing anal preservation in patients with ultra-low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

taE-ISR technique was safe, feasible, and improved surgical quality, anal preservation rate and survival outcomes in ultra-low rectal cancer patients. It held significant clinical value and showed promising application prospects for anal preservation.

Validation of Urdu Version of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) Score

Patients subjected to low anterior resection for rectal cancers experience a constellation of symptoms of disordered bowel function which leads to a detriment in the quality of life. The LAR syndrome (LARS) score is a self-administered questionnaire to identify and assess disordered bowel function after resective surgery. The objective of this study was to validate the Urdu version of the LARS score. The translation process was carried out in a fashion outlined by the original authors of the LARS score after obtaining proper permission. The validation of the translated version included the assessment of its reliability, convergent and discriminant validities, internal consistency, and confirmatory analyses. A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study with a 95% power of study. The translated questionnaire was initially administered to a random subgroup of patients to verify the adequacy and degree of comprehension of questions. Then reproducibility was investigated by a test-retest procedure. An analysis was then done to determine the correlation between Urdu LARS score and a quality of life related question that was included along with the questionnaire. The Urdu version of the LARS score demonstrates a high convergent validity in terms of its correlation with self-reported quality of life. It also demonstrated its efficacy to discriminate between clinical variables expected to differ with regards to LARS. There was almost perfect agreement in the test and retest values demonstrating good reliability across all instruments. The Urdu version of the LARS score has proven to be a reliable and a valid tool for measuring LARS in the Urdu speaking population of the Indian subcontinent.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-023-01801-0.

Can the Single-stapling Technique Following Intersphincteric Resection with Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Become the New Standard Anastomosis?

For transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), the indication for single-stapling technique (SST) has been expanded to include lower anastomosis, even in intersphincteric resection (ISR). We focused on the anastomotic techniques following ISR with TaTME and examined the feasibility and safety of the SST below the anorectal junction (ARJ). Data on postoperative anastomosis-related complications and anorectal function was evaluated in comparison to conventional manual hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis in ISR with TaTME. We examined patients with 3-6 cm tumors from the anal verge who underwent ISR with TaTME between January 2018 and March 2020, and whose anastomotic line was located below the ARJ. Postoperative short-term outcomes and anorectal functions were compared. We also analyzed the effects of various factors on major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) using multivariate logistic regression analysis. In total, 87 patients-48 in the hand-sewn anastomosis group and 39 in the SST group-were included in this study. SST below the ARJ in ISR with TaTME did not exacerbate surgical outcomes, including anastomosis-related complications. The SST group had a significantly lower LARS score as compared to the hand-sewn anastomosis group, and the proportion of major LARS was significantly lower. Only hand-sewn anastomosis was identified as a statistically significant independent risk factor for major LARS. In TaTME, SST below the ARJ was safe and feasible and had a lower negative impact on postoperative anastomosis-related complications and anorectal function as compared to hand-sewn anastomosis. Thus, SST is a promising anastomotic option for patients with low-lying rectal tumors.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome

AIM

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future.

METHOD

A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.

RESULTS

Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Evaluation of long-term oncological outcomes of inter-sphincter resection compared with abdominoperineal resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancers: a single center 5-year experience

Objectives

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer. Anus-preserving alternative procedures have been tested to avoid the need for a permanent colostomy. The present study compares the functional and oncological outcomes of the traditional APR methods with inter-sphincteric resection (ISR).

Methods

Sixty patients with ultra-low rectal cancers that underwent tumor resection using the ISR and APR methods were compared retrospectively. Patients' demographic information as well as tumor characteristics were evaluated. All patients were followed after the operation every three months for two years, and then every six months for at least three years.

Results

Thirty-four (56.6%) patients were male, and 26 (43.3%) were females, which showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The mean tumor distance from the anal verge in the APR group was 5.11±0.06 cm and in the ISR group was 5.22±1.1 cm. In the APR group, 9 (30%) patients developed primary tumor recurrence, while in the ISR group, 10 (33.3%) patients had relapses. The observed difference was not statistically significant. However, the study showed that patients with a T stage of T2 or higher had a higher probability of tumor recurrence.

Conclusion

There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the ISR method compared with the conventional APR for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.

Comparison of long-term quality of life based on surgical procedure in patients with rectal cancer

Introduction

Reports on the long-term quality of life (QOL) over 3 years after surgery in patients who have undergone surgery for rectal cancer are limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the long-term QOL of patients who underwent high anterior resection (HAR), low anterior resection (LAR), internal sphincter resection (ISR), or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

A questionnaire regarding QOL was sent to 360 patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection by HAR, LAR, ISR, or APR between January 2005 and December 2015. QOL was assessed using the short-form 36 (SF-36) and modified fecal incontinence QOL (mFIQL) questionnaire. QOL between surgical procedures was analyzed using a multivariate model adjusted for age, sex, and postoperative time.

Results

A total of 144 patients responded with a median follow-up period of 94 months (range 38-233 months). According to surgical procedure, HAR was performed in 26 patients, LAR in 80 patients, ISR in 32 patients, and APR in 6 patients. Patients who underwent HAR had significantly better mFIQL scores than those who underwent LAR and ISR (p=0.013 and p=0004, respectively) and significantly better role/social component summary scores on the SF-36 subscales (p=0.007). No difference was observed in the mFIQL scores between patients who underwent ISR and those who underwent APR (p=0.8423). In addition, postoperative anastomotic leakage sutures did not influence the mFIQL and SF-36 scores after surgery.

