Previous transanal full-thickness excision increases the morbidity of radical resection for rectal cancer

Management after local excision of small rectal cancers. Indications for completion total mesorectal excision and possible alternatives

The treatment of superficial rectal cancers (local excision, or proctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Endoscopy and endorectal ultrasonography are essential for the precise initial definition of these small cancers. During endoscopy, the depth of the lesion can be estimated using virtual chromoendoscopy with magnification, thereby aiding the assessment of the possibilities of local excision. Current international recommendations indicate completion proctectomy after wide local excision for cases where the pathologic examination reveals poorly-differentiated lesions, lymphovascular invasion, grade 2 or 3 tumor budding, and incomplete resection. But debate persists regarding whether the depth of submucosal invasion can accurately predict the risk of lymph node spread. Recent data from the literature suggest that the depth of submucosal invasion should no longer, by itself, be an indication for additional oncological surgery. Adjuvant radio-chemotherapy could be an alternative to completion proctectomy in patients with pT1 rectal cancer and unfavorable histopathological criteria. A Dutch randomized controlled trial is underway to validate this strategy.

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.

Body mass index-based predictions and personalized clinical strategies for colorectal cancer in the context of PPPM

Currently colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer worldwide. Body mass index (BMI) is frequently used in CRC screening and risk assessment to quantitatively evaluate weight. However, the impact of BMI on clinical strategies for CRC has received little attention. Within the framework of the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (3PM/PPPM), we hypothesized that BMI stratification would affect the primary, secondary, and tertiary care options for CRC and we conducted a critical evidence-based review. BMI dynamically influences CRC outcomes, which helps avoiding adverse treatment effects. The outcome of surgical and radiation treatment is adversely affected by overweight (BMI ≥ 30) or underweight (BMI < 20). A number of interventions, such as enhanced recovery after surgery and robotic surgery, can be applied to CRC at all levels of BMI. BMI-controlling modalities such as exercise, diet control, nutritional therapy, and medications may be potentially beneficial for patients with CRC. Patients with overweight are advised to lose weight through diet, medication, and physical activity while patients suffering of underweight require more focus on nutrition. BMI assists patients with CRC in better managing their weight, which decreases the incidence of adverse prognostic events during treatment. BMI is accessible, noninvasive, and highly predictive of clinical outcomes in CRC. The cost-benefit of the PPPM paradigm in developing countries can be advanced, and the clinical benefit for patients can be improved with the promotion of BMI-based clinical strategy models for CRC.

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.

Cost comparisons of endoscopic and surgical resection of stage T1 rectal cancer

Background and study aims  Management of T1 rectal cancer is complex and includes several resection methods, making cost comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to compare costs of endoscopic and surgical resection and to investigate hypothetical cost scenarios for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Patients and methods  Retrospective population-based cost minimization study on prospectively collected data on T1 rectal cancer patients treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), open, laparoscopic, or robotic resection, in Skåne County, Sweden (2011-2017). The hypothetical cost scenarios were based on the distribution of high-risk features of lymph node metastases in a national cohort (2009-2017). Results  Eighty-five patients with T1 RC undergoing ESD (n = 16), TEM (n = 17), open (n = 35), laparoscopic (n = 9), and robotic (n = 8) resection were included. ESD had a total 1-year cost of 5165 € and was significantly ( P  < 0.05) less expensive compared to TEM (14871€), open (21 453 €), laparoscopic (22 488 €) and robotic resection (26 562 €). Risk factors for lymph node metastases were seen in 68 % of 779 cases of T1 rectal cancers included in the national cohort. The hypothetical scenario of performing ESD on all T1 RC had the lowest total 1-year per patient cost compared to all other alternatives. Conclusions  This is the first study analyzing total 1-year costs of endoscopic and surgical methods to resect T1 rectal cancer, which showed that the cost of ESD was significantly lower compared to TEM and surgical resection. In fact, based on hypothetical cost scenarios, ESD is still justifiable from a cost perspective even when all high-risk cases are followed by surgery in accordance to guidelines.

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.

[Neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer]

The management of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has improved significantly in the past few years with preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and total mesorectal excision. The rate of local recurrence is now around 5 % while the risk of metastatic recurrence has not been reduced which is about 30 %. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy remains questionable apart from patients with ypN+tumor after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for whom FOLFOX is an option. In recent years, several therapeutic trials have evaluated the benefit of extending the time between the end of RT and surgery and/or the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, administered as induction (before RT) or in consolidation (after RT and before surgery). The first results of two positive phase 3 trials, PRODIGE 23 and RAPIDO, have been reported in 2020. The two regimens evaluated in these trials are markedly different but have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduces the risk of distant metastasis. Current developments largely related to a de-escalation of therapy: organ conservation according to a "Watch and Wait" strategy or local resection of the scar, administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy without RT. These therapeutic strategies have not yet been validated but should be in the news tomorrow. The purpose of this review is to present recent data reported in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

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.

