The association of body mass index with tumor aggression among men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of preoperative body mass index (BMI) on adverse pathology in peripheral (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) tumors at time of prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Clinical and pathologic characteristics were obtained from up to 100 consecutive prostatectomy patients from 10 prostate surgeons. BMI groups included normal (18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9) and obese (> 29.9). "Aggressive" pathology was defined as the presence of Grade Group (GG) 3 or higher and/or pT3a or higher. Pathologic characteristics were evaluated for association with BMI using univariate analyses. Our primary outcome was the association of BMI with adverse pathology, which was assessed using logistic regression accounting for patient age. We hypothesized that obese BMI would be associated with aggressive TZ tumor. RESULTS: Among 923 patients, 140 (15%) were classified as "normal" BMI, 413 (45%) were "overweight", and 370 (40%) were "obese." 474 patients (51%) had aggressive PZ tumors while 102 (11%) had aggressive TZ tumors. "Obese" BMI was not associated with aggressive TZ tumor compared to normal weight. Increasing BMI group was associated with overall increased risk of aggressive PZ tumor (HR 1.56 [95CI 1.04-2.34]; P = 0.03). Among patients with GG1 or GG2, increasing BMI was associated with presence of pT3a or higher TZ tumor (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Increased BMI is associated with adverse pathology in PZ tumors. TZ adverse pathology risk may be increased among obese men with GG1 or GG2 disease, which has implications for future studies assessing behavioral change among men whose tumors are actively monitored.

Pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 26 studies.

PURPOSE: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has the potential advantages for patients with low rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify the pathologic outcomes between the TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) in rectal cancer. METHODS: The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with English language restriction. The primary endpoint was circumferential margin (CRM), and the secondary endpoints were distal resection margin (DRM), mesorectal excision quality, and harvested lymph nodes. RESULTS: Our research identified 1090 articles, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The positive CRM was lower in the TaTME than the LaTME (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.98; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the positive CRM between the TaTME and LaTME published after 2016 (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.12; P = 0.19), prospective study (OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 0.51, 14.24; P = 0.24), respective study (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.55, 1.04; P = 0.09), BMI > 26 (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.63, 1.58; P = 0.98), or sample size > 100 (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.23; P = 0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference observed between the TaTME and LaTME in terms of DRM, mesorectum incompleteness, and harvested lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The TaTME is associated with lower positive CRM compared to the LaTME and similar pathologic outcomes including DRM, harvested lymph node, and mesorectal excision quality.

Short-term Outcomes of an Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position Compared With a Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: The Early Experience at a Single Institution.

PURPOSE: This study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR. METHODS: Between September 2011 and March 2014, an extralevator APR in the prone position was performed on 13 patients with rectal cancer and a conventional APR on 26 such patients. Patients' demographics and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were obtained from the colorectal cancer database and electronic medical charts. RESULTS: Age and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were significantly different between the conventional and the extralevator APR in the prone position (median age, 65 years vs. 55 years [P = 0.001]; median preoperative CEA level, 4.94 ng/mL vs. 1.81 ng/mL [P = 0.011]). For perioperative outcomes, 1 (3.8%) intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in the conventional APR group and 2 (15.3%) in the extralevator APR group. In the conventional and extralevator APR groups, 12 (46.2%) and 6 patients (46.2%) had postoperative complications, and 8 (66.7%) and 2 patients (33.4%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV), respectively. The circumferential resection margin involvement rate was higher in the extralevator APR group compared with the conventional APR group (3 of 13 [23.1%] vs. 3 of 26 [11.5%]). CONCLUSION: The extralevator APR in the prone position for patients with advanced low rectal cancer has no advantages in perioperative and pathologic outcomes over a conventional APR for such patients. However, through early experience with a new surgical technique, we identified various reasons for the lack of favorable outcomes and expect sufficient experience to produce better peri- or postoperative outcomes.

Short-term Outcomes of an Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position Compared With a Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: The Early Experience at a Single Institution

PURPOSE: This study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR. METHODS: Between September 2011 and March 2014, an extralevator APR in the prone position was performed on 13 patients with rectal cancer and a conventional APR on 26 such patients. Patients' demographics and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were obtained from the colorectal cancer database and electronic medical charts. RESULTS: Age and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were significantly different between the conventional and the extralevator APR in the prone position (median age, 65 years vs. 55 years [P = 0.001]; median preoperative CEA level, 4.94 ng/mL vs. 1.81 ng/mL [P = 0.011]). For perioperative outcomes, 1 (3.8%) intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in the conventional APR group and 2 (15.3%) in the extralevator APR group. In the conventional and extralevator APR groups, 12 (46.2%) and 6 patients (46.2%) had postoperative complications, and 8 (66.7%) and 2 patients (33.4%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV), respectively. The circumferential resection margin involvement rate was higher in the extralevator APR group compared with the conventional APR group (3 of 13 [23.1%] vs. 3 of 26 [11.5%]). CONCLUSION: The extralevator APR in the prone position for patients with advanced low rectal cancer has no advantages in perioperative and pathologic outcomes over a conventional APR for such patients. However, through early experience with a new surgical technique, we identified various reasons for the lack of favorable outcomes and expect sufficient experience to produce better peri- or postoperative outcomes.