Conclusion

The QOL of patients who underwent anus-preserving surgery was best in the HAR group, with the QOL of other groups similar to the APR group. These results suggest that anus- preserving surgery is acceptable from a QOL standpoint. However, a colostomy may be a more satisfactory procedure in some patients.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on the Functional Outcome of Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

The impact of neoadjuvant therapy on the functional outcome of patients with resectable rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to explore the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on anorectal function (ARF), urinary function and sexual function in relevant patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically. All English-language studies, published from January 2000 to July 2021, that explored the (postoperative) effects of neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery on ARF, urinary function and sexual function of patients were included (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021281617).

RESULTS

The data in this study were derived from 37 articles based on 33 studies; in total, 17 917 patients were enrolled. The meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of anorectal dysfunction in the neoadjuvant therapy group was significantly higher than that in the group of upfront surgery, which was manifested by a higher incidence of major low anterior resection syndrome (odds ratio = 3.09, 95% confidence interval = 2.48, 3.84; P < 0.001), reduction of mean squeeze pressure and mean resting pressure, and other manifestations, including clustering of stools, incontinence, urgency and use of pads. With the extension of follow-up time, the adverse effects of neoadjuvant therapy on major low anterior resection syndrome existed. Compared with patients undergoing upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy increased the risk of urinary incontinence (odds ratio = 1.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.00, 1.72; P = 0.05) and erectile dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = 1.27, 2.45; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with upfront surgery, neoadjuvant therapy is not only associated with impairment of ARF, but also with increased incidence of urinary incontinence and male erectile dysfunction. However, the influence of confounding factors (e.g. surgical method, tumour stage) needs to be considered.

Technical, functional, and oncological validity of robot-assisted total-intersphincteric resection (T-ISR) for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Few studies fairly compared anorectal function and prognostic outcomes between patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) and anorectal-function-saving operations (ASO) under the equivalent conditions. By contrast, surgeons used to be somewhat hesitant to conduct total intersphincteric resection (T-ISR) as maximal ASO, due to its technical complexity and potential anorectal dysfunction.

METHODS

Propensity-score matched cohorts undergoing robot-assisted R0 surgery [T-ISR vs APR vs partial-subtotal ISR (PS-ISR)/lower anterior resection (LAR)] for rectal cancer (n = 1361) were included. Operative outcomes, recurrence, and disease-free/overall survival (DFS/OS) were analyzed. Anorectal function was evaluated based on fecal incontinence score and high-resolution manometry between the T-ISR and other ASO groups.

RESULTS

Few differences were detected between the T-ISR and APR groups. More patients undergoing APR had T4 stage disease, while the lowest tumor margin was the same in both groups (mean, 1.5 cm from anal verge). Prognostic outcomes did not differ between the T-ISR and APR groups, including local (5.1% vs 7.7%, p = 1) or systemic (15.4% vs 25.6%, p = 0.401) recurrence, and 5-year DFS (78.7% vs 61.5%, p = 0.1) and OS (89% vs 82.1%, p = 0.434) rates, nor were there differences between the T-ISR and PS-ISR/LAR groups. The PS-ISR group generally showed less anorectal dysfunction than the T-ISR group, but maximal tolerance volume did not differ between these two groups and was within the range for the healthy population.

CONCLUSIONS

T-ISR can replace most traditional APR, except for advanced T4 disease with aggressive infiltration into the levator-sphincters, and can provide tolerable anorectal dysfunction.

The evaluation of postoperative bowel dysfunction in Japanese patients with rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The present study assessed postoperative bowel dysfunction in Japanese patients with rectal cancer, including patients who underwent preoperative radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

A total of 277 rectal cancer patients who underwent primary resection were included in the analyses. A questionnaire survey was administered using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score and Wexner score. Scores were determined one year after rectal surgery or diverting ileostomy closure. The LARS score was categorized as minor LARS (21-29) and major LARS (30-42).

RESULTS

The proportions of patients with minor and major LARS were significantly larger and Wexner scores significantly higher in patients with distal tumors and a lower anastomosis level than in those with proximal tumors and a higher anastomosis level. Among the patients with lower rectal cancer, the proportions with minor and major LARS were similar between those with and without preoperative RT. The Wexner scores in patients with preoperative RT were significantly higher than in patients without RT. A distal tumor location and lower anastomosis level were independent risk factors of major LARS in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

A distal tumor location, low anastomosis level, and preoperative RT might be associated with postoperative bowel dysfunction in rectal cancer patients.

Local transplantation of syngeneic adipose stromal vascular fraction ameliorates damaged anal sphincter function in a rat model of vaginal distension

BACKGROUND

The adipose stromal vascular fraction contains abundant mesenchymal stem cells and is utilized for cell therapy of male stress urinary incontinence. The purpose of this paper was to explore the effect of local transplantation of the stromal vascular fraction on improvement of damaged anal sphincter function.

