Risk factors associated with sphincter-preserving resection in patients with low rectal cancer

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Can Pre-Treatment Inflammatory Parameters Predict the Probability of Sphincter-Preserving Surgery in Patients with Locally Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer?

There is evidence suggesting that pre-treatment clinical parameters can predict the probability of sphincter-preserving surgery in rectal cancer; however, to date, data on the predictive role of inflammatory parameters on the sphincter-preservation rate are not available. The aim of the present cohort study was to investigate the association between inflammation-based parameters and the sphincter-preserving surgery rate in patients with low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). A total of 848 patients with LARC undergoing radiotherapy from 2004 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed in order to identify patients with rectal cancer localized ≤6 cm from the anal verge, treated with neo-adjuvant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) and subsequent surgery. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to investigate the role of pre-treatment inflammatory parameters, including the C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) for the prediction of sphincter preservation. A total of 363 patients met the inclusion criteria; among them, 210 patients (57.9%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, and in 153 patients (42.1%), an abdominoperineal rectum resection was performed. Univariable analysis showed a significant association of the pre-treatment CRP value (OR = 2.548, 95% CI: 1.584–4.097, p < 0.001) with sphincter preservation, whereas the pre-treatment NLR (OR = 1.098, 95% CI: 0.976–1.235, p = 0.120) and PLR (OR = 1.002, 95% CI: 1.000–1.005, p = 0.062) were not significantly associated with the type of surgery. In multivariable analysis, the pre-treatment CRP value (OR = 2.544; 95% CI: 1.314–4.926; p = 0.006) was identified as an independent predictive factor for sphincter-preserving surgery. The findings of the present study suggest that the pre-treatment CRP value represents an independent parameter predicting the probability of sphincter-preserving surgery in patients with low-lying LARC.

The Outcome of Induction Chemotherapy, Followed by Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery, in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Background & Objective

Currently, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery, is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. The use of induction chemotherapy for this tumor is controversial. In this study, the benefits and side effects of induction chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer are evaluated.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in 2018-2019 were enrolled in this study. Initially, they underwent induction chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² every 3 weeks and capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice a day for 14 days every 3 weeks for 2 courses). Then, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy 50.4 Gy/28 for 5 days a week concomitant with weekly oxaliplatin 50 mg/m², as well as capecitabine 825 mg/m²/bid on the days of radiotherapy) was administered. After 4 weeks, computed tomography (CT) scan of thorax, pelvis, and abdomen with and without contrast was performed. Total mesorectal surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after the end of radiotherapy. Four courses of adjuvant chemotherapy were applied. Pathologic complete response (pCR), margin, sphincter preservation, and adverse effects were assessed.

Results

In this study, pCR was present in 6 (20.7%) patients. R0 resection was done in 96.05%. Sphincter was preserved in 44.4% of lower rectal tumors. Two patients (6.9%) did not complete adjuvant treatment. Grade 3 adverse effects were documented in 13.7% of cases during induction chemotherapy and 17.2% of cases during neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Mortality was not reported.

Conclusion

Induction chemotherapy, followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery, would be an effective and safe modality in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Translation, validation and psychometric evaluation of the Persian (Farsi) version of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS-P)

Introduction

Low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer affects bowel function after the operation, causing a group of symptoms known as LAR Syndrome (LARS). LARS score is a patient-reported questionnaire to assess bowel dysfunction after the LAR operation. This study performed to validate the Persian (Farsi) translation of the LARS score and to investigate the psychometric properties of the score. The impact of LARS on the Quality of Life (QoL) of patients was also assessed.

Materials and methods

The LARS score was translated into Persian. Participants with a history of rectal cancer and low anterior resection were asked to complete the LARS score questionnaire. They were also asked a single question evaluating the impact of bowel function on QoL. Discriminative validity, convergent validity, sensitivity, and specificity of the questionnaire were calculated. A group of patients completed the score twice to assess the reliability of the questionnaire.

Results

From 358 patients with rectal cancer, 101 participants completed the Persian questionnaire. Answers of a high fraction of participants showed a moderate/perfect fit between their LARS score and their QoL. The Persian score demonstrated good convergent validity. It was able to differentiate between participants in terms of gender and T staging of the primary tumor. The score had high reliability.

Conclusion

The Persian translation of the LARS score has excellent psychometric properties compared to previous translations in other languages. Therefore, it is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess LARS.

