Updated systematic review of the approach to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer. BACKGROUND: The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures. METHODS: A Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582). RESULTS: 14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%-78%. LIMITATIONS: The studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.

Prostate radiotherapy and the risk of secondary rectal cancer-a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is being used increasingly in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, ionising radiation may confer a small risk of a radiation-induced secondary malignancy. We aim to assess the risk of rectal cancer following pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: A search was conducted of the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases identifying studies reporting on the risk of rectal cancer following prostatic radiotherapy. Studies must have included an appropriate control group of non-irradiated prostate cancer patients. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the risk of prostatic radiotherapy on subsequent rectal cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: In total, 4757 articles were screened with eight studies meeting the predetermined criteria. A total of 796,386 patients were included in this meta-analysis which showed an increased odds ratio (OR) for subsequent rectal cancer in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy compared to those treated by non-radiotherapy means (OR 1.45, 1.07-1.97, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These findings confirm that prostate radiotherapy significantly increases the risk of subsequent rectal cancer. This risk has implications for treatment selection, surveillance and patient counselling. However, it is crucial that this information is presented in a rational and comprehensible manner that does not disproportionately frighten or deter patients from what might be their most suitable treatment modality.

Obesity and anastomotic leak rates in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal cancer resection is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality with an impact on recurrence rates and survival. The impact of obesity on AL rates is debated. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the relationship between obesity and AL. METHODS: A search was conducted of the PubMed/MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases and included studies were split into Western and Asian groups based on population-specific body mass index (BMI) ranges for obesity. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of obesity on AL rate following colorectal cancer resection. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred and four articles were initially screened. Thirty-one studies totaling 32,953 patients were included. Patients with obesity had a statistically significant increase in AL rate in all Western and Asian study groups. However, this increase was only clinically significant in the rectal anastomotic subgroups-Western: 10.8% vs 8.4%, OR 1.57 (1.01-2.44) and Asian: 9.4% vs 7.4%, OR 1.58 (1.07-2.32). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis confirm that obesity is a significant risk factor for anastomotic leak, particularly in rectal anastomoses. This effect is thought to be primarily mediated via technical difficulties of surgery although metabolic and immunological factors may also play a role. Obesity in patients undergoing restorative CRC resection should be discussed and considered as part of the pre-operative counselling.

The role of intraoperative radiotherapy in advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIM: Patients with locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC/LRRC) experience higher rates of local recurrence (LR) and poorer overall survival than patients with primary rectal cancer restricted to the mesorectum despite improved neoadjuvant treatment regimens and radical surgical procedures. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been suggested as an adjunctive tool in the surgical management of these challenging cases. However, clear evidence regarding the oncological benefit of IORT is sparse. The aim of this review was to update this evidence in the era of standardized neoadjuvant radiotherapy administration. METHOD: A systematic review of patients who received IORT as part of multimodal treatment for advanced rectal cancer from 2000 to 2020 and an analysis of IORT and surgery/external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) groups was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of LR between the two groups. RESULTS: Seven papers met the predefined criteria. LR was reduced by the addition of IORT when compared with the surgery/EBRT alone group (14.7% vs. 21.4%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27-1.14; p = 0.11). There was no increase in reported genitourinary morbidity, wound issues, pelvic collections or anastomotic leak in those patients who received IORT. Notably, there was no survival difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of IORT to current treatment strategies in the management of patients with LARC/LRRC is associated with a lower rate of locoregional recurrence without increased morbidity. However, this marks a highly selective group of patients, with heterogeneity regarding indications, prior neoadjuvant treatments and/or IORT dosing.