METHODS

A rat model of vaginal distension was used as a model of damaged anal sphincter function. The adipose stromal vascular fraction was separated from the inguinal fat of syngeneic green fluorescent protein transgenic rats and delivered into the internal anal sphincter of vaginal distension rats. The maximum resting pressure was evaluated during insertion and withdrawal of the catheter at 4 or 10 days after vaginal distension treatment to estimate anal sphincter function. Green fluorescent protein-transfected human-adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells were transplanted into the internal anal sphincter of nude rats. Hematoxylin-eosin and Masson trichrome staining were performed to evaluate tissue damage and collagen synthesis. Transplanted cells were identified using a green fluorescent protein antibody and a human-specific antibody. Activation of the transplanted human-ADSC was evaluated by quantitative RT-PCR RESULTS: The mean maximum resting pressure (during catheter withdrawal) of vaginal distension rats was significantly lower than that of control rats, and stromal vascular fraction injection normalized it 4 days after treatment (control: 5.66 ± 0.98, vaginal distension: 4.04 ± 1.28, vaginal distension + stromal vascular fraction: 5.92 ± 1.28 [mmHg, control versus vaginal distension: P = .039; vaginal distension versus vaginal distension + stromal vascular fraction: P = .007]). Histological examination showed that vaginal distension disrupted the internal anal sphincter, and the transplanted syngeneic stromal vascular fraction survived for 10 days. Transplanted xenogeneic human-adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells survived in the internal anal sphincter of nude rats for 4 and 10 days. Genes related to extracellular remodeling were up-regulated in the transplanted human-adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells CONCLUSION: Syngeneic and heterotopic transplanted adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells engrafted in the internal anal sphincter and ameliorated damaged anal sphincter function in a rat model of vaginal distension.

Functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection in low rectal tumors

OBJECTIVES

Currently, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed in the treatment of low rectal cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent intersphincteric resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. We evaluated the electronic data files of 29 patients who had intersphincteric resections at our institute between 2008 and 2018. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score. Histopathological, surgical and functional outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age of nine female and 20 male patients included in the study was 55.8 ± 12.8 (30-76) years. A tumor-free surgical margin was achieved in all patients. Anastomotic leakage was detected in two patients. Mean Wexner incontinence score of 20 patients who still had functional anastomosis was 8.35, whereas 65% of the patients (n= 13) had a good continence status. There was no relationship between the continence status and sex, tumor distance from anal verge, T stage, distal surgical margin, and lymph node involvement. Twenty-one patients underwent primary coloanal anastomosis and eight patients underwent two-stage coloanal anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of distal rectal cancer, adequate oncological surgery and relatively acceptable functional outcomes can be obtained with intersphincteric resection technique in suitable patients.

Structured and shared MRI staging lexicon and report of rectal cancer: A consensus proposal by the French Radiology Group (GRERCAR) and Surgical Group (GRECCAR) for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts).

RESULTS

Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Risk Factors for Anorectal Dysfunction After Interspincteric Resection in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore the risk factors for anorectal dysfunction after intersphincteric resection in patients with low rectal cancer. Methods: A total of 251 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection from July 2014 to June 2020 were included in this study, for which the Kirwan's grade, Wexner score, and anorectal manometric index were used to evaluate the anorectal function and other parameters including demographics, surgical features, and clinical and pathological characteristics. These parameters were analysed to explore the potential risk factors for anorectal function after intersphincteric resection. Results: In the 251 included patients, 98 patients underwent partial intersphincteric resection, 87 patients underwent subtotal intersphincteric resection, and 66 patients underwent total intersphincteric resection. There were 53 (21.1%) patients who had postoperative complications, while no significant difference was observed between the three groups. Furthermore, 30 patients (45.5%) in the total intersphincteric resection group were classified as having anorectal dysfunction (Kirwan's grade 3-5), which was significantly higher than that in the partial intersphincteric resection group (27.6%) and subtotal intersphincteric resection group (29.9%). The mean Wexner score of patients that underwent total intersphincteric resection was 7.9, which was higher than that of patients that had partial intersphincteric resection (5.9, p = 0.002) and subtotal intersphincteric resection (6.4, p = 0.027). The initial perceived volume was lower in the total intersphincteric resection group than in the partial and subtotal intersphincteric resection groups at 1, 3, and 6 months after intersphincteric resection. In addition, the resting pressure, maximum squeeze pressure, and maximum tolerated volume in the total intersphincteric resection group were worse than those in the partial and subtotal groups at 3 and 6 months after intersphincteric resection. Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that an age ≥65, total intersphincteric resection, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were independent risk factors for anorectal dysfunction (P = 0.023, P = 0.003, and P = 0.008, respectively). Among the 66 patients who underwent total intersphincteric resection, 17 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, of which 12 patients (70.6%) were classified as having anorectal dysfunction. Conclusion: The current study concluded that age ≥65, total intersphincteric resection, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were risk factors for anorectal dysfunction after intersphincteric resection. The morbidity of anorectal dysfunction after total intersphincteric resection for patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy was relatively high, and the indication should be carefully evaluated.

