The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative

BACKGROUND

Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration (PE), but is undefined. EPS outcome reporting and descriptors of radicality of PE are inconsistent; therefore, the best approaches for prevention are unknown. To facilitate future research into EPS, the aim of this study is to define a measurable core outcome set, core descriptor set and written definition for EPS. Consensus on strategies to mitigate EPS was also explored.

METHOD

Three-stage consensus methodology was used: longlisting with systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient engagement, and Delphi-piloting; shortlisting with two rounds of modified Delphi; and a confirmatory stage using a modified nominal group technique. This included a selection of measurement instruments, and iterative generation of a written EPS definition.

RESULTS

One hundred and three and 119 participants took part in the modified Delphi and consensus meetings, respectively. This encompassed international patient and healthcare professional representation with multidisciplinary input. Seventy statements were longlisted, seven core outcomes (bowel obstruction, enteroperineal fistula, chronic perineal sinus, infected pelvic collection, bowel obstruction, morbidity from reconstruction, re-intervention, and quality of life), and four core descriptors (magnitude of surgery, radiotherapy-induced damage, methods of reconstruction, and changes in volume of pelvic dead space) reached consensus-where applicable, measurement of these outcomes and descriptors was defined. A written definition for EPS was agreed.

CONCLUSIONS

EPS is an area of unmet research and clinical need. This study provides an agreed definition and core data set for EPS to facilitate further research.

Minimum standards of pelvic exenterative practice: PelvEx Collaborative guideline

This document outlines the important aspects of caring for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced pelvic cancer. It is primarily aimed at those who are establishing a service that adequately caters to this patient group. The relevant literature has been summarized and an attempt made to simplify the approach to management of these complex cases.

The impact of multidisciplinary team decision-making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Appropriate patient selection within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is key to good clinical outcomes. The current evidence base for factors that guide the decision-making process in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited to anatomical factors.

METHODS

A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken of patients referred to our specialist MDT between 2015 and 2019. Data were collected on patients and disease characteristics including performance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, the English Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and MDT treatment decision. Curative treatment was defined as neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection that would achieve a R0 resection, and/or complete treatment of distant metastatic disease. Palliative treatment was defined as non-surgical treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 325 patients were identified; 72.7% of patients with LARC and 63.6% of patients with LRRC were offered treatment with curative intent (p = 0.08). Patients with poor performance status (PS > 2; p < 0.001), severe comorbidity (p < 0.001), socio-economic deprivation (p = 0.004), a positive predictive circumferential resection margin (p = 0.005) and metastatic disease (p < 0.001) were associated with palliative treatment. Overall survival in the curative cohort was 49 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.4-65.5) compared with 12 months (95% CI 9.1-14.9) in the palliative cohort (p < 0.001). The presence of metastatic disease was identified as a prognostic factor for patients undergoing curative treatment (p = 0.05). The only prognostic factor identified in patients treated palliatively was performance status (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identifies a number of preoperative, prognostic factors that affect MDT decision-making and overall survival.

Simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection for primary rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: results from the PelvEx Collaborative

AIM

At presentation, 15-20% of patients with rectal cancer already have synchronous liver metastases. The aim of this study was to determine the surgical and survival outcomes in patients with advanced rectal cancer who underwent combined pelvic exenteration and liver (oligometastatic) resection.

METHOD

Data from 20 international institutions that performed simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection between 2007 and 2017 were accumulated. Primarily, we examined perioperative outcomes, morbidity and mortality. We also assessed the impact that margin status had on survival.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 72 (56.2%) were men with a median age of 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 15 years]. The median size of the liver oligometastatic deposits was 2 cm (IQR 1.8 cm). The median duration of surgery was 406 min (IQR 240 min), with a median blood loss of 1090 ml (IQR 2010 ml). A negative resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 73.5% of pelvic exenterations and 66.4% of liver resections. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.6%, and 32% of patients had a major postoperative complication. The 5-year overall survival for patients in whom an R0 resection of both primary and metastatic disease was achieved was 54.6% compared with 20% for those with an R1/R2 resection (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous pelvic exenteration and liver resection is feasible, with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Simultaneous resection should only be performed where an R0 resection of both pelvic and hepatic disease is anticipated.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS trial): a multicentre randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30 000 people undergo major emergency abdominal gastrointestinal surgery annually, and 36 per cent of these procedures (around 10 800) are carried out for emergency colorectal pathology. Some 14 per cent of all patients requiring emergency surgery have a laparoscopic procedure. The aims of the LaCeS (laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial were to assess the feasibility, safety and acceptability of performing a large-scale definitive phase III RCT, with a comparison of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute colorectal pathology.

