Does transanal local resection increase morbidity for subsequent total mesorectal excision for early rectal cancer?

Oncologic safety and technical feasibility of completion transanal total mesorectal excision after local excision; a cohort study from the International TaTME Registry

BACKGROUND

As part of an organ sparing strategy, a surgical local excision may be performed in patients with early-stage rectal cancer or following neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. In selected cases, a completion total mesorectal excision may be recommended which can be more complex because of the preceding local excision. A transanal approach to perform completion total mesorectal excision may offer an advantage through the better visualization of the surgical field in the distal rectum and less forceful retraction for exposure. However, the oncologic safety and technical feasibility of this approach have yet to be demonstrated in these patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological and technical safety of completion transanal total mesorectal excision following a local excision in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients from the prospective International Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Registry who underwent a surgical local excision prior to completion transanal total mesorectal excision were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 189 patients were included of which 22% received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. In 94% of the patients, a low anterior resection was performed. A primary anastomosis was constructed in 91% (n = 171/189) of the patients, with the majority also receiving a defunctioning stoma (84%, n = 144/171), of which 69% (n = 100/144) were reversed. Within 30 days, 7% developed an anastomotic leakage. The two-year local recurrence rate was 5% (n = 5/104) with an estimated rate of 3% (95% CI 0-7%). Two-year disease-free survival was 85% (n = 88/104) and overall survival was 95% (n = 99/104).

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal completion total mesorectal excision following local excision for rectal cancer is oncologically safe, with low complication rates and high restorative rates.

Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Short-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.

Completion total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and local excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Local excision (LE) in selected cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced rectal cancer in clinically complete or major responders has been recently reported as an alternative to standard radical resection. Completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is generally performed when high-risk pathological features are found in LE surgical specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual tumour and lymph node metastases after cTME in patients previously treated by RCT + LE. The secondary aims were to quantify the rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality and to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome of this group of patients.

METHODS

All patients treated from 2007 to 2020 by LE for locally advanced rectal cancer with a clinically complete or major response to RCT who had a subsequent cTME for high-risk pathological factors (ypT >1 and/or TRG >2 and/or positive margins) were included in this multicentre retrospective study. Pathological data, postoperative short-term morbidity (classified according to Clavien-Dindo) and mortality and oncological long-term outcome after cTME were recorded in a database. Statistical analysis was performed using Wizard for iOS version 1.9.31.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were included in the study. The rate of R0 resection was 95.7%, and a sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 37 patients (78.7%), with a protective stoma rate of 78.4%. In 28 cases (59.6%), it was possible to perform a minimally invasive approach. A residual tumour (pT and/or pN) on cTME specimens was found in 21 cases (44.7%). The rate of lymph node metastases was 12.8%. The overall short-term (within 30 days) postoperative morbidity was 34%, but grade >2 postoperative complications occurred in only nine patients (19.1%), with a reoperation rate of 6.4%. No short-term postoperative deaths occurred. At a median follow-up of 57 months (range: 21-174), the long-term stoma-free rate was 70.2%, and the actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local control (LC) were 86.7%, 88.9% and 95.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When patients exhibit high-risk pathological factors after RCT + LE, cTME should be suggested due to the high risk of residual tumour or lymph node involvement (44.7%). The results after cTME in terms of the rate of R0 resection, sphincter-saving procedure, postoperative morbidity and mortality and long-term oncological outcome seem to be acceptable and do not represent a contraindication to use LE as a first-step treatment in patients with major or complete clinical response after RCT.

Total mesorectal excision after rectal-sparing approach in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment: a high volume center experience

Background

In patient with a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, the organ-sparing approach [watch & wait (W&W) or local excision (LE)] is a possible alternative to major rectal resection. Although, in case of local recurrence or regrowth, after these treatments, a total mesorectal excision (TME) can be operated.

Method

In this retrospective study, we selected 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, from June 2011 to June 2021. Among them, 41 patients were managed by W&W approach, whereas 79 patients were managed by LE. Twenty-three patients underwent salvage TME for an unfavorable histology after LE (11 patients) or a local recurrence/regrowth (seven patients in LE group - five patients in W&W group), with a median follow-up of 42 months.