Local recurrence with intersphincteric resection in adverse histology rectal cancers. A retrospective study with competing risk analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety of inter-sphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer with adverse histologic subtypes has been incompletely studied. The present study aims at determining the risk of local recurrence with this procedure in poorly differentiated and signet ring cell (PDSR) adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis from a single tertiary cancer centre of non-metastatic primary rectal cancer <6 cm from the anal verge that underwent ISR. Competing risk analysis and sub-distribution hazard ratios for local recurrence free survivals were calculated to determine factors that influenced local recurrence with the competing risk of death from any cause to overcome the exceeding risk of distant metastasis associated with adverse histologic types.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-two patients underwent ISR and 22.6% has PDSR histology. At a median follow up of 61 months, 15.6% of the PDSR cohort developed local recurrence (five patients) compared to 11.7% in the non-PDSR group. PDSR histology influenced overall and disease free survival but not local recurrence on cox regression. On competing risk analysis, only ypT stage ≥3 predicted worse local recurrence free survival and not histology.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of PDSR histology did not increase the risk of local recurrence after ISR in this retrospective competing risk analysis.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

Minimally invasive versus open intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: long-term oncologic outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a surgical technique intended to avoid abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients diagnosed with low-lying rectal cancer. However, the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive ISR are still controversial. We analyzed the long-term oncologic outcomes of open and minimally invasive ISR. A total of 313 rectal cancer patients who underwent ISR between 2000 and 2014 were analyzed, including 147 in the open surgery group and 166 in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group. This study also analyzed 113 patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for advanced lower rectal cancer. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences between the two groups. 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was the primary end point. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (9.6 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001). Differences in overall postoperative morbidity rates between the groups were not significant; however, the rate of surgical site infection was significantly lower in the MIS group (1.2 vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001). The 5-year DFS associated with all stages combined in the matched patients were not significantly different: 75.2% in the open group vs. 64.2% in the MIS group (p = 0.214). Similar results were found in matched patients treated with nCRT, with 72.0% in the open group and 61.3% in the MIS group (p = 0.078) showing DFS. Both minimally-invasive and open ISR for rectal cancer yielded similar 5-year oncologic outcomes. MIS showed statistically significant advantages in some postoperative outcomes such as reduced surgical site infection and shorter hospital stay, and similar long-term outcomes compared with open ISR. This study also suggests that MIS after nCRT for advanced rectal cancer represents a surgical option with similar oncological results.

Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.

Risk factors for local recurrence and long term survival after minimally invasive intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: Multivariate analysis in 161 patients

INTRODUCTION

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anal-sparing technique as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients. Oncological safety is still debated. This study analyses long-term oncological results and evaluates risk factors for local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS) after minimally-invasive ISR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective single-center data were collected from a prospectively maintained colorectal database. A total of 161 patients underwent ISR between 2008 and 2018. OS and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test). Risk factors for OS and LRFS were assessed with Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 55 months. LR occurred in 18 patients. OS and LRFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96%, 91%, and 80% and 96%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. Tumor size (p = 0.035) and clinical T-stage (p = 0.029) were risk factors for LRFS on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (HR 2.546 (95% CI: 0.976-6.637); p = 0.056) and clinical T-stage (HR 3.296 (95% CI: 0.941-11.549); p = 0.062) were not significant. Preoperative CEA (p < 0.001), pathological T-stage (p = 0.033), pathological N-stage (p = 0.016) and adjuvant treatment (p = 0.008) were prognostic factors for OS on univariate analysis. Preoperative CEA (HR 4.453 (95% CI: 2.015-9.838); p < 0.001) was a prognostic factor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the oncological safety of minimally-invasive ISR for locally advanced low-lying rectal tumors when performed in experienced centers. Despite not a risk factor for LR, tumor size and, locally advanced T-stage with anterior involvement should be carefully evaluated for optimal surgical strategy. Preoperative CEA is a prognostic factor for OS.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Predisposing factors and clinical impact of high-output syndrome after sphincter-preserving surgery with covering ileostomy for rectal cancer: a retrospective single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy-related high-output syndrome has become a major cause of postoperative morbidity after rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to clarify the predisposing factors and clinical impact of high-output syndrome.

METHODS

Clinical parameters that were associated with high-output syndrome and clinical impact of high-output syndrome on nutritional status, electrolyte abnormality and renal dysfunction were retrospectively investigated in consecutive patients with rectal cancer undergoing resection with covering ileostomy during 2016-2017.

RESULTS

High-output syndrome developed in 44/195 eligible patients (22.6%). Multivariable analysis revealed that neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy [odds ratio (OR): 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-5.2; P = 0.02], postoperative complications (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.0-4.6; P = 0.049), postoperative maximal white blood cell ≥ 10,000 cells/μl (OR: 4.0; 95% CI 1.9-8.8; P = 0.0004), and postoperative maximal C-reactive protein ≥ 10 mg/dl (OR: 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-5.2; P = 0.02) were independently associated with high-output syndrome. High-output syndrome was associated with increased renal dysfunction at the time of ostomy closure (29.6% versus 11.9%, patients with high-output syndrome vs. without high-output syndrome, P = 0.008), but not with nutritional imbalance or electrolyte abnormalities. High-output syndrome (OR: 2.5; 95% CI 1.1-5.9; P = 0.03) and postoperative maximal C-reactive protein ≥ 10 mg/dl (OR: 2.4; 95% CI 1.0-5.6; P = 0.04) were independently associated with renal dysfunction at ostomy closure.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy, postoperative inflammatory response, and postoperative complications predisposed to high-output syndrome, and it significantly impacted postoperative renal dysfunction. Active monitoring and early intervention are warranted to prevent renal dysfunction in patients with these factors.

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR.

Results

Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter.

