A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Total pelvic exenteration (TPE), an en bloc resection is an ultraradical operation for malignancies, and refers to the removal of organs inside the pelvis, including female reproductive organs, lower urological organs and involved parts of the digestive system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the intra-operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate (MR) following TPE in colorectal, gynecological, urological, and miscellaneous cancers. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which three international databases including Medline through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on November 2023 were searched. To screen and select relevant studies, retrieved articles were entered into Endnote software. The required information was extracted from the full text of the retrieved articles by the authors. Effect measures in this study was the intra-operative, in-hospital, and 90-day and overall MR following TPE. All analyzes are performed using Stata software version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: In this systematic review, 1751 primary studies retrieved, of which 98 articles (5343 cases) entered into this systematic review. The overall mortality rate was 30.57% in colorectal cancers, 25.5% in gynecological cancers and 12.42% in Miscellaneous. The highest rate of mortality is related to the overall mortality rate of colorectal cancers. The MR in open surgeries was higher than in minimally invasive surgeries, and also in primary advanced cancers, it was higher than in recurrent cancers. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it can be said that performing TPE in a specialized surgical center with careful patient eligibility evaluation is a viable option for advanced malignancies of the pelvic organs.

R0 Resection in Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancy: Pelvic Exenteration and Beyond.

OPINION STATEMENT: Pelvic exenteration is a radical surgery, but oftentimes, it is the last curative option for patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies who have exhausted more conservative therapies. Mortality and morbidity outcomes have improved over time, but there are still significant peri-operative risks. Considerations before pursing pelvic exenteration must include the likelihood of oncologic cure and patients' fitness to undergo such a procedure, particularly given the high rate of surgical morbidity. Pelvic sidewall tumors have been a traditional contraindication for pelvic exenteration due to the difficulty in obtaining negative margins, but the use of laterally extended endopelvic resection and intra-operative radiation therapy allows for more radical resection of recurrent disease. We believe that these procedures to achieve R0 resection can expand the use of curative-intent surgery in recurrent gynecologic cancer, but require the surgical expertise of colleagues in orthopedic and vascular surgery and collaboration with plastic surgery for complex reconstruction and optimization of post-operative healing. Surgery of recurrent gynecologic cancer including pelvic exenteration, requires careful patient selection, pre-operative medical optimization and prehabilitation, and thorough counseling to optimize outcomes, both oncologic and peri-operative. We believe the creation of a well-developed team, including surgical teams and supportive care services, can lead to the best patient outcomes and improved professional satisfaction amongst providers.

Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Nonrectal Pelvic Malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced nonrectal pelvic malignancy. BACKGROUND: The PelvEx Collaborative provides large volume data from specialist centers to ascertain factors associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for nonrectal pelvic malignancy between 2006 and 2017 were identified from 22 tertiary centers. Patient demographics, neoadjuvant therapy, histopathological assessment, length of stay, 30-day major complication/mortality rate were recorded.The primary endpoints were factors associated with survival. The secondary endpoints included the difference in margin rates across the cohorts, impact of neoadjuvant treatment on survival, associated morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were identified. 40.4% (n = 523) had gynecological malignancies (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vaginal), 35.7% (n = 462) urological (bladder), 18.1% (n = 234) anal, and 5.7% had sarcoma (n = 74).The median age across the cohort was 63 years (range, 23-85). The median 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%, with the highest rates occurring following exenteration for recurrent sarcoma or locally advanced cervical cancer (3.3% each). The median length of hospital stay was 17.5 days. 34.5% of patients experienced a major complication, with highest rate occurring in those having salvage surgery for anal cancer.Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection was the main factor associated with long-term survival. The 3-year overall-survival rate for R0 resection was 48% for endometrial malignancy, 40.6% for ovarian, 49.4% for cervical, 43.8% for vaginal, 59% for bladder, 48.3% for anal, and 48.1% for sarcoma. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration remains an important treatment in selected patients with advanced or recurrent nonrectal pelvic malignancy. The range in 3-year overall survival following R0 resection (40%-59%) reflects the diversity of tumor types.

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting. METHODS: This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.

