Selection and Outcomes in Abdominoperineal Resection

Clinical stage T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma: Is radical resection associated with improved overall survival in patients with low-risk histology?

BACKGROUND

Prior studies evaluating the efficacy of local excision compared to radical resection in the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma lacked sufficient power to identify differences in outcomes for patients with cT2 disease but low-risk histopathology. We compared the outcomes of local excision and radical resection for low-risk histopathology and high-risk histology of patients with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma to assess their outcomes.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database for patients presenting with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019 and categorized them as low-risk histopathology or high-risk histology. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality. We 1:1 propensity-matched patients who underwent local excision to patients who underwent radical resection and used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare overall survival for matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 4,446 patients selected, we classified 1,206 (27%) as high-risk histology and 3,240 (73%) as low-risk histopathology. Among the patients with high-risk histology, 121 (10%) underwent local excision and 1,085 (90%) underwent radical resection. Among the patients with low-risk histopathology, 340 (10%) underwent local excision and 2,900 (90%) radical resections. Whereas radical resection was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and increased overall survival for patients with high-risk histology, it was not for patients with low-risk histopathology.

CONCLUSION

The overall survival of patients with low-risk histopathology with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo local excision is similar to those of patients with low-risk histopathology who undergo radical resection, suggesting local excision is a reasonable approach for these patients. In contrast, radical resection provides a significant survival advantage for patients with high-risk histology and should remain their treatment of choice.

A short-term study of laparoscopic-dominant individualised levator ani resection in abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective investigation

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to investigate if laparoscopic-dominant abdominoperineal resection (LDAPR) with individualised levator ani resection inhibits local recurrence (LR) and prolongs survival as compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rectal cancer surgery cases were retrospectively identified from September 2014 to December 2019. LDAPR-treated group (55 patients) and the APR-treated group (71 patients) were included in the study. The operation time, circumferential resection margin (CRM), intraoperative tumor surgery (ITP), post-operative complications, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and LR were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The CRM and ITP were significantly reduced in the LDAPR as compared to the APR group (3.6% vs. 16.9%, t = 5.522, P = 0.019; 3.6% vs. 14.1%, t = 3.926, P = 0.048). In terms of post-operative complications, the incidence of urinary retention in LDAPR was significantly reduced than the APR group (10.9% vs. 25.4%, χ2 = 4.139, P = 0.041). Similarly, perineal pain at 6 months or 1 year after surgery was significantly down-regulated in LDAPR than in the APR group (72.7% vs. 88.7%, χ2 = 5.320, P = 0.021; 18.2% vs. 43.2%, χ2 = 8.288, P = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative complications between the LDAPR and APR groups. Finally, LDAPR led to a significantly improved 2-year OS and a reduced LR compared to APR.

CONCLUSION

LDAPR reduces CMR, ITP and LR and simplified the perineum operation, subsequently protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves. Compared to the conventional APR, LDAPR is a promising procedure worth adopting for rectal cancer treatment.

Patient-Reported Sexual Function, Bladder Function and Quality of Life for Patients with Low Rectal Cancers with or without a Permanent Ostomy

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing utilization of sphincter and/or organ-preservation treatment strategies, many patients with low-lying rectal cancers require abdominoperineal resection (APR), leading to permanent ostomy. Here, we aimed to characterize overall, sexual-, and bladder-related patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for individuals with low rectal cancers. We additionally aimed to explore potential differences in patient-reported outcomes between patients with and without a permanent ostomy.

METHODS

We distributed a comprehensive survey consisting of various patient-reported outcome measures, including the FACT-G7 survey, ICIQ MLUTS/FLUTS, IIEF-5/FSFI, and a specific questionnaire for ostomy patients. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were used to compared demographics, treatments, and QOL scores between patients with and without a permanent ostomy.

RESULTS

Of the 204 patients contacted, 124 (60.8%) returned completed surveys; 22 (18%) of these had a permanent ostomy at the time of survey completion. There were 25 patients with low rectal tumors (≤5 cm from the anal verge) who did not have an ostomy at the time of survey completion, of whom 13 (52%) were managed with a non-operative approach. FACTG7 scores were numerically lower (median 20.5 vs. 22, p = 0.12) for individuals with an ostomy. Sexual function measures IIEF and FSFI were also lower (worse) for individuals with ostomies, but the results were not significantly different. MLUTS and FLUTS scores were both higher in individuals with ostomies (median 11 vs. 5, p = 0.06 and median 17 vs. 5.5, p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting worse urinary function. Patient-reported ostomy-specific challenges included gastrointestinal concerns (e.g., gas, odor, diarrhea) that may affect social activities and personal relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a limited sample size, this study provides patient-centered, patient-derived data regarding long-term QOL in validated measures following treatment of low rectal cancers. Ostomies may have multidimensional negative impacts on QOL, and these findings warrant continued investigation in a prospective setting. These results may be used to inform shared decision making for individuals with low rectal cancers in both the settings of organ preservation and permanent ostomy.

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer: prospective cohort study about good oncologic results and low rates of abdominoperineal excision

OBJECTIVES

the purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of rectal cancer surgery, in a unit adopting the principles of total mesorectal excision (TME) with a high restorative procedure rate and with a low rate of abdominoperineal excision (APE).

