Evolution of the management of retrorectal masses: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: Retrorectal masses are abnormalities located anatomically in the retrorectal space. A significant proportion are asymptomatic with no malignant potential while others cause symptoms due to mechanical pressure or malignant infiltration. We reviewed and categorised the retrorectal masses encountered over a 30-year time period in a specialist colorectal hospital and describe our management algorithm for consideration by other multidisciplinary teams (MDT). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients referred between 1984-2019. A detailed review of clinical presentation, imaging features, postoperative histology and impact on morbidity and anorectal function is reported. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients with median age of 46 years and female preponderance (74%) were reviewed. The commonest presenting symptom was pain (46%) and all malignant cases had symptoms (n = 17). Over the last decade, more asymptomatic patients have presented with a retrorectal mass (33%, p = 0.04) and more patients are opting for surveillance rather than resection (33%, p = 0.013). Increasing age and lesion size were associated with malignancy (p < 0.05). Radiological features associated with malignancy included: solid/heterogeneous component, lobulated borders or locally invasive. Following surgery, complications included chronic pain (40%), poor wound healing (23%) and bowel dysfunction (10%). CONCLUSIONS: The management of retrorectal masses remains complex. There are features, both clinical and radiological, that can help determine the best management strategy. Management should be in a high-volume tertiary centre and preferably through a complex rectal cancer MDT. Long-term sequelae such as chronic pain must be highlighted to patients. We advocate the establishment of an international registry to further record and characterise these rare, potentially troublesome lesions.

Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. FINDINGS: 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11.2 years (IQR 10.7-11.9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.84) and mortality by 31% (0.69, 0.59-0.82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0.67, 0.60-0.76) and mortality by 43% (0.57, 0.45-0.72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0.50, 0.42-0.59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145-277) and 489 (343-852), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

Does the timing of comorbidity affect colorectal cancer survival? A population based study.

OBJECTIVES: Comorbid conditions in colorectal cancer patients can influence both clinical eligibility for treatment and survival. We aimed to evaluate the effect of comorbidity on 1 year survival from colorectal cancer, and to assess whether this effect varied with the timing of the comorbidity in relation to the cancer diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A population based cohort of 29,563 colorectal cancer patients diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 in the North West of England was evaluated. The excess hazard of death up to 1 year after diagnosis was estimated using deprivation and region specific life tables to adjust for background mortality. Results were adjusted for age and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: Comorbid conditions diagnosed during the period 18 to 6 months before the diagnosis of colorectal cancer were strongly associated with lower survival at 1 year. Stage and age remained the strongest predictors of cancer related mortality even after adjustment for comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data provide a good estimate of the prevalence of most comorbid conditions but may be biased for some comorbid conditions that can be contra-indicators for cancer treatment. The time window in which a comorbid condition occurs in relation to the cancer diagnosis should be taken into account. Adjustment should be carried out, where possible, to provide more robust and clinically appropriate comparisons of population based cancer patient survival.

Can histopathologic assessment of circumferential margin after preoperative pelvic chemoradiotherapy for T3-T4 rectal cancer predict for 3-year disease-free survival?

PURPOSE: This study set out to determine the impact of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (R1-R2) and pathologic downstaging on local recurrence and survival in patients with borderline resectable or unresectable rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were treated with long-course neoadjuvant CRT using low-dose folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil. CRT was followed 6-12 weeks later by surgical excision. The CRM rate and incidence, site, and pattern of local and systemic recurrences were recorded. The median follow-up was 25 months. RESULTS: The overall median survival was 37 months, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 34%. Of the 150 patients, 122 underwent curative resection; 12% had a complete pathologic response, and downstaging to pT1-T2 occurred in an additional 16%. A negative CRM (R0) was achieved in 65% overall (98 of 150). Local recurrence occurred in 10% of those with R0 resection and 62% of those with R1-R2 resections. Distant metastases occurred in 29% of those with R0 resections and 75% of those with R1-R2 resections. The 3-year disease-free and 3-year overall survival rate was 9% and 25% and 52% and 64%, respectively, for patients with and without a histologically positive CRM. CONCLUSION: After 5-fluorouracil-based CRT, a positive CRM predicted for a high risk of subsequent local recurrence and a 3-year disease-free survival rate of only 9%. For this reason, the CRM should be considered a major prognostic factor and should be validated in future trials as an early alternative clinical endpoint.

"Mind the gap"--the impact of variations in the duration of the treatment gap and overall treatment time in the first UK Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I).

PURPOSE: The United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research anal cancer trial demonstrated the benefit of combined modality treatment (CMT) using radiotherapy (RT), infusional 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin C over RT alone. The present study retrospectively examines the impact of the recommended 6-week treatment gap and local RT boost on long-term outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 577 patients were randomly assigned RT alone or CMT. After a 6-week gap responders received a boost using either additional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (15 Gy) or iridium-192 implant (25 Gy). The effect of boost, the gap between initial treatment (RT alone or CMT) and boost (Tgap), and overall treatment time (OTT) were examined for their impact on outcome. RESULTS: Among the 490 good responders, 436 (89%) patients received a boost after initial treatment. For boosted patients, the risk of anal cancer death decreased by 38% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, 99% CI 0.35-1.12; p=0.04), but there was no evidence this was mediated via a reduction in locoregional failure (LRF) (HR: 0.90, 99% CI 0.48-1.68; p=0.66). The difference in Tgap was only 1.4 days longer for EBRT boost, compared with implant (p=0.51). OTT was longer by 6.1 days for EBRT (p=0.006). Tgap and OTT were not associated with LRF. Radionecrosis was reported in 8% of boosted, compared with 0% in unboosted patients (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These results question the benefit of a radiotherapy boost after a 6-week gap. The higher doses of a boost may contribute more to an increased risk of late morbidity, rather than local control.

Anal cancer in renal transplant patients.

PURPOSE: A comprehensive literature review was performed to examine the prevalence of anal cancer, anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in renal transplant recipients who are at risk of anal cancer due to iatrogenic immunosuppression. METHODS: Pertinent articles were identified from searches performed on the National Center for Biotechnology Information database using the following keywords: anal cancer, AIN, screening, renal transplant (or kidney transplant), organ transplant recipients and post-transplant malignancies. RESULTS: The prevalence of AIN is 20% in renal transplant patients. The prevalence of anal HPV infection in established transplant patients is 47%, and the prevalence of anal HPV infection in new transplant patients is 23%. The relative risk for anal cancer in renal transplant patients is 10. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to HIV-positive male patients who practise anal intercourse, renal transplant patients showed a modest rise in relative risk for anal cancer. Screening programmes to detect AIN in HIV-positive patients who practise anal intercourse have been introduced on a preliminary basis in sexual health clinics in the US and may become standard practise in this population. The case for screening in renal transplant patients is unclear and would merit further investigation, especially with reference to the prevalence of anal HPV infection in this population. It may transpire that renal transplant patients would benefit more from HPV prophylaxis rather than screening for AIN.