Pushing the boundaries of pelvic exenteration by maintaining survival at the cost of morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) provides a potentially curative option for advanced or recurrent malignancy confined to the pelvis. A clear (R0) resection margin is the strongest prognostic factor predicting long-term survival, driving most technical advances in PE surgery. The aim of this cohort study was to describe changing trends in extent of resection, postoperative complications, mortality and overall survival after PE surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent PE for advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy at a single institution in Sydney, Australia, were identified. The cohort was divided into three groups based on time periods reflecting annual surgical volume: 1994-2006 (20 or fewer procedures per year), 2007-2013 (21-50 procedures per year) and 2014-2017 (over 50 procedures per year). Primary outcomes were extent of resection, postoperative complications, 60-day mortality and 3-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were patient characteristics, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were increases over time in rates of lateral and posterior compartment resections (P < 0·001), and bony pelvis (P = 0·002) and neurovascular (P < 0·001) excision. For patients undergoing reconstruction, the proportion receiving vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flaps increased significantly (P = 0·005). Rates of wound infection, dehiscence, and abdominal and pelvic collections increased over the study interval. Short-term mortality decreased, and 1- and 3-year survival rates improved. CONCLUSION: Technical and surgical advancements have led to more complex PE resections, with R0 and mortality rates improving with higher annual volume. There were associated increases in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity.

ANTECEDENTES: La exenteración pélvica (pelvic exenteration, PE) ofrece una opción potencialmente curativa para el cáncer localmente avanzado o la recidiva de la neoplasia limitada a la pelvis. Un margen de resección libre (R0) es el factor pronóstico más importante que predice la supervivencia a largo plazo, lo que ha impulsado la mayoría de los avances técnicos en la cirugía de la PE. El objetivo de este estudio de cohortes fue describir el cambio en la tendencia relativa a la extensión de la resección, las complicaciones postoperatorias, la mortalidad y la supervivencia global después de la cirugía de la PE. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron pacientes intervenidos de forma consecutiva a los que se practicó una PE por neoplasia pélvica avanzada o recidivante en una sola institución en Sydney, Australia. La cohorte se dividió en tres grupos según períodos de tiempo que reflejan el volumen quirúrgico anual: 1994-2006 (≤ 20 casos por año), 2007-2013 (21-50 casos por año) y 2014-2017 (> 50 casos por año). Los criterios de valoración principal fueron la extensión de la resección, las complicaciones postoperatorias, la mortalidad a los 60 días y la supervivencia a los tres años. Los criterios de valoración secundarios fueron las características del paciente, la administración de tratamiento neoadyuvante y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Las tendencias se evaluaron mediante pruebas de χ2 o ANOVA de una vía. RESULTADOS: Los porcentajes de resección de los compartimentos lateral y posterior, pelvis ósea así como de escisión neurovascular aumentaron con el tiempo (P < 0,01). Entre los pacientes en los que se hizo una reconstrucción, el porcentaje de colgajos miocutáneos verticales del recto del abdomen aumentó significativamente (P = 0,005). Las tasas de infección de herida, dehiscencia y colecciones abdominales y pélvicas aumentaron durante el período de estudio. La mortalidad a corto plazo disminuyó y la supervivencia a 1 y 3 años mejoró durante el período de estudio. CONCLUSIÓN: Los avances técnicos y quirúrgicos han permitido realizar resecciones de PE más complejas, mejorando las tasas de resección R0 y de mortalidad al aumentar el volumen anual de intervenciones. Al mismo tiempo se han observado incrementos en las pérdidas intraoperatorias de sangre, en las reconstrucciones y en la morbilidad postoperatoria.