Conclusions

The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Baseline MR Staging of Rectal Cancer: A Practical Approach

As therapeutic options to treat rectal cancers have advanced over the last several decades, MRI has become the standard of care for baseline local tumor and nodal staging of rectal cancers. An understanding of the technique, anatomy, tumor appearance, and elements of staging on MRI is essential to provide prognostic information and to guide neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical treatment. We provide a framework for imaging the rectum on MRI followed by a practical case-based approach to interpretation of pre-treatment MRI of the rectum in evaluation of rectal cancers, with examples and illustrations of the range of local tumor (T) stage and nodal (N) disease involvement. This approach can be paired with standardized reporting templates to support clear, accurate and clinically relevant imaging assessment of rectal cancers.

Protocol for a single-arm confirmatory trial of adjuvant chemoradiation for patients with high-risk rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1612 (RESCUE study)

INTRODUCTION

Intestinal resection with lymph node dissection is the current standard treatment for high-risk lower rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection; however, surgery affects patients' quality of life due to stoma placement or impaired anal sphincter function. A recent study demonstrated that adjuvant chemoradiation yields promising results.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study aims to confirm the non-inferiority of adjuvant chemoradiation, consisting of capecitabine and concurrent radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions), measured by 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS), over standard surgery in patients with high-risk lower rectal submucosal invasive cancer after local resection. The primary endpoint is 5 year RFS. The secondary endpoints are 10 years RFS, 5-year and 10-year overall survival, 5-year and 10-year local RFS, 5-year and 10-year proportion of anus-preservation without stoma, Wexner score, low anterior resection syndrome score, adverse events and serious adverse events. During the 5-year trial period, 210 patients will be accrued from 65 Japanese institutions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The National Cancer Center Hospital East Certified Review Board approved this study protocol in October 2018. The study is conducted in accordance with the precepts established in the Declaration of Helsinki and Clinical Trials Act. Written informed consent will be obtained from all eligible patients prior to registration. The primary results of this study will be published in an English article. In addition, the main results will be published on the websites of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (www.jcog.jp) and jRCT (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/). As to data curation, it has not been prepared yet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCT1031180076.

Study of anorectal dynamics in patients undergoing laparoscopic ultra-low resection and transanal intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Quite a few studies on anal functions after open total mesorectal excision combined with transanal intersphincteric resection (ISR) have been reported, but there is little literature on anal function after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) combined with transanal ISR. The aim of this study was to explore the post-operative anorectal dynamic changes in ultra-low rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME combined with transanal ISR.

METHODS

The data of 26 ultra-low rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME + transanal ISR were analysed. A total of 30 patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection by the same surgeons during the same period were randomly enrolled into the control group.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the preoperative anorectal manometry data and Wexner anal function scores between the observation group and the control group (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the mean operation time, the mean amount of bleeding and the mean post-operative hospital stay between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean follow-up time was 16 months. No recurrence and metastasis were found in all cases. At 3 and 6 months after the operation, there were significant differences in the anorectal manometry data and Wexner anal function scores between the two groups (P < 0.05). However, at 1 year after the operation, there were no significant differences in the anorectal manometry data and Wexner anal function scores between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ISR for ultra-low rectal cancer is technically feasible, but the surgical indications should be strictly defined.

Ultimate Functional Preservation With Intersphincteric Resection for Rectal Cancer

The proximity of the very low rectum rectal cancer to the anal sphincter raises a specific problem: how and until when can we preserve the anal continence without compromising the oncological result of the tumor resection? In this situation, intersphincteric resection (ISR) offers an excellent alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR), but the selection of patients for this option must be extremely precise. This complex choice justifies the simultaneous consideration of an oncological approach with a functional approach in order to provide a full benefit to the patient. When a circumferential resection margin of at least 1 mm can be performed with a distal resection margin of at least 1 cm with or without preoperative radiotherapy, ISR ensures a safety choice. The oncological results of ISR reported in the literature when performed properly found a 5-year disease-free survival of 80.2% with a local recurrence rate of only 5.8%. In parallel to this oncological evaluation, the expected post-operative functional outcome and the resulting quality of life must be properly assessed pre-operatively, since partial or total resection of the internal sphincter impacts significantly on the functional outcome. Based on data from the literature, this work reports the essential anatomical considerations and then the oncological and functional elements indispensables when an anal continence preservation is evoked for a tumor of the very low rectum. Finally, the precise selection criteria and the major surgical principles are outlined in order to guarantee the safety of this modern choice for the patient.

Rectal cancer MR staging: pearls and pitfalls at baseline examination

In recent years, rectal MRI has become a central diagnostic tool in rectal cancer staging. Indeed, rectal MR has the ability to accurately evaluate a number of important findings that may impact patient management, including distance of the tumor to the mesorectal fascia, presence of extramural vascular invasion (EMVI), presence of lymph nodes, and involvement of the peritoneum/anterior peritoneal reflection. Many of these findings are difficult to assess in nonexpert hands. In this review, we present a practical approach for radiologists to provide high-quality interpretations at initial baseline exams, based on recent guidelines from the Society of Abdominal Radiology, Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease Focused Panel. Practical pearls and pitfalls are discussed, focusing on optimization of technique including, patient preparation and protocol recommendations, interpretation, and essentials of reporting.

Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer in Japan

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate sphincter-preserving procedure for low rectal cancer. A questionnaire about the standardization of ISR was given to 2125 patients who underwent curative ISR for low rectal cancer between 2005 and 2012 at 127 affiliated institutions of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR), and the results were compared with the results of a systematic review. The findings revealed that although mortality and morbidity were relatively low and the survival rate after ISR was good, the rates of local recurrence and postoperative fecal incontinence were relatively high. The radicality of ISR was compared with that of abdominoperineal resection and low anterior resection using the propensity score matching prognosis analysis of patients in the JSCCR nationwide registry. The local recurrence rate was significantly higher after ISR, and especially high in patients with T3 (invasion into the external anal sphincter) and T4 disease. These results provide evidence about the factors related to fecal incontinence after ISR. As measures for the standardization of ISR, it is important to reconfirm that ISR is not indicated for patients with cT3 and cT4 disease and those with poor preoperative defecatory function, based on the ISR indication criteria.

Intersphincteric Resection Has Similar Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Compared With Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer Without Preoperative Therapy: Results of Propensity Score Analyses

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection has been performed for very low rectal cancer in place of abdominoperineal resection to avoid permanent colostomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection compared with abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

In this retrospective study, propensity score matching and stratification analyses were performed to reduce the effects of confounding factors between groups, including age, sex, BMI, CEA value, tumor height, tumor depth, lymph node enlargement, and circumferential resection margin measured by MRI.

SETTING

A database maintained at our institute was used to identify patients during the period between 2000 and 2014.

PATIENTS

A total of 285 patients who underwent curative intersphincteric resection (n = 112) or abdominoperineal resection (n = 173) for stage I to III low rectal cancer without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were enrolled in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome was recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Patients in the abdominoperineal resection group were more likely to have a preoperative diagnosis of advanced cancer before case matching. After case matching, clinical outcomes were similar between intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection groups. Five-year relapse-free survival rates were 69.9% for the intersphincteric resection group and 67.9% for abdominoperineal resection group (p = 0.64), and were similar in the propensity score-matched cohorts (89 matched pairs). Three-year cumulative local recurrence rates were 7.3% for intersphincteric resection and 3.9% for abdominoperineal resection (p = 0.13). In the propensity score-matched model, the hazard ratio for recurrence after intersphincteric resection in comparison with abdominoperineal resection was 0.90. Stratification analysis revealed similar recurrence rates (HR, 0.75-1.68) for intersphincteric resection in comparison with abdominoperineal resection.

LIMITATION

Eight covariates were incorporated into the model, but other covariates were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest similar oncologic outcomes for intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection without preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with low rectal cancer adjusted for background variables. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A661.

Intersphincteric Resection for Patients With Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Oncological and Functional Outcomes

The aim of this review is to evaluate the outcomes after an intersphincteric resection (ISR) for patients with low-lying rectal cancer. Reports published in the literature regarding surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of an ISR were reviewed. The morbidity after an ISR was 7.7%–32%, and anastomotic leakage was the most common adverse event. Local recurrence rates ranged from 0% to 12%, 5-year overall survival rates ranged from 62% to 92%, and rates of major incontinence ranged from 0% to 25.8% after an ISR. An ISR is a safe procedure for sphincter-saving rectal surgery in patients with very low rectal cancer; it does not compromise the oncological outcomes of the resection and is a valuable alternative to an abdominoperineal resection. While the functional outcomes after an ISR were found to be acceptable, the long-term functional outcome and quality of life still require careful investigation. ISRs have been performed with surgical and oncologic safety on patients with low-lying rectal cancer. However, patients must be selected very carefully for an ISR, considering the associated functional derangement and the limited extent of the resection.

A comparison of the long-term anorectal function between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the time-course change in the postoperative anorectal function between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) and low anterior resection (LAR).

METHODS

This is a single-institution observational study. We evaluated the time-course change in the anorectal function using functional questionnaires before and at 6, 12, and 24 months after laparoscopic ISR or LAR.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients answered the functional questionnaires (28 in the ISR group and 34 in the LAR group). In the ISR group, the Wexner scores at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively were significantly higher than preoperatively. Importantly, the Wexner score at 24 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that at 6 months postoperatively. The low GIFO scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively tended to be recovered to some extent at 24 months postoperatively. In the LAR group, Wexner score at 6 months postoperatively was significantly higher than that preoperatively. Notably, the Wexner score at 12 months postoperatively was recovered to almost the same as that preoperatively. The GIFO scores at 12 months postoperatively were mostly recovered to the same levels as those preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ISR exhibits different time-course changes in the anorectal function from laparoscopic LAR.

Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results

Objective

This study was performed to evaluate the 1-year survival rate and functional outcomes of 20 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

Twenty patients who underwent ISR for low rectal cancer were followed up for 1 year. Complications, functional outcomes objectified by the Wexner score, and oncological outcomes were assessed.

Results

The short-term survival rate was 100%. The median Wexner score was ≤10 in all patients at 12 months after surgery. Signs of local recurrence were absent, and antigen levels remained within the reference ranges 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusions

ISR is a feasible alternative in highly selected patients who primarily refuse a colostomy bag and present with type II or III tumors. In the present study, patient-reported continence was satisfactory, and the absence of a colostomy bag increased patients’ quality of life. The oncological outcomes were satisfactory at 1 year postoperatively.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Modified Intersphincter Resection for Ultralow Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Intersphincter resection (ISR) is considered to be a superior technique offering sphincter preservation in patients with ultralow rectal cancer.1 Because high-definition laparoscopy offers wider and clearer vision into the narrow pelvic cavity and intersphincteric space, ISR has been further refined.2 However, functional outcome after ISR has not been optimal. More than half of patients receiving ISR suffer partial or even complete anal incontinence.3 We therefore propose a laparoscopic-assisted modified ISR, with the aim of improving sphincter function following ISR.