Outcomes of completion total mesorectal excision are not compromised by prior transanal minimally invasive surgery

AIM

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is used increasingly often as an organ-preserving treatment for early rectal cancer. If final pathology reveals unfavourable histological prognostic features, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is recommended. This study is the first to investigate the results of cTME after TAMIS.

METHOD

Data were retrieved from the prospective database of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital. Completion TME patients were case matched with a control group of patients undergoing primary TME (pTME). Primary and secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2017, 20 patients underwent cTME and were compared with 40 patients undergoing pTME. There were no significant differences in operating time (238 min vs 226 min, P = 0.53), blood loss (137 ml vs. 158 ml, P = 0.88) or complications (45% vs 55%, P = 0.07) between both groups. There was no 90-day mortality in the cTME group. The mesorectal fascia was incomplete in three patients (15%) in the cTME group compared with no breaches in the pTME group (P = 0.083). There were no local recurrences in either group. In three patients (15%), distant metastases were detected after cTME compared with one patient (2.5%) in the pTME group (P = 0.069). After cTME patients had a 1- and 5-year disease-free survival of 85% compared with 97.5% for the pTME group (P = 0.062).

CONCLUSION

Completion TME surgery after TAMIS is not associated with increased peri- or postoperative morbidity or mortality compared with pTME surgery. After cTME surgery patients have a similar disease-free and overall survival when compared with patients undergoing pTME.

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.

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

AIM

Local excision is recommended for early rectal cancer (pT1). Complementary total mesorectal excision (cTME) is warranted when bad pathological features are present. The impact of a prior local resection on the outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess if prior local excision increases the morbidity of a subsequent cTME compared with primary TME.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2016 all patients who underwent TME after local excision for rectal adenocarcinoma were studied. All were matched (1:1) with patients who underwent primary TME, without neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The matching factors included age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and type of surgery. Short-term morbidity and pathological examination of the resected specimen were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included (14 women, 34%, mean age 65 ± 11 years), comprising classic transanal excision (66%) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (34%), and were matched to 41 patients who had primary TME. cTME was significantly longer (315 min ± 87 vs 275 min ± 58, P = 0.03). The overall morbidity was 48.8% in the local excision group vs 31.7% in the control group (P = 0.18). Surgical morbidity was 31.7% vs 26.8% (P = 0.8). Anastomotic related morbidity was similar (local excision 17% vs TME 14.6%, P = 0.84) and the mean length of stay was similar (14 days) in both groups. There was a tendency to a worse quality of mesorectal excision in the cTME group (17% vs 5%, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Local excision prior to TME for early rectal cancer tends to increase overall morbidity and may worsen the quality of the mesorectal plane but should be considered as a surgical approach in select cases.

Salvage TME following TEM: a possible indication for TaTME

BACKGROUND

Salvage surgery after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has shown mixed results. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) might be advantageous in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term oncologic and operative outcomes of salvage surgery after TEM, comparing TaTME to conventional salavge TME (sTME).

METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with salvage surgery after TEM were identified. Patients who underwent TaTME were compared to those who had conventional sTME. The primary outcome was the ability to perform an appropriate oncologic procedure defined by a composite outcome (negative distal margins, negative radial margins and complete or near complete mesorectum specimen).

RESULTS

During the study period, 41 patients had salvage surgery after TEM. Of those, 11 patients had TaTME while 30 patients had sTME. All patients in the TaTME group met the composite outcome of appropriate oncologic procedure compared to 76.7% for the conventional sTME group (p = 0.19). TaTME was associated with significantly higher rates of sphincter preservation (100 vs. 50%, p = 0.01), higher rates of laparoscopic surgery (100 vs. 23.3%, p < 0.001) and lower rates of conversion to open surgery (9.1 vs. 57%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in postoperative morbidity (36.3 vs. 36.7%, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that for patients requiring salvage surgery after TEM, TaTME is associated with significantly higher rates of sphincter-sparing surgery when compared to conventional transabdominal TME while producing adequate short-term oncologic outcomes. Salvage surgery after TEM might be a clear indication for TaTME rather than conventional surgery.