Population-based study of surgical treatment with and without tumour resection in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies of treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are lacking. The aim was to investigate the surgical treatment of patients with LRRC at a national population-based level. METHODS: All patients undergoing abdominal resection for primary rectal cancer between 1995 and 2002 in Sweden with LRRC as a first event were included. Detailed information about treatment, complications and outcomes was collected from the medical records. The patients were analysed in three groups: patients who had resection of the LRRC, those treated without tumour resection and patients who received best supportive care only. RESULTS: In all, 426 patients were included in the study. Of these, 149 (35·0 per cent) underwent tumour resection, 193 (45·3 per cent) had treatment without tumour resection and 84 (19·7 per cent) received best supportive care. Abdominoperineal resection was the most frequent surgical procedure, performed in 65 patients (43·6 per cent of those who had tumour resection). Thirteen patients had total pelvic exenteration. In total, 63·8 per cent of those whose tumour was resected had potentially curative surgery. After tumour resection, 62 patients (41·6 per cent) had a complication within 30 days. Patients who received surgical treatment without tumour resection had a lower complication rate but a significantly higher 30-day mortality rate than those who underwent tumour resection (10 versus 1·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·002). Of all patients included in the study, 22·3 per cent had potentially curative treatment and the 3-year survival rate for these patients was 56 per cent. CONCLUSION: LRRC is a serious condition with overall poor outcome. Patients undergoing curative surgery have an acceptable survival rate but substantial morbidity. There is room for improvement in the management of patients with LRRC.

Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with variable outcomes, with the majority of data from single-centre series. This study analysed data from an international collaboration to determine robust parameters that could inform clinical decision-making. METHODS: Anonymized data on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LRRC between 2004 and 2014 were accrued from 27 specialist centres. The primary endpoint was survival. The impact of resection margin, bone resection, node status and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1184 patients, 614 (51·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant therapy. A clear resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 55·4 per cent of operations. Twenty-one patients (1·8 per cent) died within 30 days and 380 (32·1 per cent) experienced a major complication. Median overall survival was 36 months following R0 resection, 27 months after R1 resection and 16 months following R2 resection (P < 0·001). Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had more postoperative complications (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53), readmissions (unadjusted OR 2·33) and radiological reinterventions (unadjusted OR 2·12). Three-year survival rates were 48·1 per cent, 33·9 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Bone resection (when required) was associated with a longer median survival (36 versus 29 months; P < 0·001). Node-positive patients had a shorter median overall survival than those with node-negative disease (22 versus 29 months respectively). Multivariable analysis identified margin status and bone resection as significant determinants of long-term survival. CONCLUSION: Negative margins and bone resection (where needed) were identified as the most important factors influencing overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy before pelvic exenteration did not affect survival, but was associated with higher rates of readmission, complications and radiological reintervention.

Pelvic local recurrence from colorectal cancer: surgical challenge with changing preconditions.

AIM: Although the rate of local recurrence (LR) after colorectal cancer surgery has decreased, it still poses major surgical and oncological challenges. The aims of this study, based on an audit from a tertiary referral centre, was to evaluate determinants associated with outcomes after surgery for pelvic LR and how these have changed over time. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of all resections for pelvic LR of colorectal cancer performed at the Karolinska University Hospital from January 2003 until August 2009 (period 1) and from September 2009 until November 2013 (period 2) . RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with pelvic LR were operated on with a curative intent. An R0 resection was achieved in 77% and an R1 resection in 23%. Lateral compartments were invaded in 48% and this proportion increased in resections performed in period 2 (37% vs 60%, P = 0.05). R1 resections were associated with a higher risk of local re-recurrence than R0 resections (64% vs 16%; OR = 8.90, 95% CI: 2.71-29.78). Lateral recurrences were associated with a lower R0-resection rate than nonlateral recurrences (63% vs 90%; OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.64) and a higher risk of treatment failure in terms of local re-recurrence or distant metastases, or death, as first event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.06-2.75). However, in a multivariate analysis only R1 resections remained a significant prognostic factor for treatment failure (HR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.32-4.27). CONCLUSION: The proportion of lateral pelvic recurrences has increased over time. In comparison with non-lateral LRs, lateral LRs are more difficult to resect radically and are associated with worse overall and disease-free survival. However, with radical surgery many patients with pelvic locally recurrent colorectal cancer may be offered curative treatment.

Persistent involvement of anterior mesorectal fascia in carcinoma rectum - extended resection of rectum vs total pelvic exenteration: results from a single-centre retrospective study.