Results

Following salvage TME, no patients died within 30 days; serious adverse events occurred in four patients; 8 (34.8%) patients had a definitive stoma; 8 (34.8%) patients undergone to major surgery for unfavorable histology after LE - a complete response was confirmed.

Conclusion

Notably active surveillance after rectal sparing allows prompt identifying signs of regrowth or relapse leading to a radical TME. Rectal sparing is a possible strategy for LARC patients although an active surveillance is necessary.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME).

Background

Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes.

Results

In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME.

Conclusions

cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer.

Long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery for rectal tumors in 249 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

To delineate the long-term results of minimally invasive transanal surgery (MITAS) for selected rectal tumors.

METHODS

We analyzed data, retrospectively, on consecutive patients who underwent MITAS between 1995 and 2015, to establish the feasibility, excision quality, and perioperative and oncological outcomes of this procedure.

RESULTS

MITAS was performed on 243 patients. The final histology included 142 cancers, 47 adenomas, and 52 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G1). A positive margin of 1.6% and 100% en bloc resection were achieved. The mean operative time was 27.4 min. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 7% of patients, with 0% mortality. The median follow-up was 100 months (up to ≥ 5 years or until death in 91.8% of patients). Recurrence developed in 2.9% of the patients. The 10-year overall survival rate was 100% for patients with NET G1 and 80.3% for those with cancer. The 5-year DFS was 100% for patients with Tis cancer, 90.6% for those with T1 cancer, and 87.5% for those with T2 or deeper cancers. MITAS for rectal tumors ≥ 3 cm resulted in perioperative and oncologic outcomes equivalent to those for tumors < 3 cm.

CONCLUSION

MITAS is feasible for the local excision (LE) of selected rectal tumors, including tumors ≥ 3 cm. It reduces operative time and secures excision quality and long-term oncological outcomes.

Prognosis of Patients Over 60 Years Old With Early Rectal Cancer Undergoing Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery – A Single-Center Experience

Aim

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is widely performed in early rectal cancer. This technique offers greater organ preservation and decreases the risk of subsequent surgery. However, postoperative local recurrence and distant metastasis remain challenges for patients with high-risk pathological factors. This single-center study reports the prognosis of early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old after TEM.

Methods

The data of the patients over 60 years old who underwent local anal resection were collected retrospectively. Moreover, the 5-year follow-up data were analyzed to determine the 5-year DFS and OS.

Results

47 early rectal cancer patients over 60 years old underwent TEM. There were 27 patients with high-risk factors and 20 patients without high-risk factors. Two patients underwent radical surgery after TEM and ten patients received adjuvant treatment. Local recurrence occurred in 7 patients, of which 4 underwent salvage surgery. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 75.6%, which was lower in the high-risk patients group (69.6%) than in the non-high-risk patients group (83.3%) (P&gt;0.05). The 5-year OS was 90.2%, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (high-risk patients 87.0%, non-high-risk patients 94.4%). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in DFS and OS between people over and under 70 years old.

Conclusion

Some high-risk factor patients over 60 years old do not have inferior 5-year DFS and OS to the non-high-risk patients. TEM is an option for old patients with high surgical risks. Even if postoperative pathology revealed high-risk factors, timely surgical treatment after local recurrence would be beneficial to improve the 5-year DFS and OS.

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision After Transanal Local Excision of Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Completion total mesorectal excision is recommended when local excision of early rectal cancers demonstrates high-risk histopathological features. Concerns regarding the quality of completion resections and the impact on oncological safety remain unanswered.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize and analyze the outcomes associated with completion surgery and undertake a comparative analysis with primary rectal resections.

DATA SOURCES

Data sources included PubMed, Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting any outcome of completion surgery after transanal local excision of an early rectal cancer were selected. Case reports, studies of benign lesions, and studies using flexible endoscopic techniques were not included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention was completion total mesorectal excision after transanal local excision of early rectal cancers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures included histopathological and long-term oncological outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision. Secondary outcome measures included short-term perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 646 patients met the eligibility criteria, and 8 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients undergoing completion surgery have longer operative times (standardized mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0002) and higher intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.01-0.5; p = 0.04) compared with primary resections, but perioperative morbidity is comparable (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62; p = 0.08). Completion surgery is associated with higher rates of incomplete mesorectal specimens (risk ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.41-6.62; p = 0.005) and lower lymph node yields (standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.06; p = 0.01). Comparative analysis on long-term outcomes is limited, but no evidence of inferior recurrence or survival rates is found.

