Resection of a Perirectal Leiomyosarcoma via a Posterior Transcoccygeal Approach.

INTRODUCTION: The management of perirectal tumors often requires rectal wall resection, and sometimes a complete proctectomy is required. Access to posterior perirectal masses via a posterior, transcoccygeal approach (Kraske procedure) avoids dissection of the intraperitoneal rectum. PATIENT: The patient was a 63-year-old male who presented to his primary care physician with debilitating perirectal pain of several months' duration. He did not respond to therapy with pain medications and topical agents, and underwent a lateral internal sphincterotomy for what was thought to be an anal fissure, without relief prior to referral. Diagnostic workup showed a low signal intensity mass on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biopsy revealed high-grade leiomyosarcoma with myxoid features. Staging workup included a contrast-enhanced computed tomography chest, abdomen and pelvis, flexible sigmoidoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound. A lytic lesion in his left ilium on MRI was found to be avid on fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan and was therefore consistent with oligometastatic disease. He received six cycles of adriamycin, cyclophosphamide and dacarbazine, with good response. The metastatic lesion was treated with 24 Gy of radiotherapy, while the primary tumor was treated with 50 Gy of radiotherapy. The patient underwent the Kraske approach with radical resection of the perirectal mass. The rectal wall was closed with interrupted silk sutures, and layered closure of incision over a drain was performed. An R0 resection was achieved. A laparoscopic diverting loop ileostomy to protect the rectal repair was performed. CONCLUSION: The Kraske approach allows for adequate resection, while avoiding the morbidity of the transabdominal approach, and allowing the patient to maintain a continent rectum.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most colorectal cancers can be prevented by detecting and removing the precursor adenomatous polyp. Individual risk factors for the development of colorectal cancer will influence the particular choice of screening tool. CT colonography (CTC) is the primary imaging test for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals, whereas the double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) is now considered to be a test that may be appropriate, particularly in settings where CTC is unavailable. Single-contrast barium enema has a lower performance profile and is indicated for screening only when CTC and DCBE are not available. CTC is also the preferred test for colon evaluation following an incomplete colonoscopy. Imaging tests including CTC and DCBE are not indicated for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk patients with polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. This paper presents the updated colorectal cancer imaging test ratings and is the result of evidence-based consensus by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Surgical resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after treatment with imatinib.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been the most effective therapy for these rare tumors. Imatinib has been introduced as systemic therapy for locally advanced and metastatic GIST. In this study, the surgical resection rates and long-term outcomes of patients treated with preoperative imatinib for locally advanced primary, recurrent, or metastatic GISTs were evaluated. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively assessed for completeness of surgical resection and for disease-free and overall survival after resection. RESULTS: Forty-six patients underwent surgery after treatment with imatinib. Eleven were treated for locally advanced primary GISTs for a median of 11.9 months, followed by complete surgical resection. All eleven were alive at a median of 19.5 months, and ten were free of disease. Thirty-five patients were treated for recurrent or metastatic GIST. Of these, eleven underwent complete resection. Six of the eleven patients had recurrent disease at a median of 15.1 months. All eleven patients were alive at a median of 30.7 months. Patients with a partial radiographic tumor response to imatinib had significantly higher complete resection rates than patients with progressive disease (91% vs. 4%; P < .001). Of the 24 patients with incomplete resection, 18 initially responded to imatinib but were unable to undergo complete resection after they progressed before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative imatinib can decrease tumor volume and is associated with complete surgical resection in locally advanced primary GISTs. Early surgical intervention should be considered for imatinib-responsive recurrent or metastatic GIST, since complete resection is rarely achieved once tumor progression occurs.