METHODS

we enrolles patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer undergoing TME or TME+APE. Patients with mid rectal tumors underwent TME, and patients with tumors of the lower rectum and no criteria for APE underwent TME and intersphincteric resection. Those in which the intersphincteric space was invaded and in those with a free distal margin less than 1cm or a tumor free radial margin were unattainable underwent APE or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). We assessed local recurrence rates, overall survival and involvement of the radial margin.

RESULTS

sixty (89.6%) patients underwent TME and seven (10.4%) TME + APE, of which five underwent ELAPE. The local recurrence, in pacientes undergoing TME+LAR, was 3.3% and in patients undergoing APE, 14.3%. The local recurrence rate (p=0.286) or the distant recurrence rate (p=1.000) was similar between groups. There was no involvement of radial margins. Survival after 120 months was similar (p=0.239).

CONCLUSION

rectal malignancies, including those located in the low rectum, may be surgically treated with a low rate of APE without compromising oncological principles and with a low local recurrence rates.

Biosynthetic Mesh Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Cross Relation of Surgical Healing and Oncological Outcomes: A Multicentric Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Local wound complications are among the most relevant sequelae after an abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer. One of the proposed techniques to improve the postoperative recovery and to accelerate the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is the mesh reinforcement of the perineal wound. The aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes after APR performed with a biosynthetic mesh reconstruction versus the conventional procedure.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, in two tertiary centres, the surgical outcomes, the wound events (i.e., surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the complete healing time) and the oncological outcomes (i.e., time length to start adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, an over 8-week delay in chemotherapy and the recurrence rate) were retrospectively analysed in patients undergoing APR reinforced with biosynthetic mesh (Group A) and conventional APR (Group B). Results Sixty-one patients were treated with APR (25 in Group A and 36 in Group B). Patients in Group A presented lower time for: healing (16 versus 24 days, p = 0.015), inferior perineal wound dehiscence rates (one versus nine cases, p = 0.033), an earlier adjuvant therapy start (26 versus 70 days, p = 0.003) and a lower recurrence rate (16.6% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.152).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the use of a biosynthetic mesh for the neo-perineum reconstruction after a Miles' procedure has resulted in safe, reproducible results affected by limited complications, guarantying a rapid start of the adjuvant therapy with clear benefits in oncological outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Comparison of Perineal Closure Techniques after Abdominoperineal Resections for Carcinoma of the Anus

BACKGROUND

Perineal reconstruction following salvage APR's for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) are scant with conflicting results from large and single center studies. We analyzed these techniques taking into account sociodemographic and oncologic variables.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from 2016-2019 using a targeted ACS/NSQIP database stratified into primary closure (PC), abdominal myocutaneous (AM), lower extremity (LE), and omental pedicled (OP) flaps. We analyzed major and wound complications through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients were analyzed, 512 (67%) had PC, 196 (25%) AM, 36 (5%) OP and 22 (3%) LE. Rates of chemotherapy and radiation within 90 days were similar between the groups. Having 2 or more additional organs resected was more common for the AM group (AM 4.1%, PC 1.6%, OP 3.3%, LE 0%). Overall, major complication rate was 41% (n = 324). Primary closure had 35.0%, OP 47.2%, AM 52.6%, and LE 45.5%. Wound complication rate was highest in AM with 11.7%, followed by OP 8.3%, PC 5.9%, and LE 0%. The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated none of the closure techniques to be associated with increasing or decreasing the probability of having a major or wound complication. Morbidity probability was the sole predictor of major complication (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Myocutaneous and omental flaps are associated with comparable wound and major complications when taking into account the baseline, oncologic and perioperative variables that drive the clinical decision making when selecting a perineal reconstruction.

Effects of wound infection on prognosis after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer

Background

In two facilities in Chongqing, this research sought to retrospectively evaluate the effects of perineal wound infection on survival after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) of rectal cancer.

Methods

To obtain clinical information on patients who underwent LAPR between January 2013 and December 2021, we performed a multicenter cohort study. A total of 473 patients were enrolled: 314 in the non-infection group and 159 in the group with perineal infection. The general data, perioperative conditions, and tumor outcomes between groups were analyzed. The infection rates, recurrence rates, and survival rates of the two centers were compared.

Results

The age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), preoperative complications, preoperative treatment, and intraoperative conditions of patients in the LAPR infection group were not statistically different from those in the non-infection group. The percentage of men, typical postoperative hospital stay, length of initial postoperative therapy, and recurrence and metastasis rates were all considerably higher in the infection group than those in the non-infection group. Wound infection was an independent factor affecting tumor recurrence and metastasis after LAPR as well as an independent factor shortening patient survival time according to multivariate analysis. The incidence of wound infection, the rate of recurrence, and the rate of mortality did not vary significantly across sites.

Conclusion

Wound infection after LAPR increases the mean postoperative hospital stay, prolongs the time to first postoperative treatment, and decreases the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Therefore, decreasing the rate of LAPR wound infection is expected to shorten the postoperative hospital stay and prolong the patient DFS and OS. Patients with postoperative infection may require intensive adjuvant therapy.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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