Does previous transanal excision for early rectal cancer impair surgical outcomes and pathologic findings of completion total mesorectal excision? Results of a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Transanal excision (TAE) is increasingly used in the treatment of early rectal cancer because of lower rate of both postoperative complications and postsurgical functional disorders as compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) OBJECTIVE: To compare in a meta-analysis surgical outcomes and pathologic findings between patients who underwent TAE followed by completion proctectomy with TME (TAE group) for early rectal cancer with unfavorable histology or incomplete resection, and those who underwent primary TME (TME group).

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for studies comparing short-term outcomes between patients who underwent TAE followed by completion TME versus primary TME. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Meta-analysis showed that completion TME after TAE was significantly associated with increased reintervention rate (OR=4.28; 95% CI, 1.10-16.76; P≤0.04) and incomplete mesorectal excision rate (OR=5.74; 95% CI, 2.24-14.75; P≤0.0003), as compared with primary TME. However there both abdominoperineal amputation and circumferential margin invasion rates were comparable between TAE and TME groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that previous TAE impaired significantly surgical outcomes and pathologic findings of completion TME as compared with primary TME. First transanal approach during completion TME might be evaluated in order to decrease technical difficulties.

The feasibility of laparoscopic rectal resection in patients undergoing reoperation after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)

BACKGROUND

The success of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for early rectal cancer depends on proper indications and strict patient selection. When unfavorable pathologic features are identified after TEM operation, total mesorectal excision is recommended to minimize the risk of recurrence. In this study, data were collected in a retrospective series of patients to determine the results of laparoscopic reoperation after TEM.

METHODS

All patients underwent an accurate rectal-digital examination and clinical tumor staging by transanal endosonography, CT, and/or MRI. The histologic examination included an evaluation of the free margins, depth of tumor infiltration according to International Union Against Cancer guidelines, degree of tumor differentiation, and the presence of lymphovascular and perineural invasion. When a high-risk tumor was identified, reoperation was performed within 6 weeks from TEM. The patients were divided into two groups according to the procedure performed: laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) or laparoscopic abdominal perineal amputation (LAPR).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients (5.3%) underwent reoperation: 38 underwent LAR and 30 underwent LAPR. The mean operative time was 148.24 min (± 35.8, p = 0.62). Meanwhile, the mean distance of the TEM scar from the anal verge differed statistically between the two groups (p = 0.003) and was statistically correlated with abdominal perineal amputation (p = 0.0001) in multivariate analysis. Conversion to open surgery was required in 6 patients (15.7%) in the LAR group and 3 patients (10%) in the LAPR group (p = 0.38). The histologic examination revealed residual cancer cells in 3 cases (3 pT2N0) and 1 case (1 pT3N0), respectively, and lymph node metastases in 4 cases. No residual neoplasms were detected in the remaining 60 cases (88.3%). After a mean follow-up of 108 months, the overall disease-free survival was 98% (95% CI 88-99%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, reoperation after TEM using a laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe, with low conversion rates and optimal postoperative results.

Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines

AIM

Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society.

METHOD

Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements.

RESULTS

Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Can We Predict Complete or Major Response after Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer by Noninvasive Methods? Results of a Prospective Study on 61 Patients

Rectal preservation has been proposed as an alternative to radical resection in patients with presumed complete or major response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital rectal examination (DRE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict major or complete rectal cancer response to CRT. Over 2 years, 61 patients underwent radical resection after CRT for rectal cancer. DRE and MRI were carried out before and 6 to 8 weeks after the end of CRT. Data from DRE and MRI post-CRT were compared with pathological examinations. At pathological examination, major/complete responses were recorded for tumors classified ypT1N0 and ypT0N0, respectively. DRE post-CRT showed major/complete response in 26 cases, of which 14 (54%) were confirmed by pathology. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of DRE to predict major/complete response were 54 and 88 per cent, respectively. MRI post-CRT showed major/complete response in 12 cases, of which nine (75%) were confirmed by pathology. The PPV and NPV of MRI to predict major/complete response were 75 and 82 per cent, respectively. Data from DRE and RMI post-CRT were concordant in 45 patients. The PPV and NPV of concordant DRE and MRI to predict major/complete response were 82 and 91 per cent, respectively. DRE and MRI do not appear to be sufficiently accurate for safe selection of patients appropriate for a rectum-sparing strategy because the risk of leaving an invasive tumor untreated is 18 per cent.

Multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer in 2014: Where are we going?