METHODS

The video describes the technique for performing such laparoscopic-assisted modified ISR in a 62-year-old woman with ultralow rectal cancer (3 cm from anal verge). Preoperative staging by endorectal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging revealed stage I rectal cancer (cT₂N₀M₀). The operation consisted of an abdominal and a perineal phase. The abdominal phase routinely involved colonic mobilization with high ligation of inferior mesenteric vessels, total mesorectal excision (TME), as well as transabdominal intersphincteric dissection. The procedure for laparoscopic TME was performed according to our published method.4 Along the TME dissection plane, the puborectalis could be reached and the intersphincteric space was entered posterolaterally. The hiatal ligament at the posterior side of the rectum was transected afterwards. The dissection of the intersphincteric space was continued caudally at the anterior side of the rectum. The distal bowel wall was mobilized for 2 cm from the lower edge of the tumor to obtain adequate distal margin. At this point, circular dissection of the intersphincteric space was completed. After the abdominal phase, perineal dissection was performed with wide exposure by use of a hooked self-retaining retractor. The lower margin of the tumor was identified under direct vision. We developed a modified ISR technique. Resection of the mucosa and internal sphincter was initiated 2 cm distal to the lower edge of the tumor at the tumor side to obtain the necessary distal margin. Meanwhile, at the opposite side of the tumor, the resection line was just above the dentate line so that partial dentate line could be preserved. After removal of the specimen en bloc per anus, the pelvic cavity was generously irrigated with diluted povidone iodine solutions. The distal margin of the specimen was then examined by frozen section for presence of cancer. If clear, coloanal anastomosis was performed using a handsewn technique. The colon was rotated 90° and anastomosed to the anal canal with interrupted absorbable 3-0 sutures. Finally, a pelvic suction drain was placed, and a temporary diverting stoma made in the terminal ileum.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative complications. The operating time was 180 min. Blood loss was 50 mL. The distal margin was clear, and the final pathology was pT₂N₀M₀. The patient underwent an uneventful recovery. She began sphincter-strengthening exercises 2 weeks after surgery. The stoma was closed after examinations 3 months later. No local recurrence or distant metastasis was found. At 12-month follow-up, in terms of sphincteric function, the patient was continent to solids, liquids, and flatus.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-assisted modified intersphincter resection for ultralow rectal cancer is safe and feasible. This technique should be considered whenever possible as a means to offer sphincter preservation and improve sphincter function in patients with ultralow rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term effects of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with the conventional open approach for patients with low rectal cancer through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2017. Operation time, blood loss, circumferential resection margin-positive rate, distal margin length, number of resected lymph nodes, diverting stoma rate, postoperative overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay were the main short-term effect endpoints. We also examined disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and post-operational anal function as secondary outcomes to evaluate the mid-term effects of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 620 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the open approach, the laparoscopic ISR had less blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 214.65 ml, 95% CI [- 370.44, - 196.13], p < 0.01), less postoperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86], p < 0.01), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = - 5.87 days, 95% CI [- 11.35, - 0.40], p < 0.05); however, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 47.34 min, 95% CI [4.10, 90.58], p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer offers fewer complications and faster recovery, with similar operation quality and mid-term oncological results than the conventional approach. Although this technique is comparatively more complex than the conventional approach and requires practice, laparoscopic ISR shows great potential as a surgical option and deserves further clinical study.

Long-Term Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancers

Surgery for low rectal cancer often involves a permanent stoma. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) with colo-anal anastomosis is a valuable sphincter sparing surgical procedure that avoids the need for permanent stoma in patients with low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term functional and oncological outcomes following ISR. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent ISR with colo-anal anastomosis in our institution between 2007 and 2015. All patients had a diversion stoma. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score, low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS), and the Cancer Institute Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. The histological reports were reviewed to assess the oncological adequacy of the surgery. Patterns of recurrence and survival were analyzed in this group of patients. Thirty-three patients who underwent an ISR were eligible for this study. Laparoscopic resection was performed in five patients. All the patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation except the two who received short course radiation and one who did not receive any neoadjuvant treatment. The median distance from the anal verge to the distal edge of the tumor was 3 cm (range 1.5-5 cm). Distal resection margins and circumferential resection margins were negative in all the patients. The 30-day post-operative mortality rate was 3.03%. In 20 patients with a median follow-up of 48 months, the 3-year overall survival was 95%. One patient had recurrence in the para-aortic nodes. No patient had a local recurrence. Bowel function was assessed in 18 patients who had a minimum stoma free period of 1 year. After a median of 43 months following stoma closure, the median Wexner score was 3.56 (range 0-19), median LARS score was 4.78 (range 0-33), and the mean Cancer Institute QoL score was 151.56 ± 15.741. The QoL was average to very high with an overall acceptable quality of life. In this study, ISR was associated with acceptable long-term functional and oncological outcomes. It can be considered as a safe alternative to a permanent stoma in selected patients with low rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric Resection Pushing the Envelope for Sphincter Preservation

During the last 15 years, a significant evolution has emerged in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer and restoration of bowel continuity has been one of the main goals. For many years the treatment of distal rectal cancer would necessarily require an abdominoperineal resection and end colostomy. The surgical procedure of intersphincteric resection has been proposed to offer sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer and has been legitimized if executed according to adequate oncologic criteria. This article will discuss the best indications, technical aspects, functional, and oncological outcomes of intersphicteric resection in the management of rectal cancer.

