Sacral resection for recurrent rectal cancer: analysis of morbidity and treatment results.

PURPOSE: Composite sacropelvic resection for locally advanced recurrent rectal cancer is a high-risk procedure that benefits select patients. We reviewed our recent institutional experience to evaluate case selection, morbidity, and outcomes. METHODS: Between 1987 and 2004, 29 patients underwent composite resection for recurrent locoregional rectal cancer (17 females; median age, 60 years). Clinicopathologic indicators were evaluated as indicators of survival by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of 29 total patients, 27 (93 percent) received radiotherapy with their previous surgery (n = 10; 34 percent) or before sacrectomy (n = 17; 59 percent), and 12 (41 percent) received intraoperative therapy. Sacral resections were performed at S2/S3 (55 percent) or S4/S5 (45 percent) using anterior (41 percent) or combined anterior-posterior approach (59 percent), with adherence to (62 percent) or cortical invasion in (38 percent) the sacrum. A majority of those who had undergone previous abdominoperineal resection had total exenteration (9/13), whereas most patients who had undergone a previous sphincter-preserving procedure had abdominoperineal resection (12/16) and none had exenteration. Pedicle flaps (omental, 11; abdominal rectus, 7) often were used. A median of five (range, 1-33) units of blood was given intraoperatively. Transfusions were associated with previous abdominoperineal resection (P < 0.03), correlating strongly with postoperative morbidity (P < 0.02). There were 33 complications in 17 (59 percent) patients, most commonly perineal wound breakdown (9 (31 percent)) and pelvic abscess (5 (17 percent)). Median hospital stay was 18 (range, 7-56) days, significantly longer in patients with previous abdominoperineal resection (P < 0.02) or postoperative morbidity (P < 0.03). The only postoperative death was from pelvic sepsis. Resection was complete (R0) in 18 patients (62 percent), with microscopically positive margins (R1) in 10 (34 percent) and grossly positive margins (R2) in 1 (3 percent). Two-year and five-year recurrence rates were 47 and 85 percent, respectively; disease-specific survival was 63 and 20 percent, respectively. Less transfusion (P = 0.03), R0 resection (P = 0.005), lack of anterior organ involvement (P = 0.02), and absence of cortical bone invasion (P < 0.001) were associated with better survival on univariate analysis; original colorectal cancer stage was not. CONCLUSIONS: Sacrectomy for rectal cancer is a high-risk procedure that can achieve clear resection margins with low mortality in select patients. This procedure has a low cure rate but may provide local disease control with acceptable morbidity.

The development of a validated instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Sphincter-preserving surgery is technically feasible for many rectal cancers, but functional results are not well understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery. METHODS: A 41-item bowel function survey was developed from a literature review, expert opinions, and 59 patient interviews. An additional 184 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery between 1997 and 2001 were asked to complete the survey and quality-of-life instruments (Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ 30/Colorectal Cancer 38). A factor analysis of variance was performed. Test-retest reliability was evaluated, with 20 patients completing two surveys within a mean of 11 days. Validity testing was done with clinical variables (gender, age, radiation, length of time from surgery), surgical variables (procedure: local excision, low anterior resection, coloanal anastomosis), reconstruction (J-pouch, straight), anastomosis (handsewn, stapled), and quality-of-life instruments. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 70.1 percent (129/184). Among the 127 patients with usable data, 67 percent were male, the median age was 64 (range, 38-87) years, and the mean time for restoration of bowel continuity after sphincter-preserving surgery was 22.9 months. Patients had a median of 3.5 stools/day (range, 0-30), and 37 percent were dissatisfied with their bowel function. Patients experienced a median of 22 symptoms (range, 7-32), with 27 percent reported as severe, 37 percent as moderate, and 36 percent as mild. The five most common symptoms were incomplete evacuation (96.8 percent), clustering (94.4 percent), food affecting frequency (93.2 percent), unformed stool (92.8 percent), and gas incontinence (91.8 percent). The factor analysis identified 14 items that collapsed into three subscales: FREQUENCY (alpha = 0.75), DIETARY (alpha = 0.78), and SOILAGE (alpha = 0.79), with acceptable test-retest reliability for the three subscales and total score (0.62-0.87). The instrument detected differences between patients with preoperative radiation (n = 67) vs. postoperative radiation (n = 15) vs. no radiation (n = 45) (P = 0.02); local excision (n = 10) vs. low anterior resection (n = 55) vs. coloanal anastomosis (n = 62) (P = 0.002); and handsewn (n = 18) vs. stapled anastomosis (n = 99) (P = 0.006). The total score correlated with 4 of 4 Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (P < 0.01) and 9 of 17 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer subscales (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer have impaired bowel function, and those treated with radiation, coloanal anastomoses, or handsewn anastomoses have significantly worse function. This reliable and valid instrument should be used to prospectively evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery in patients undergoing rectal cancer therapy.