AIM: Involvement of the anterior mesorectal fascia (iAMRF) after neoadjuvant treatment leads to either resection of the involved organ alone [extended resection of the rectum (ERR)] or total pelvic exenteration (TPE). The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of recurrence and survival of patients undergoing ERR or TPE for iAMRF after neoadjuvant treatment. The outcome of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision after downstaging was also compared. METHOD: This was a retrospective study of primary rectal cancer patients. RESULTS: Of 237 patients, 61 (21.5%) patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma rectum had iAMRF at baseline. Ten patients defaulted before completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 22 patients (43.1%) developed systemic metastases, seven patients (13.8%) were downstaged to free anterior mesorectal fascia and underwent total mesorectal excision (anterior resection/abdominoperineal resection) and the remaining 22 patients (43.1%) had persistent iAMRF. Thirteen patients with persistent iAMRF underwent ERR, whereas nine patients underwent TPE. The median duration of hospital stay in the TPE group was 13 days (10-26), whereas it was 7 days (5-21) in the ERR group. A clear circumferential resection margin, R0 resection, was achieved in all patients with TPE and ERR. After a median follow-up of 31.6 months, five patients with TPE (55.6%), four patients with ERR (30.7%) and three patients in the downstaged group (42.9%) developed systemic recurrence. None of the patients with TPE and the downstaged group developed local recurrence, whereas three patients with ERR (23.1%) developed local recurrence. Median disease-free survival was 12.3 months in the TPE group, 18.9 months in the ERR group and 10.6 months in the downstaged group, whereas mean overall survival was 36.2, 32.8 and 27.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although there is no significant difference in the overall survival and disease-free survival, ERR is associated with a high risk of local recurrence compared to TPE and the downstaged group.

Systematic review of outcomes following pelvic exenteration for the treatment of primary and recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration. METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.

Survival After Pelvic Exenteration for Cervical Cancer: A National Cancer Database Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine overall survival (OS) and factors associated with OS after pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer. METHODS: Women with cervical cancer who underwent exenteration (n = 517) were identified from the 1998 to 2011 National Cancer Database. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses were performed to test for associations of potential explanatory variables with OS. Analyzed confounders included age, insurance status, income, distance from home to treatment center, stage, exenteration type, surgical margin status, and treatment with adjuvant radiation and/or chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort with clinical follow-up (n = 313), median OS was 24 months. Stage (P = 2.5 × 10), lymph node status (P = 1.3 × 10), insurance status (P = 1.5 × 10), and histologic type (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with OS by the log-rank test. Unadjusted median OS was 24.2 and 61.8 months for women with squamous and adenocarcinoma histologies, respectively. By multivariate Cox regression, age, insurance status, stage, margin status, and adjuvant radiation were associated with OS. Histology was not independently associated with OS on multivariate regression. Among women with node-negative disease, median OS was 73.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Exenteration may be curative for more than half of women with node-negative cervical cancer. Stage, insurance status, lymph node status, and surgical margin are independently associated with differential OS after exenteration.

Pelvic exenteration for advanced malignancy in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is an aggressive surgical procedure reserved for highly selected patients. Surgery in the elderly is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to review outcomes following exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: All patients aged 70 years and over who underwent pelvic exenteration between 1999 and 2014 were included in the study. This comprised all primary rectal, gynaecological and bladder tumours. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were included, with a median age of 76 (range 70-90) years. There were 65 rectal, 20 gynaecological and nine bladder tumours. The administration of neoadjuvant therapy was significantly different among tumour types (P = 0·002). A total of 32 patients (34 per cent) developed postoperative complications, and there were six deaths (6 per cent) within 30 days of surgery. Median survival was 64 months for patients with rectal cancer, 30 months for those with gynaecological tumours and 15 months for those with bladder cancer. Five-year survival rates in these groups were 47, 31 and 22 per cent respectively (P = 0·023). CONCLUSION: Given the possibility of long-term survival, pelvic exenteration should not be withheld on the grounds of advanced age alone.

Social deprivation in patients requiring pelvic exenterative surgery.