Functional outcomes after intersphincteric resection for ultralow rectal cancer

Anal function is one of the most important parameters for evaluating the efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) for the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer (< 1 cm from the anal sphincter). Although there have been no results hitherto from randomized controlled trials to verify the clinical benefits of the ultimate sphincter-sparing technique, increasing evidence demonstrates that ISR significantly decreases the rate of permanent stoma and patients could acquire satisfied functional results after surgery. This review discusses the short-term and long-term functional outcomes, risk factors for anal incontinence, and surgical method and approach of ISR.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for a lower rectal tumor

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) for a lower rectal tumor in comparison with a case-control series of patients undergoing open ISR. Quality of life factors and anal function were also evaluated. Between July 2008 and April 2013, 103 patients with lower rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic surgery at the Surgical Oncology Department of Gifu University School of Medicine. A total of 25 patients with lower rectal cancer underwent ISR, and 19/25 patients who underwent laparoscopic ISR were compared with the control group of 6 patients who underwent open ISR. The technical feasibility and safety of ISR, and the short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic ISR were evaluated. Additional data associated with fecal incontinence conditions of the postoperative patients were evaluated using the Modified Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale. There was no recorded perioperative mortality, three complications were observed to occur in three patients and the morbidity rate was 15.8%. The postoperative complications detected included bleeding in one patient and ileus in two patients of the laparoscopic ISR group. The rate of severe complications of grade ≥3a was 15.8% and that of grade ≥3b was 5.3%. In the matched case-control study, blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic ISR group. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14.1 days in the laparoscopic ISR group, which was significantly shorter compared with in the open ISR group (18.7 days). Cancer recurrence was detected in one (5%) patient in a single inguinal lymph node. No significant differences between the ISR and ultra-low anterior resection (ULAR) groups were observed in the maximum resting and maximum squeeze pressures; the outcomes for anal function and fecal incontinence were the same for ISR and ULAR. Thus, laparoscopic ISR for lower rectal cancer may provide a benefit in the early postoperative period without increasing morbidity or mortality.

Sphincter-Preserving Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: Do We Overshoot the Mark?

PURPOSE

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for a selected subset of patients with low rectal cancer, combining equivalent oncological outcome and sphincter preservation. However, functional results are heterogeneous and often imperfect. The aim of the present investigation was to determine the long-term functional results and quality of life after ISR.

METHODS

One hundred forty-three consecutive patients who underwent surgery for low rectal cancer were analysed. Sixty patients received ISR and 83 patients APR, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyse patients' survival. The EORTC QLQ-C30, -C29 and the Wexner score were used to determine functional outcome and quality of life.

RESULTS

ISR and APR were both associated with comparable morbidity and no mortality. Patients' disease- and recurrence-free survival after ISR and APR were similar (p = 0.2872 and p = 0.4635). Closure of ileostomy was performed in 73% of all patients after ISR. Long-term outcome showed a rate of incontinence (Wexner score ≥10) in 66% of the patients. Despite this, patients' quality of life was significantly better after ISR compared to APR in terms of abdominal complaints and psycho-emotional functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

ISR is technically feasible with acceptable postoperative morbidity rates. Functional results following ISR are compromised by incontinence as the most important complication. However, long-term quality of life is superior to APR, which should be considered when selecting patients for ISR.

Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2014, 277 consecutive patients with stage I-III low rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the anal verge underwent curative ISR and APR. A retrospective comparison of these two procedures was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 128 patients underwent ISR and 149 underwent APR. The ISR group had earlier clinical stages and shorter distal margins (p < 0.01). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 84.7/74.7% with T1-2 tumors and 51.3/67.6% with T3-4 tumors. In T3-4 tumors, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the ISR group (13.2%) than in the APR group (3.8%). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 89.7/92.3% for stage I cases, 84.4/87.5% for stage II cases, and 39.8/51.8% for stage III cases. Patients with stage III tumors had high rates of distant recurrence in both groups (24.3 vs. 26.3%).

CONCLUSION

ISR is a feasible surgical procedure for T1-2 tumors. Patients with stage III tumors should be considered for adjuvant therapy to control distant recurrence regardless of the surgical procedure.

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: A review of the updated literature

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has rapidly increased worldwide including laparoscopic surgery. However, there are some concerns for the definition of ISR, surgical technique, oncological outcome, anal function, and quality of life (QoL). The aim of the present study is to evaluate those issues. A review of this surgical technique was carried out by searching English language literature of the PubMed online database and appropriate articles were identified. With regard to open‐ISR, the morbidity rate ranged from 7.5% to 38.3%, with lower mortality rates. Local recurrence rates varied widely from 0% to 22.7%, with a mean follow‐up duration of 40–94 months. Disease‐free and overall 5‐year survival rates were 68–86% and 76–97%, respectively. Those outcomes were equivalent to laparoscopic‐ISR. Surgical and oncological outcomes of ISR were generally acceptable. However, accurate evaluation of anal function and QoL was difficult because of a lack of standard assessment of various patient‐related factors. The surgical and oncological outcomes after ISR seem to be acceptable. The ISR technique seems to be valid as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection in selected patients with a very low rectal cancer. However, both necessity for ISR and expectations of QoL impairment as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.