In the present review we discuss the recent developments and future directions in the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, with respect to staging and re-staging modalities, to the current role of neoadjuvant chemo-radiation and to the conservative and more limited surgical approaches based on tumour response after neoadjuvant combined therapy. When initial tumor staging is considered a high accuracy has been reported for T pre-treatment staging, while preoperative lymph node mapping is still suboptimal. With respect to tumour re-staging, all the current available modalities still present a limited accuracy, in particular in defining a complete response. The role of short vs long-course radiotherapy regimens as well as the optimal time of surgery are still unclear and under investigation by means of ongoing randomized trials. Observational management or local excision following tumour complete response are promising alternatives to total mesorectal excision, but need further evaluation, and their use outside of a clinical trial is not recommended. The preoperative selection of patients who will benefit from neoadjuvant radiotherapy or not, as well as the proper identification of a clinical complete tumour response after combined treatment modalities,will influence the future directions in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Local resection for small rectal cancer

Rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is the standard treatment for rectal cancers. Local excision represents an alternative with less post-operative mortality and morbidity and preservation of intestinal and bladder function. However, local excision cannot provide adequate nodal staging. Presently, endorectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are used to select the appropriate patients for local excision, those with limited T1 rectal tumors. There is general agreement that the ideal tumors for local excision are less or equal to 3 cm in diameter, superficial (usTis and/or usT1N0), infra-peritoneal, located below the middle rectal valve, and involving no more than 40% of the rectal circumference. Transanal tumor excision is suitable for distal tumors and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for mid and upper lesions. The principles of adequate resection margin, non-fragmentation, and full-thickness excision are similar to those for any cancer resection. Unfavorable pathologic criteria, as assessed on the fixed rectal specimen, include depth of tumor invasion (submucosal [T1sm3] or muscular [T2]), positive resection margins, vascular and/or lymphatic invasion, and poor differentiation. Further radical surgery is required in case of unfavorable criteria. Simple surveillance may be advised for superficial tumors (T1sm1) without any unfavorable criteria. Management of T1sm2 tumors without any unfavorable criteria should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Modern rectal cancer multidisciplinary treatment: the role of radiation and surgery

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of rectal cancer has evolved during the last few decades due to more in-depth knowledge of rectal cancer biology and major advances in the field of preoperative staging, medical management and surgical techniques. Consequently, treatment strategies are shifting moving towards a more personalized approach based on the response to treatment. Currently topics of controversy are centered around the indication for neoadjuvant radiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer and the role of surgery in patients with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant combined modality therapy. This manuscript aims to critically evaluate the evolution of treatment of rectal cancer during the last three decades and future directions.

METHODS

A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases.

RESULTS

Treatment modalities are moving towards a tailored approach to rectal cancer patients based on the response to chemoradiation. A "wait-and-see" approach and local excision by Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) are strategies recently proposed in case of complete clinical response.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of care still requires that locally advanced rectal cancer should be treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by total mesorectal excision, including patients with a clinical complete response. Further evidence is needed to endorse a "wait-and-see" strategy and to define the role of TEM.

Previous transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer represents a risk factor for an increased abdominoperineal resection rate

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) represents a surgical option in the treatment of selected early rectal cancers. However, when definitive histopathology shows negative prognostic factors, rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) is recommended to reduce the risk of recurrence. No studies have yet analyzed the impact of previous TEM on the perioperative outcomes of immediate laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of LTME after TEM for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients undergoing LTME within 8 weeks after full-thickness TEM for rectal cancer between January 2001 and December 2011 were included. Each patient was matched on the basis of demographic and clinical characteristics with two patients undergoing primary LTME for rectal cancer during the same period. Age, gender, body mass index, tumor distance from the anal verge, tumor size, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, previous TEM, rectal wall defect size created during TEM, and intraoperative complications were included in a multivariate analysis to identify risk factors for abdominoperineal resection (APR).

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients undergoing TEM followed by LTME were compared to 34 patients undergoing primary LTME. Mean operative time of LTME after TEM was significantly higher (206 vs. 188 min, P = 0.025). APR was more frequently performed after TEM [odds ratio (OR) 5.25, P = 0.028] and in male patients (OR 9.04, P = 0.034). On multivariate analysis, a previous TEM was the only independent predictor of APR (OR 4.13, P = 0.046). The incidence and severity of postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Mesorectum integrity was complete in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LTME after TEM is a challenging procedure, with a significantly higher risk of APR compared to primary LTME. Future improvements in preoperative patient selection for TEM are needed to reduce this risk.