Diabetes mellitus and colorectal carcinoma outcomes: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes remains unknown. We studied this by conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate (1) CRC outcomes with and without DM and (2) treatment patterns.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CINAHL for full-text English studies from 1970 to 12/31/2017. We searched keywords, subject headings, and MESH terms to locate studies of CRC outcomes/treatment and DM. Studies were evaluated by two oncologists. Of 14,332, 48 met inclusion criteria. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we extracted study location, design, DM definition, covariates, comparison groups, outcomes, and relative risks and/or hazard ratios. We utilized a random-effects model to pool adjusted risk estimates. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The secondary outcome was treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included, 42 in the meta-analysis, and 6 in the descriptive analysis, totaling > 240,000 patients. ACM was 21% worse (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.28) and DFS was 75% worse (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.33-2.31) in patients with DM. No differences were detected in CSS (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98-1.23) or RFS (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91-1.38). Descriptive analysis of treatment patterns in CRC and DM suggested potentially less adjuvant therapy use in cases with DM and CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that patients with CRC and DM have worse ACM and DFS than patients without DM, suggesting that non-cancer causes of death in may account for worse outcomes.

Clinical parameters predictive for sphincter-preserving surgery and prognostic outcome in patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer

Background

Although controversial, there are data suggesting that clinical parameters can predict the probability of sphincter preserving procedures in rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between clinical parameters and the sphincter-preserving surgery rate in patients who had undergone neoadjuvant combination therapy for advanced low rectal cancer.

Methods

In this single center study, the charts of 540 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had been treated with induction chemotherapy-and/or neoadjuvant concomitant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) over an 11-year period were reviewed in order to identify patients with rectal cancer ≤6 cm from the anal verge, who had received the prescribed nRCT only. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify pretreatment patient- and tumor associated parameters correlating with sphincter preservation. Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results

Two hundred eighty of the 540 patients met the selection criteria. Of the 280 patients included in the study, 158 (56.4%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgery. One hundred sixty-four of 280 patients (58.6%) had a downsizing of the primary tumor (ypT < cT) and 39 (23.8%) of these showed a complete histopathological response (ypT0 ypN0). In univariate analysis, age prior to treatment, Karnofsky performance status, clinical T-size, relative lymphocyte value, CRP value, and interval between nRCT and surgery, were significantly associated with sphincter-preserving surgery. In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, CI95%: 1.02–1.09, p = 0.003), relative lymphocyte value (HR = 0.94, CI95%: 0.89–0.99, p = 0.029), and interval between nRCT and surgery (HR = 2.39, CI95%: 1.17–4.88, p = 0.016) remained as independent predictive parameters.

Conclusions

These clinical parameters can be considered in the prognostication of sphincter-preserving surgery in case of low rectal adenocarcinoma. More future research is required in this area.

Predictors of permanent stoma creation in patients with mid or low rectal cancer: results of a multicentre cohort study with preoperative evaluation of anal function

AIM

Preoperative factors predictive of permanent stoma creation were investigated in a long-term follow-up of patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

METHOD

We included patients who underwent radical resection for mid or low rectal cancer with available data for preoperative anal function measured by manometry and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index questionnaire between January 2005 and December 2015 in three tertiary referral hospitals. A permanent stoma was defined as a stoma present until the patient's last follow-up visit or death. Preoperative factors that predicted permanent stoma creation were analysed.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 57.4 months (range 12-143 months), a permanent stoma was created in 144/577 (25.0%) patients, including 89 (15.4%) who underwent abdominoperineal resection, one (0.2%) who underwent Hartmann's operation without reversal, 15 (2.6%) with a diverting ileostomy at the time of initial sphincter-preserving surgery without undergoing stoma reversal, and 39 (6.8%) who underwent permanent ileostomy formation after sphincter-preserving surgery. Patients with permanent stoma creation had a shorter tumour distance from the anal verge (P < 0.001), larger tumour size (P = 0.020) and higher preoperative Faecal Incontinence Severity Index score (P = 0.020). On multivariable analysis, tumour distance from the anal verge predicted permanent stoma formation (relative risk 0.53 per centimetre increase; 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.60; P < 0.001) but preoperative anal function did not.

CONCLUSION

Tumour distance from the anal verge was the only preoperative determinant of permanent stoma creation in rectal cancer patients. These data may help mid and low rectal cancer patients understand the need for permanent stoma.

Clinical application of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision using the intersphincteric approach through the sacrococcygeal incision for treating patients with rectal cancer

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer causing death in Western countries; laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has many advantages and thus has been used widely. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision through the sacrococcygeal incision under direct visualization to excise distal rectal cancer is an important procedure for super-low rectal carcinomas.

Aim

To investigate the feasibility of mesorectal excision and super-low rectal carcinoma excision using the intersphincteric approach through the sacrococcygeal incision.