LIMITATIONS

Only small retrospective cohort and case-control studies are published on this topic, with considerable heterogeneity limiting the effectiveness of meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides the strongest evidence to date that completion surgery is associated with an inferior histopathological grade of the mesorectum and finds insufficient long-term results to satisfy concerns regarding oncological safety. International collaborative research is required to demonstrate noninferiority.

REGISTRATION NO

CRD42021245101.

Early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after organ preservation failure in rectal cancer does not worsen postoperative outcomes compared to primary TME: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

While oncological outcomes of early salvage total mesorectal excision (sTME) after local excision (LE) have been well studied, the impact of LE before TME on postoperative outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to compare early sTME with a primary TME for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with the random-effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

We retrieved eleven relevant articles including 1728 patients (350 patients in the sTME group and 1438 patients in the TME group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mortality (OR = 0.90, 95%CI [0.21 to 3.77], p = 0.88), morbidity (OR = 1.19, 95%CI [0.59 to 2.38], p = 0.63), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.34, 95%CI [0.61 to 2.94], p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (OR = 1.38, 95%CI [0.50 to 3.83], p = 0.53), hospital stay (MD = 0.23 day, 95%CI [- 1.63 to 2.10], p < 0.81), diverting stoma rate (OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.44 to 1.09], p = 0.11), abdominoperineal resection rate (OR = 1.47, 95%CI [0.91 to 2.37], p = 0.11), local recurrence (OR = 0.94, 95%CI [0.44 to 2.04], p = 0.88), and distant recurrence (OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.52 to 1.48], p = 0.62). sTME was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD = 25.62 min, 95%CI[11.92 to 39.32], p < 0.001) lower number of harvested lymph nodes (MD =  - 2.25 lymph node, 95%CI [- 3.86 to - 0.65], p = 0.006), and higher proportion of incomplete TME (OR = 0.25, 95%CI [0.11 to 0.61], p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

sTME is not associated with increased postoperative morbidity, mortality, or local recurrence. However, the operative times are longer and yield a poor specimen quality.

Long-term outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for clinical complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in T2-3 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Organ sparing by the transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) procedure is a treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and complete clinical response (cCR).

AIMS

To assess the surgical and long-term oncological outcomes of TEM for the treatment in T2-3 rectal cancer after CRT and cCR.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients with rectal cancer who underwent TEM after CRT and cCR from April 2011 to March 2020.

RESULTS

52 patients underwent TEM during a period of 9 years. This group of patients included 27 females and 25 males. The median age was 62 (32-86) years, lesion size was 2.5 (1-4) cm, and lesion distance from the anal verge 7.3 (4-10) cm. Median operative time was 79.5 (25-120) min and hospital stay was 1 day (14 h-4 days). Morbidity rate was 13.5% and reoperation rate due to major complications was 3.8%. Final histological findings confirmed 34 (65.4%) patients with ypT0, 7 (13.5%), 6 (11.5%), and 5 (9.6%) patients with carcinoma ypT1, ypT2, and ypT3, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 86 (5-107) months, 1 (2.4%) patient had local recurrences and 3 (7.3%) distant metastases. The 5-year disease-free survival was 91.7% and 5-year overall survival 89.5%.

CONCLUSION

Our experience has shown significant rates of ypT0 and ypT1 associated with excellent long-term results. Performing TEM to treat T2-3N0 rectal cancer after CRT and cCR appears to be an oncologically safe and effective procedure.