AIM: Pelvic exenteration is an aggressive operation for locally advanced rectal cancer. Social deprivation has been shown to reduce life expectancy and has been linked to a poorer outcome in patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of social deprivation scores on the outcome in these complex patients. METHOD: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for primary rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 was performed. Deprivation scores were calculated for all patients using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Patients were then grouped into quartiles, from Q1 (most deprived) to Q4 (least deprived). The primary outcome measure was 5-year survival. RESULTS: In all, 120 patients were included (65 female) with a median age of 64 (31-90) years. No differences between quartiles were identified for neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.687) or type of exenteration (P = 0.690). The median length of stay was significantly higher in the most deprived groups (Q1-Q2; P = 0.023). There was a significant difference in survival between the groups, with lowest 5-year survival rates (53%) in the most deprived quartile (Q1) (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Social deprivation is significantly associated with postoperative length of stay and survival in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for primary rectal cancer.

Survival after pelvic exenteration for T4 rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyse retrospectively the pooled results after pelvic exenteration for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer. Historically, patients with T4 rectal cancers requiring pelvic exenteration have been offered only palliative surgery or no operation. METHODS: The basic treatment principle was preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy, radical surgery and, in some patients, adjuvant chemotherapy. Risk factors for local recurrence, distant metastases and overall survival were studied in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with T4 rectal cancer who underwent pelvic exenteration in two tertiary referral centres up to 2013 were studied. Clear margins (R0) were achieved in 87 per cent of patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 33 per cent, independent of the resection margin, lymph node status and postoperative T category. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 17 per cent, with a distant metastasis rate of 16 per cent and overall survival rate of 62 per cent. In multivariable analysis the only factor associated with death was omission of adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.016). The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy was more pronounced in the elderly: patients aged over 70 years who had chemotherapy had a 5-year overall survival rate of 80 per cent, compared with 39 per cent of elderly patients who did not receive chemotherapy (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration led to an R0 resection rate of 87 per cent for T4 rectal cancer, giving good local control and overall survival comparable to population-based colorectal cancer survival rates. Adjuvant chemotherapy may improve overall survival further, even in the elderly.

Determinants of survival following pelvic exenteration for primary rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is a potentially curative treatment for locally advanced primary rectal cancer. Previous studies have been limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous data. A consecutive series of patients was studied to identify the clinicopathological determinants of survival. METHODS: All patients undergoing pelvic exenterative surgery for primary rectal cancer (1992-2014) at this hospital were analysed. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, complication rate, 30-day mortality and disease recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients with a median age of 65 (range 31-90) years were included. Ninety-six patients underwent posterior pelvic exenteration and 78 had total pelvic exenteration. Median follow-up was 48 (range 1-229) months. Two patients (1.1 per cent) died within 30 days of surgery and 16.1 per cent returned to the operating theatre. The 5-year survival rate following complete resection (R0) was 59.3 per cent. In univariable analysis, adverse survival was associated with advanced age (P = 0.003), metastatic disease (P = 0.001), pathological node status (P = 0.001), circumferential resection margin (P = 0.001), local recurrence (P = 0.015) and the need for neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is an aggressive treatment option with a high morbidity rate that provides favourable long-term outcomes in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer.

Outcomes After En Bloc Iliac Vessel Excision and Reconstruction During Pelvic Exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Advanced pelvic cancers involving the lateral pelvic compartment, and particularly the iliac vasculature, are difficult to manage. Common or external iliac vessel involvement has traditionally been considered a contraindication for curative surgery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate pathological and surgical outcomes, particularly postoperative morbidity of pelvic exenteration with en bloc major iliac vascular excision and reconstruction. DESIGN: This study was a case series. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a quaternary referral center for pelvic exenteration in Sydney. PATIENTS: Patients included those undergoing en bloc iliac vessel excision as part of their pelvic exenteration for a locally advanced pelvic malignancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Over the study period, 336 patients underwent pelvic exenteration. Twenty-one patients (6.3%) underwent en bloc vascular excision of 29 vessels for tumor involvement. Twenty-four vessels required reconstruction. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and pathologic outcomes. Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. RESULTS: Operating time for patients who underwent vascular excision and reconstruction was longer, but this did not reach significance (631 vs 531 minutes; p = 0.052). Mean blood loss was significantly higher in the vascular excision and reconstruction group (6.8 vs 3.4 L; p < 0.001). Patients who required en bloc vascular excision were less likely to have R0 margins compared with patients who did not (38% vs 78%; p < 0.001). There was no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Overall graft patency and limb loss at 1 year were 96% and 0%. A total of 52% of patients had at least 1 vascular related complication. Median overall and disease-free survival times were 34 and 26 months. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by a relatively small number of heterogeneous patients. CONCLUSIONS: En bloc vascular resection and reconstruction for contiguous tumor involvement is feasible and safe in selected patients. Advanced pelvic tumors involving iliac vessels should not be precluded from curative surgery in specialized institutions.

