European consensus on the standardization of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

AIM: Surgery for rectal cancer is challenging for both technical and anatomical reasons. The European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS) provides a competency-based training programme through a standardized approach. However, there is no consensus on technical standards for robotic surgery when used during surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this consensus study was to establish operative standards for anterior resection incorporating total mesorectal excision (TME) using robotic techniques, based on recommendations of expert European colorectal surgeons. METHOD: A Delphi questionnaire with a 72-item statement was sent through an electronic survey tool to 24 EARCS faculty members from 10 different countries who were selected based on expertise in robotic colorectal surgery. The task was divided into theatre setup, colonic mobilization and rectal dissection, and each task area was further divided into several subtasks. The levels of agreement (A* > 95% agreement, A > 90%, B > 80% and C > 70%) were considered adequate while agreement of < 70% was considered inadequate. Once consensus was reached, a draft document was compiled and sent out for final approval. RESULTS: The average length of experience of robotic colorectal surgery for participants in this study was 6 years. Initial agreement was 87%; in nine items, it was < 70%. After suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items reached 94% in the second round (range 0.75-1). CONCLUSION: This is the first European consensus on the standardization of robotic TME. It provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

A personal perspective of the development of MRI for Total Mesorectal Excision surgery.

In this personal account Professor Heald discusses the international implementation of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and the development of a generation of "specimen-orientated" surgeons. He describes the importance of the surgeon, radiologist and pathologist working together to improve techniques in all three disciplines and the research challenges for the future.

A collaborative review of the current concepts and challenges of anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery.

The reduction of the incidence, detection and treatment of anastomotic leakage (AL) continues to challenge the colorectal surgical community. AL is not consistently defined and reported in clinical studies, its occurrence is variably reported and its impact on longterm morbidity and health-care resources has received relatively little attention. Controversy continues regarding the best strategies to reduce the risk. Diagnostic tests lack sensitivity and specificity, resulting in delayed diagnosis and increased morbidity. Intra-operative fluorescence angiography has recently been introduced as a means of real-time assessment of anastomotic perfusion and preliminary evidence suggests that it may reduce the rate of AL. In addition, concepts are emerging about the role of the rectal mucosal microbiome in AL and the possible role of new prophylactic therapies. In January 2016 a meeting of expert colorectal surgeons and pathologists was held in London, UK, to identify the ongoing controversies surrounding AL in colorectal surgery. The outcome of the meeting is presented in the form of research challenges that need to be addressed.

Adjuvant therapy decisions based on magnetic resonance imaging of extramural venous invasion and other prognostic factors in colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There remains a lack of high quality randomised trial evidence for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II rectal cancer, particularly in the presence of high risk features such as extramural venous invasion (EMVI). The aim of this study was to explore this issue through a survey of colorectal surgeons and gastrointestinal oncologists. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to a group of colorectal surgeons who were members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. The survey was also sent to a group of gastrointestinal oncologists through the Pelican Cancer Foundation. Reminder emails were sent at 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 142 surgeons (54% response rate) and 99 oncologists (68% response rate) responded to the survey. The majority in both groups of clinicians thought EMVI was an important consideration in adjuvant treatment decision making and commented routinely on this in their multidisciplinary team meeting. Although both would consider treating patients on the basis of EMVI detected by magnetic resonance imaging, oncologists were more selective. Both surgeons and oncologists were prepared to offer patients with EMVI adjuvant chemotherapy but there was lack of consensus on the benefit. CONCLUSIONS: This survey reinforces the evolution in thinking with regard to adjuvant therapy in stage II disease. Factors such as EMVI should be given due consideration and the prognostic information we offer patients must be more accurate. Historical data may not accurately reflect today's practice and it may be time to consider an appropriately designed trial to address this contentious issue.

A pictorial description of extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

AIM: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision in the prone position has been reported as a method to improve the poor outcome sometimes observed after abdominoperineal excision (APE) for low rectal cancer. In this paper a pictorial guide is presented describing the key anatomical steps and landmarks of the operation. METHOD: Intraoperative footage of five APE operations filmed in high definition was reviewed and key stages of the operation were identified. Still frames were captured from these sequences to illustrate this guide. An edited video sequence was produced from one of these operations to accompany this paper. CONCLUSION: The prone APE allows improved visualization of the perineal portion of the operation by the surgeon, assistants and observers. It permits clear demonstration for teaching. Prospective evaluation is still required to identify patients who would benefit from extralevator APE.