The impact of transanal local excision of early rectal cancer on completion rectal resection without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The impact of transanal local excision (TAE) of early rectal cancer (ERC) on subsequent completion rectal resection (CRR) for unfavorable histology or margin involvement is unclear. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of TAE on CRR in patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature up to March 2020. Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting outcomes of CRR after TAE for ERC. We excluded patients who had neoadjuvant CRT and endoscopic local excision. Surgical, functional, pathological and oncological outcomes were assessed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 353 patients were included. Pathology following TAE was as follows T0 = 2 (0.5%); T1 = 154 (44.7%); T2 = 142 (41.2%); T3 = 43 (12.5%); Tx = 3 (0.8%); T not reported = 9. Fifty-three percent were > T1. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 80 (23.2%) patients. Postoperative major morbidity and mortality occurred in 22 (11.4%) and 3 (1.1%), patients, respectively. An incomplete mesorectal fascia resulting in defects of the mesorectum was reported in 30 (24.6%) cases. Thirteen (12%) patients developed recurrence: 8 (3.1%) local, 19 (7.3%) distant, 4 (1.5%) local and distant. The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 92%. Only 1 study assessed anal function reporting no continence disorders in 11 patients. In the meta-analysis, CRR after TAE showed an increased APR rate (OR 5.25; 95% CI 1.27-21.8; p 0.020) and incomplete mesorectum rate (OR 3.48; 95% CI 1.32-9.19; p 0.010) compared to primary total mesorectal excision (TME). Two case matched studies reported no difference in recurrence rate and disease free survival respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data are incomplete and of low quality. There was a tendency towards an increased risk of APR and poor specimen quality. It is necessary to improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of malignant rectal tumors in patients scheduled for TAE.

New treatment strategies for non-metastatic rectal cancer

The most widely practiced (standard) treatment of non-metastatic rectal cancer is based on proctectomy with mesorectal excision (partial or total according to the location of the tumor and commonly called TME). Surgery is preceded by CAP50-type chemoradiotherapy (capecitabineand 50 Grays radiation) and performed 6-8 weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy. The development of new endoscopic, surgical, radiation-based and chemotherapeutic modalities leads surgeons to envisage customized treatment to find the best compromise between functional and oncologic results according to the locoregional extension of the tumor. Superficial lesions are amenable to transanal excision. T2-3 tumors<4cm are amenable to rectal preservation when neoadjuvant treatment obtains a complete response, allowing local excision or close surveillance. Intensification endocavitary radiotherapy and induction and consolidation chemotherapy regimens to avoid recourse to salvage abdomino-perineal resection (APR) are under investigation. For locally advanced rectal cancers (T3-4 and all N+ irrespective of T), the following scenarios can be envisaged: for initially resectable tumors (T3N0, T1-T3N+, circumferential resection margin>2mm), neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone aims to minimize the risk of local recurrence while avoiding the sequelae of radiotherapy. In case of initially non-resectable tumors (T4, circumferential resection margin<1mm), induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy after short course radiotherapy provide better results than standard treatment in terms of complete response and recurrence-free survival, and should be routinely proposed in this indication.

Completion total mesorectal excision following transanal endoscopic microsurgery does not compromise outcomes in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) represents a choice of treatment in patients with neoplastic lesions in the rectum. When TEM fails, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is often required. However, a concern is whether cTME increases the rate of abdominoperineal resections (APR) and is associated with higher risk of incomplete mesorectal fascia (MRF) resection. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of cTME with primary TME (pTME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a nationwide study on all patients with cTME from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database between 2005 and 2015. Patients with cTME were compared to patients with pTME after propensity score matching (matching ratio 1:2). Matching variables were age, gender, tumor distance from anal verge, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients with cTME were compared with 120 patients with pTME. Patients with cTME experienced more intraoperative complications as compared to pTME patients (18.3% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.021). However, there was no difference in the rate of perforations at or near the tumor/previous TEM site (6.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.224), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.733) or 30-day morbidity (p = 0.86). On multivariate analysis, cTME was not a risk factor for APR (OR 2.49; 95% CI 0.95-6.56; p = 0.064) or incomplete MRF (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.48-3.63; p = 0.596). There was no difference in the rate of local recurrence between cTME and pTME (5.2% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.1), distant metastases (6.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 1), or survival (p = 0.081). The mean follow-up time was 6 years.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the largest so far on the subject, we find no difference in postoperative short- or long-term outcomes between cTME and pTME.