[OUTCOME OF PELVIC EXENTERATION FOR LOCALLY ADVANCED CANCER OF THE PELVIC ORGANS].

We analyzed the outcomes of pelvic exenteration in patients with locally advanced cancer of the pelvic organs. During the period from 2006 to 2013 at the Leningrad Regional Oncology Dispensary there were carried out 218 exenterations of the pelvis. Postoperative complications occurred in 68 patients (31.2%), 17 patients died, mortality was 7.8%. The average surgery time was 186 minutes. The average blood loss was 860 ml. In assessing the oncological effectiveness of surgical interventions it was revealed that a 5-year survival rate ranged from 32% in bladder cancer, up to 50% in cervical cancer. Careful selection of patients, multidisciplinary approach to the problem has paramount importance to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes following exenteration for pelvic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is highly radical surgery offering the only potential cure for locally advanced pelvic cancer. This study compared quality of life and other relevant patient-reported outcomes over 12 months for patients who did and those who did not undergo pelvic exenteration. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for consideration of pelvic exenteration completed clinical and patient-reported outcome assessments at baseline, hospital discharge (exenteration patients only), and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Outcomes included cancer-specific quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal; FACT-C), physical and mental health status (Short Form 36 version 2), psychological distress (Distress Thermometer), and pain (study-specific composite) scores. Linear mixed modelling compared trajectories between exenteration and no-exenteration groups. RESULTS: Among 182 patients, 148 (81.3 per cent) proceeded to exenteration. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Among patients who had exenteration, the mean FACT-C score at baseline of 93.0 had reduced by 14·4 points at hospital discharge, but increased to 86·7 at 1 month after surgery and continued to improve, returning to baseline by 9 months. For patients in the no-exenteration group, FACT-C scores decreased between baseline and 1 month, increased slowly to 6 months and then began to decline at 9 months. There were few statistically or clinically significant differences in any patient-reported outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Quality of life and related patient-reported outcomes improve rapidly after pelvic exenteration surgery. For 9 months after surgery, these outcomes are comparable with those of similar do patients who do not have surgery; thereafter, there is a decline in patients who do not have exenteration. Pelvic exenteration can be performed with acceptable quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.

Morbidity after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: a retrospective multicentric study of 230 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our study purpose was to evaluate morbidity and postoperative mortality in patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary or recurrent gynecological malignancies. METHODS: We identified 230 patients who underwent PE, referred to the gynecological oncology units of 4 institutions: Charitè University in Berlin, Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, S. Orsola-Malpighi University in Bologna, and Catholic University in Rome and in Campobasso. RESULTS: The median age was 55 years. The tumor site was the cervix in 177 patients, the endometrium in 28 patients, the vulva in 16 patients, and the vagina in 9 patients. Sixty-eight anterior, 31 posterior, and 131 total PEs were performed in 116 women together with hysterectomy. A total of 82.6% of the patients required blood transfusion. The mean operative time was 446 (95-970) minutes, and the median hospitalization was 24 (7-210) days. We noted a major complication rate of 21.3% (n = 49). We registered 7 perioperative deaths (3%) calculated within 30 days. The operation was performed within clear margins in 166 patients (72.2%). The overall mortality rate depending on tumor site at the end of the study was 75% for vulvar cancer, 57.6% for cervical cancer, 55.6% for vaginal cancer, and 53.6% for endometrial cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although an important effort for surgeons and for patients, PE remains a therapeutic option with an acceptable complication rate and postoperative mortality. A strict selection of patients is mandatory to reach adequate surgical and oncologic outcomes.