Comparative quality of life in patients following abdominoperineal excision and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that quality of life is worse after abdominoperineal excision then after low anterior resection. However, this view is not supported unequivocally. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare quality of life in patients 1 year following low anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. DESIGN: Data were collected prospectively on 62 patients undergoing low anterior resection (32) and abdominoperineal excision (30) for low rectal adenocarcinoma within 6 cm of the anal verge. Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Quality of life was assessed by the use of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 modules and Coloplast stoma quality-of-life questionnaire. Bowel function was assessed by using the St Mark's bowel function questionnaire. Quality of life in patients who had low anterior resection was compared with those who had abdominoperineal excision both preoperatively and 1 year after surgery. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 3 centers in the United Kingdom and 1 center in Europe. PATIENTS: Included were consecutive patients with rectal cancer within 6 cm of the anal verge, all of whom provided written consent for participation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mann-Whitney U test comparisons of QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 module scores for patients undergoing low anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision were the main outcomes measured. RESULTS: Patients undergoing low anterior resection were younger (median age, 59.5 vs 67, p = 0.03) with higher tumors (4 vs 3, p < 0.001) and less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.02). At 1 year postoperatively, global quality-of-life ratings were comparable, but patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision reported better cognitive (100 vs 83, p = 0.018) and social (100 vs 67, p = 0.012) function, and less symptomatology with respect to pain (0 vs 17, p = 0.027), sleep disturbance (0 vs 33, p = 0.013), diarrhea (0 vs 33, p = 0.017), and constipation (p = 0.021). Patients undergoing low anterior resection reported better sexual function (33 vs 0, p = 0.006), but 72% experienced a degree of fecal incontinence. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its relatively small sample size. CONCLUSION: Abdominoperineal excision should not be regarded as an operation that is inferior to low anterior resection in the management of low rectal cancer on the basis of quality of life alone.

Relevance of magnetic resonance imaging-detected pelvic sidewall lymph node involvement in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The significance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-suspected pelvic sidewall (PSW) lymph node involvement in rectal cancer is uncertain. METHODS: Magnetic resonance images were reviewed retrospectively by specialist gastrointestinal radiologists for the presence of suspicious PSW nodes. Scans and outcome data were from patients with biopsy-proven rectal cancer and a minimum of 5 years' follow-up in the Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Rectal Cancer European Equivalence Study. Overall disease-free survival (DFS) was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and stratified according to preoperative therapy. Binary logistic regression was used to match patients for propensity of clinical and staging characteristics, and further survival analysis was carried out to determine associations between suspicious PSW nodes on MRI and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Of 325 patients, 38 (11·7 per cent) had MRI-identified suspicious PSW nodes on baseline scans. Such nodes were associated with poor outcomes. Five-year DFS was 42 and 70·7 per cent respectively for patients with, and without suspicious PSW nodes (P < 0·001). Among patients undergoing primary surgery, MRI-suspected PSW node involvement was associated with worse 5-year DFS (31 versus 76·3 per cent; P = 0·001), but the presence of suspicious nodes had no impact on survival among patients who received preoperative therapy. After propensity matching for clinical and tumour characteristics, the presence of suspicious PSW nodes on MRI was not an independent prognostic variable. CONCLUSION: Patients with suspicious PSW nodes on MRI had significantly worse DFS that appeared improved with the use of preoperative therapy. These nodes were associated with adverse features of the primary tumour and were not an independent prognostic factor.

Outcomes following a limited approach to radiotherapy in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer suggests an opportunity to avoid it in all but patients at highest risk of local recurrence. METHODS: Between 1 July 1999 and 1 February 2006, patients with primary rectal cancer were treated by a single surgeon operating at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Digital rectal examination and pelvic computed tomography were used to determine whether the mesorectal margin was threatened by tumour and thus whether preoperative radiotherapy would be needed. The study outcome was local tumour recurrence. RESULTS: Forty-six (48 per cent) of 96 patients received preoperative radiation therapy. The median follow-up was 4·2 years. Tumours were fixed or tethered in 31 (67 per cent) of the 46 irradiated patients. In contrast, no tumour was fixed in unirradiated patients and only ten (20 per cent) of the 50 tumours were tethered. The proportion of patients with stage I or II tumours based on final pathology was similar: 61 per cent (28 of 46) and 56 per cent (28 of 50) in irradiated and unirradiated groups respectively (P = 0·287). There were four (9 per cent) and two (4 per cent) local recurrences among irradiated and unirradiated patients respectively (P = 0·422). CONCLUSION: Limiting preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer to patients with a threatened circumferential margin does not compromise patient outcome.

One millimetre is the safe cut-off for magnetic resonance imaging prediction of surgical margin status in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A pathologically involved margin in rectal cancer is defined as tumour within 1 mm of the surgical resection margin. There is no standard definition of a predicted safe margin on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to assess which cut-off (1, 2 or 5 mm) was the best predictor of local recurrence based on preoperative MRI assessment of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on the distance between the tumour and mesorectal fascia for patients with documented radiological margin status in the MERCURY study. Positive margin and local recurrence rates were compared for MRI distances from the tumour to the mesorectal fascia of 1 mm or less, more than 1 mm up to 2 mm, more than 2 mm up to 5 mm, and more than 5 mm. The Cox proportional hazard regression method was used to determine the effect of level of margin involvement on time to local recurrence. RESULTS: Univariable analysis showed that, relative to a distance measured by MRI of more than 5 mm, the hazard ratio (HR) for local recurrence was 3·90 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·99 to 7·63; P < 0·001) for a margin of 1 mm or less, 0·81 (0·36 to 1·85; P = 0·620) for a margin of more than 1 mm up to 2 mm, and 0·33 (0·10 to 1·08; P = 0·067) for a margin greater than 2 mm up to 5 mm. Multivariable analysis of the effect of MRI distance to the mesorectal fascia and preoperative treatment on local recurrence showed that a margin of 1 mm or less remained significant regardless of preoperative treatment (HR 3·72, 1·43 to 9·71; P = 0·007). CONCLUSION: For preoperative staging of rectal cancer, the best cut-off distance for predicting CRM involvement using MRI is 1 mm. Using a cut-off greater than this does not appear to identify patients at higher risk of local recurrence.