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).

How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study.

1. BACKGROUND: Preoperative staging of rectal lesions for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) comprises digital rectal examination, intraoperative rigid rectoscopy (IRR), endorectal ultrasound (EUS), colonoscopy and rectal magnetic resonance imaging (rMRI). The gold standard for topographic features is IRR. Are the results of the other tests sufficiently reliable to eliminate the need for IRR? rMRI is a key test in advanced rectal cancer and is not operator-dependent. Description of anatomical landmarks is variable. Can we rely on the information regarding topographic features provided by all radiologists? 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a concordance interobservational study involving four diagnostic tests of anatomical characteristics of rectal lesions (colonoscopy, EUS, rectal MRI and IRR), performed by four expert radiologists, regarding topographic rectal features with rMRI. 3. RESULTS: Fifty-five rectal tumors were operated on by using TES. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge, location by quadrants, size by quadrants and size of tumor were assessed (IRR as gold standard). For most of the tumors, the correlation between IRR and colonoscopy or EUS was very good (ICC > 0.75); the correlation between rMRI and IRR in respect of the size by quadrants (ICC = 0.092) and location by quadrants (ICC = 0.292) was weak. Topographic landmarks studied by the expert radiologists had an excellent correlation, except for distance from the peritoneal reflection to the anal verge (ICC = 0.606). 4. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical description of rectal lesions by IRR, EUS, colonoscopy and rMRI is reliable. Topographic data obtained by EUS and colonoscopy can serve as a reference to avoid IRR. Determination of these topographic data by rMRI is less reliable. As performed by the expert radiologists, the anatomical study by rMRI is accurate and reproducible.

Preoperative Diagnostic Uncertainty in T2-T3 Rectal Adenomas and T1-T2 Adenocarcinomas and a Therapeutic Dilemma: Transanal Endoscopic Surgery, or Total Mesorectal Excision?

BACKGROUND: Endorectal ultrasound and rectal magnetic resonance are sometimes unable to differentiate between stages T2 and T3 in rectal adenomas that are possible adenocarcinomas, or between stages T1 and T2 in rectal adenocarcinomas. These cases of diagnostic uncertainty raise a therapeutic dilemma: transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) or total mesorectal excision (TME)? METHODS: An observational study of a cohort of 803 patients who underwent TES from 2004 to 2021. Patients operated on for adenoma (group I) and low-grade T1 adenocarcinoma (group II) were included. The variables related to uncertain diagnosis, and to the definitive pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma stage higher than T1, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 638 patients were included. Group I comprised 529 patients, 113 (21.4%) with uncertain diagnosis. Seventeen (15%) eventually had a pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma higher than T1. However, the variable diagnostic uncertainty was a risk factor for adenocarcinoma above T1 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7). Group II included 109 patients, eight with uncertain diagnosis (7.3%). Two patients presented a definitive pathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma above T1. CONCLUSIONS: On the strength of these data, we recommend TES as the initial indication in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Multicenter studies with larger samples for both groups should now be performed to further assess this strategy of initiating treatment with TES.

Participación en salud de la comunidad en el Perú / Participation in community health in Peru

El presente estudio evalúa los cincos estudios de aspectos sociales de la salud en el Perú: Participación de la comunidad y procesos; Elementos políticos y estructura de poder como condicionante de la política y gestión de salud en Cusco; Participación comunitaria, análisis de experiencias peruanas y latinoamericanas y Factores que condicionan la participación comunitaria(AU)

Participación en salud de la comunidad en el Perú / Participation in community health in Peru

El presente estudio evalúa los cincos estudios de aspectos sociales de la salud en el Perú: Participación de la comunidad y procesos; Elementos políticos y estructura de poder como condicionante de la política y gestión de salud en Cusco; Participación comunitaria, análisis de experiencias peruanas y latinoamericanas y Factores que condicionan la participación comunitaria