Material and methods

From December 2009 to June 2017, intersphincteric resection was performed through the sacrococcygeal incision; the mesentery was excised in 27 patients with rectal cancer and a contracted pelvis (the lower edge of the tumor was 4 to 7 cm to the anal verge) through laparoscopy in the Gastrointestinal Surgery Department of our hospital.

Results

No death was recorded during surgery. The surgical time ranged from 190 to 310 min, the bleeding volume was 50 to 150 ml, and the post-surgical length of stay was 6 to 19 days. There were three cases of anastomotic fistulas, one case of anastomotic stenosis, and one case of fecal incontinence. Follow-up visits were scheduled for 19 patients, with a mean time of 37 months, ranging from 3 to 92 months; one case of local recurrence, one case of peritoneal metastasis, and two cases of hepatic metastasis were observed.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision using the intersphincteric approach through the sacrococcygeal incision is feasible for treating patients with a contracted pelvis and super-low rectal carcinoma.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy creates an opportunity to perform sphincter preserving resection for low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer based on an oncologic outcome study

Low-lying locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) can be surgically removed by either abdominperineal resection (APR) or sphincter preserving resection (SPR). This retrospective cohort study of 251 consecutive patients with low lying LARC who underwent CRT followed by radical surgery in a single institute, between March 2003 and November 2012, aimed to compare the oncological benefits between the two groups. 3-year disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), cumulative incidence of recurrence and postoperative complications were compared between the two approaches. With median follow-up of 48.6 months, SPR group had higher 3-year DFS rate (86.4% vs 73.6%, P=0.023) and lower incidence of distant recurrence (12.0% vs 23.7%, P=0.026). The postoperative complications, incidence of local recurrence and the 3-year OS were comparable between the two groups. Pathologic T and N stage were the independent predictors for 3-year DFS (P=0.020 and P<0.001). In conclusion, our study suggest that low-lying LARC patients with a significant response to preoperative CRT can benefit from the advantage of SPR in preserving the anal sphincter function without compromising their oncologic outcome.

Conversations for providers caring for patients with rectal cancer: Comparison of long-term patient-centered outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer facing ostomy or sphincter-sparing surgery

For some patients with low rectal cancer, ostomy (with elimination into a pouch) may be the only realistic surgical option. However, some patients have a choice between ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery. Sphincter-sparing surgery has been preferred over ostomy because it offers preservation of normal bowel function. However, this surgery can cause incontinence and bowel dysfunction. Increasingly, it has become evident that certain patients who are eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery may not be well served by the surgery, and construction of an ostomy may be better. No validated assessment tool or decision aid has been published to help newly diagnosed patients decide between the two surgeries or to help physicians elicit long-term surgical outcomes. Furthermore, comparison of long-term outcomes and late effects after the two surgeries has not been synthesized. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes controlled studies that compared long-term survivorship outcomes between these two surgical groups. The goals are: 1) to improve understanding and shared decision-making among surgeons, oncologists, primary care providers, patients, and caregivers; 2) to increase the patient's participation in the decision; 3) to alert the primary care provider to patient challenges that could be addressed by provider attention and intervention; and 4) ultimately, to improve patients' long-term quality of life. This report includes discussion points for health care providers to use with their patients during initial discussions of ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery as well as questions to ask during follow-up examinations to ascertain any long-term challenges facing the patient. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:387-397. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Factors affecting sphincter-preserving resection treatment for patients with low rectal cancer

The aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with the use of sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) surgery for the treatment of low rectal cancer. A total of 330 patients with histopathologically confirmed low rectal cancer were divided into two groups, namely the abdominoperineal resection (APR) and sphincter-preserving (SP) groups. For SPR factor analysis, the χ² test was performed as the univariate analysis, while a logistic regression test was conducted as the multivariate analysis. Of the 330 patients, 192 cases (58.18%) received SPR surgery and 138 cases (41.82%) underwent an APR. Univariate analysis results revealed that the sphincter-preserving factor was significantly associated with age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), total infiltrated circumference, distance of the tumor from the anal verge (DTAV), depth of invasion and tumor grade (P<0.05). However, there were no statistically significant associations with family medical history, diabetes history, venous tumor embolism, growth type, tumor length, lymphatic metastasis and level of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (P>0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that the sphincter-preserving factor was strongly associated with DTAV and the depth of invasion, with significant statistical difference (P<0.05). Therefore, selecting SPR surgery for patients with low rectal cancer is dependent on age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, the total infiltrated circumference, DTAV, depth of invasion and tumor grade. In addition, DTAV and the depth of invasion are independent risk factors for the selection of SPR surgery.