METHODS

LaCeS was designed as a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic feasibility RCT with an integrated qualitative study. Randomization was undertaken centrally, with patients randomized on a 1 : 1 basis between laparoscopic or open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were recruited across five centres. The overall mean steady-state recruitment rate was 1·2 patients per month per site. Baseline compliance for clinical and health-related quality-of-life data was 99·8 and 93·8 per cent respectively. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 39 (95 per cent c.i. 23 to 58) per cent. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 27 (13 to 46) per cent in the laparoscopic arm and 42 (25 to 61) per cent in the open arm.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery may have an acceptable safety profile. Registration number: ISRCTN15681041 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Systematic review of definitions and outcome measures for return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery

Background

Ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery and has been identified as a research priority. Several issues have limited previous research, including a widely accepted definition and agreed outcome measure. This review is the first stage in the development of a core outcome set for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery. It aims to characterize the extent of variation in current outcome reporting.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library was performed for 1990–2017. RCTs of adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, including at least one reported measure relating to return of bowel function, were eligible. Trial registries were searched across the same period for ongoing and completed (but not published) RCTs. Definitions of ileus and outcome measures describing the return of bowel function were extracted.

Results

Of 5670 manuscripts screened, 215 (reporting 217 RCTs) were eligible. Most RCTs involved patients undergoing colorectal surgery (161 of 217, 74·2 per cent). A total of 784 outcomes were identified across all published RCTs, comprising 73 measures (clinical: 63, 86 per cent; radiological: 6, 8 per cent; physiological: 4, 5 per cent). The most commonly reported outcome measure was ‘time to first passage of flatus’ (140 of 217, 64·5 per cent). The outcomes ‘ileus’ and ‘prolonged ileus’ were defined infrequently and variably.

Conclusion

Outcome reporting for the return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery is variable and not fit for purpose. An agreed core outcome set will improve the consistency, reliability and clinical value of future studies.

Development of a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life in locally recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

The surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has become widely accepted to afford cure and improve quality of life in this subset of patients. Thus far, traditional surgical and oncological markers have been used to highlight the success of surgical intervention. The use of patient-reported outcomes, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is sparse in these patients. This may be in part due to the lack of well-designed, validated instruments. This study identifies HRQoL issues relevant to patients undergoing surgery for LRRC, with the aim of developing a conceptual framework of HRQoL specific to LRRC to enable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in this cohort of patients.

METHOD

Qualitative focus groups were undertaken at two institutions to identify relevant HRQoL themes. The principles of thematic content analysis were used to analysis data. NViVo10 was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients participated in six consecutive focus groups. Two patterns of themes emerged related to HRQoL and healthcare service delivery and utilization. Identified themes related to HRQoL included symptoms, sexual function, psychological impact, role and social functioning and future perspective. Under healthcare service and delivery and utilization the subdomain of disease management, treatment expectations and healthcare professionals were identified.

CONCLUSION

This is the first qualitative study undertaken exclusively in patients with LRRC to ascertain relevant HRQoL outcomes. The impact of LRRC on patients is wide-ranging and extends beyond traditional HRQoL outcomes. The study operationalizes the identified outcomes into a conceptual framework, which will provide the basis for the development of a LRRC-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27.8 (0-33.3) and 48.3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

Partial anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation to treat locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

Most studies that have reported outcomes after composite abdomino-sacral resection for locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer have involved resections below the S2/3 disc space. Involvement of the sacrum above this level is uncommon and, until recently, was considered a contraindication to resection.

METHOD

We report here a surgical technique to deal with high sacral involvement with an anterior approach and maintenance of sacropelvic stability.

RESULTS

The operative findings confirmed a locally perforated rectal cancer with an associated abscess cavity and direct invasion into S2. Given the likelihood that a complete dislocation of the sacrum would cause significant neurological damage and pelvic instability without oncological benefit, we opted for a partial high anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation. The patient made an uncomplicated recovery without neurological deficit and was able to walk with the aid of crutches from postoperative day 3.

CONCLUSION

While a high sacral transection is appropriate for some patients with locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer, operative decisions and options should be tailored to each individual.

Surgical resection of recurrent colonic cancer

Background

Locoregional recurrence of colonic cancer includes anastomotic recurrence, associated nodal masses, masses that involve the abdominal wall and pelvic masses. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of resection of such recurrences and to provide guidance on the management of this disease.