Completion Surgery in Unfavorable Rectal Cancer after Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery: Does It Achieve Satisfactory Sphincter Preservation, Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision Specimen, and Long-term Oncological Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Unfavorable adenocarcinoma after transanal endoscopic microsurgery requires "completion surgery" with total mesorectal excision. The literature on this procedure is very limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the percentage of transanal endoscopic microsurgery that will require completion surgery.

DESIGN

This is an observational study with prospective data collection and retrospective analysis from patients who were operated on consecutively.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a single academic institution.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery from June 2004 to December 2018 who later required total mesorectal excision were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All the patients followed the same protocol: preoperative study, indication of transanal endoscopic microsurgery with curative intent, performance of transanal endoscopic microsurgery, and completion surgery indication 3 to 4 weeks after transanal endoscopic microsurgery.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seventy-four patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery, 622 with curative intent (group I: adenoma, 517; group II: adenocarcinoma, 105). Completion surgery was indicated in 64 of 622 (10.3%) patients: group I, 40 of 517 (7.7%) and group II, 24 of 105 (22.9%). After applying exclusion criteria, completion surgery was performed in 55 patients (8.8%). Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 23 (45.1%); the initial lesion was within 6 cm of the anal verge in 19 of these 23 (82.6%). The clinical morbidity rate (Clavien Dindo> II) was 3 of 51 (5.9%). Total mesorectal excision was graded as complete in 42 of 49 (85.7%). The circumferential resection margin was tumor-free in 47 of 50 (94%). Median follow-up was 58 months. Local recurrence was recorded in 2 of 51 (3.9%) and systemic recurrence was recorded in 7 of 51 (13.7%); 5-year disease-free survival was 86%.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations are defined by the study's observational design and the retrospective analysis.

CONCLUSION

The indication of completion surgery after transanal endoscopic microsurgery is low, but is higher in the indication of adenocarcinoma. Compared with initial total mesorectal excision, completion surgery requires a higher rate of abdominoperineal resection, but has similar postoperative morbidity, total mesorectal excision quality, and oncological results. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B423.

CIRUGA COMPLEMENTARIA EN CNCER DE RECTO DESFAVORABLE DESPUS DE UNA TEM SE OBTIENE SATISFACTORIAMENTE PRESERVACIN DEL ESFNTER, CALIDAD DE MUESTRA DE ETM Y RESULTADOS ONCOLGICOS A LARGO PLAZO