Methods

Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Data were obtained on demographics, surgical procedure, morbidity, histopathology and outcome. Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors influencing survival were performed using stepwise Cox logistic regression.

Results

Forty-two patients (21 men; median age 61 (range 41–82) years) underwent resection of recurrent colonic cancer between 2003 and 2011. The median interval between resection of the primary and recurrent colonic tumour was 37·5 (interquartile range 7–91) months. The recurrences developed at the previous anastomosis (9 patients), elsewhere within the abdominal cavity or wall (8) and as discrete masses within the pelvic cavity (25). Eighteen of 42 patients underwent resection of hepatic or pulmonary metastases at some stage after resection of the primary tumour. Median survival was 29 months after R0 resection and 26 months after R1 resection of the recurrent tumour (P = 0·226). The survival benefit depended on the location of the recurrence (median survival after resection of recurrent disease: anastomotic 33 months, pelvic 26 months, abdominal 19 months; P = 0·010).

Conclusion

This study described a classification system, management algorithm and prognostic factors for recurrent colonic cancer. The distribution of disease influenced survival. Long-term survival was achieved, including a subset of patients with drop metastases and/or previous metastasectomy.

Surgery for recurrent rectal cancer: higher and wider?

AIM

There has been a steady increase in the number of centres that carry out resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of this review was to highlight the present management and suggest technical strategies that may improve survival and quality of life.

METHOD

The review identified relevant studies from an electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases between 1980 and 2011. References in published articles were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention offers the best hope to control LRRC but the proportion of patients offered this remains small. Certain contraindications previously considered to be absolute should now be thought of as relative.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of the surgical options and a willingness to consider more aggressive options may result in more patients being considered for potentially curative resection.

Outcome of surgical resection of second-time locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally recurrent rectal cancer relapses in the pelvis in up to 60 per cent of patients following resection. This study assessed the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for re-recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent second-time resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer between 2001 and 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, presentation of disease, preoperative staging imaging, adjuvant therapy, operative detail, histopathology and follow-up status (clinical and imaging) for the primary tumour, and first and second recurrences.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (of 56 discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting) underwent resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer. Postoperative morbidity occurred in nine patients but none died within 30 days. Negative resection margins (R0) were achieved in ten patients, microscopic margin positivity (R1) was evident in 15 and macroscopic involvement (R2) was found in five. Although no patient had distant metastatic disease, 22 had involvement of the pelvic side wall. One- and 3-year overall survival rates were 77 and 27 per cent respectively, with a median overall survival of 23 (range 3-78) months. An R0 resection conferred a survival benefit (median survival 32 (11-78) months versus 19 (6-33) months after R1 and 7 (3-10) months after R2 resection).

CONCLUSION

Surgical resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes to initial recurrences in well selected patients.

Current UK management of locally recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

The study aimed to determine current UK practice in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

METHOD

An electronic based survey was sent to UK based Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland members to establish current management in this patient group. A total of 188 questionnaires were sent out to consultant surgeons in a total of 105 colorectal units.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine consultants from 69 units responded, giving an overall response rate from consultants of 42% and from colorectal units of 66%. In all, 688 patients were managed by multidisciplinary teams in the 12 months prior to the survey. Seventy-four (94% of responders) surgeons had experience of operating on patients with LRRC. Fifty-nine (74.6%) operated on one to three per year and four (5%) operated on more than 10 patients per year. Central and anterior recurrences were most commonly undertaken locally, with most complex recurrences being referred to a tertiary centre. Forty-seven (61%) surgeons worked to an algorithm.

CONCLUSION

A small number of specialist units in the UK manage the full spectrum of LRRC but the majority of patients are managed in small volume centres. The survey provides a snapshot of current activity in the UK and may provide a stimulus for discussion about how to expand and improve the care of a technically challenging group of patients.

An unexpected abdominal tumour in an elderly woman

We report the case of a 73-year-old woman who presented with pain and an abdominal mass and was found to have an abdominal tumour of unexpected origin.

Pseudomonal breast infection

Breast infection and breast sepsis secondary to Pseudomonas aeruginosa is uncommon. We report two cases of pseudomonal breast infection leading to septic shock and abscess formation in women with non-responding breast infection. The management of breast infection is broad-spectrum antibiotics and ultrasound with aspiration of any collection. To treat breast infection effectively, the causative organism must be isolated to enable appropriate antibiotic therapy.