ANTECEDENTES:El adenocarcinoma con evolución desfavorable luego de una de microcirugía endoscópica transanal (TEM) requiere "cirugía de finalización" con la excisión total del mesorecto. La literatura sobre este procedimiento es muy limitada.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el porcentaje de microcirugía endoscópica transanal que requerió cirugía completa.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional con recolección prospectiva de datos y análisis retrospectivo de pacientes operados consecutivamente.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en una sola institución académica.PACIENTES:Aquellos pacientes sometidos a microcirugía endoscópica transanal desde junio de 2004 hasta diciembre de 2018 que luego requirieron excisón toztal del mesorecto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Todos los pacientes siguieron el mismo protocolo: estudio preoperatorio, indicación de microcirugía endoscópica transanal con intención curativa, realización de microcirugía endoscópica transanal e indicación de cirugía complementaria 3-4 semanas después de la microcirugía endoscópica transanal.RESULTADOS:Setecientos setenta y cuatro pacientes fueron sometidos a microcirugía endoscópica transanal, 622 con intención curativa (grupo I, adenoma: 517, grupo II, adenocarcinoma: 105). la cirugía complementaria fué indicada en 64/622 (10.3%), grupo I: 40/517 (7.7%) y grupo II 24/105 (22.9%). Después de aplicar los criterios de exclusión, la cirugía complementaria se realizó en 55 pacientes (8,8%). La resección abdominoperineal fué realizada en 23 (45,1%); en 19 de estos casos 23 (82,6%) la lesión inicial se encontraba dentro los 6 cm del margen anal. La tasa de morbilidad clínica (Clavien-Dindo > II) fue de 3/51 (5,9%). La excisión total del mesorecto se calificó como completa en 42/49 (85,7%). El margen de resección circunferencial se encontraba libre de tumor en 47/50 (94%). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 58 meses. La recurrencia local se registró en 2/51 (3.9%) y la recurrencia sistémica en 7/51 (13.7%); La supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años fue del 86%.LIMITACIONES:Todas definidas por el diseño observacional y el análisis retrospectivo del mismo.CONCLUSIÓN:La indicación de completar la cirugía después de una TEM es baja, pero es más alta cuando la indicación es por adenocarcinoma. En comparación con la excisión total del mesorecto inicial, la cirugía complementaria requiere una tasa más alta de resección abdominoperineal, pero tiene una morbilidad postoperatoria, una calidad de excisión total del mesorecto y resultados oncológicos similares. ConsulteVideo Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B423. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Early-rectal Cancer Treatment: A Decision-tree Making Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Local excision (LE) has arisen as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for the treatment of early rectal cancer. Despite a decreased morbidity, there are still concerns about LE outcomes. This systematic-review and meta-analysis design is based on the "PICO" process, aiming to answer to three questions related to LE as primary treatment for early-rectal cancer, the optimal method for LE, and the potential role for completion treatment in high-risk histology tumors and outcomes of salvage surgery. The results revealed that reported overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 71%-91.7% and 80%-94% for LE, in contrast to 92.3%-94.3% and 94.4%-97% for radical surgery. Additional analysis of National Database studies revealed lower OS with LE (HR: 1.26; 95%CI, 1.09-1.45) and DSS (HR: 1.19; 95%CI, 1.01-1.41) after LE. Furthermore, patients receiving LE were significantly more prone develop local recurrence (RR: 3.44, 95%CI, 2.50-4.74). Analysis of available transanal surgical platforms was performed, finding no significant differences among them but reduced local recurrence compared to traditional transanal LE (OR:0.24;95%CI, 0.15-0.4). Finally, we found poor survival outcomes for patients undergoing salvage surgery, favoring completion treatment (chemoradiotherapy or surgery) when high-risk histology is present. In conclusion, LE could be considered adequate provided a full-thickness specimen can be achieved that the patient is informed about risk for potential requirement of completion treatment. Early-rectal cancer cases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team, and patient's preferences must be considered in the decision-making process.

Local excision followed by early radical surgery in rectal cancer: long-term outcome

Background

In rectal cancers, radical surgery should follow local excisions, in cases of unexpected, unfavorable tumor characteristics. The oncological results of this completion surgery are inconsistent.

This retrospective cohort study assessed the clinical and long-term oncological outcomes of patients that underwent completion surgery to clarify whether a local excision compromised the results of radical surgery.

Methods

Forty-six patients were included, and the reasons for completion surgery, intraoperative complications, residual tumors, local recurrences (LRs), distant metastases, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed. The results were compared to 583 patients that underwent primary surgery without adjuvant therapy, treated with a curative intention during the same time period.

Results

The median follow-up was 14.6 years. The reasons for undergoing completion surgery were positive resection margins (24%), high-risk cancer (30%), or both (46%). Intraoperative perforations occurred in 10/46 (22%) cases. Residual tumor in the rectal wall or lymph node involvement occurred in 12/46 (26%) cases. The risk of intraoperative perforation and residual tumor increased with the pT category. Intraoperative perforations did not increase postoperative complications, but they increased the risk of LRs in cases of intramural residual tumors (p = 0.003). LRs occurred in 2.6% of pT1/2 and 29% of pT3 tumors. Both the 5- and 10-year CSS rates were 88.8% (95% CI 80.0–98.6). Moreover, the LRs of patients with pT1/2 cancers were lower in patients with completion surgery than in patients with primary surgery.

Conclusions

Rectal wall perforations at the local excision site and residual cancer were the main risks for poor oncological outcomes associated with completion surgery. Local excisions followed by early radical surgery did not appear to compromise outcomes compared to patients with primary surgery for pT1/2 rectal cancer. Improvements in clinical staging should allow more appropriate selection of patients that are eligible for a local excision of rectal cancer.