A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Total pelvic exenteration (TPE), an en bloc resection is an ultraradical operation for malignancies, and refers to the removal of organs inside the pelvis, including female reproductive organs, lower urological organs and involved parts of the digestive system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the intra-operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate (MR) following TPE in colorectal, gynecological, urological, and miscellaneous cancers. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which three international databases including Medline through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on November 2023 were searched. To screen and select relevant studies, retrieved articles were entered into Endnote software. The required information was extracted from the full text of the retrieved articles by the authors. Effect measures in this study was the intra-operative, in-hospital, and 90-day and overall MR following TPE. All analyzes are performed using Stata software version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: In this systematic review, 1751 primary studies retrieved, of which 98 articles (5343 cases) entered into this systematic review. The overall mortality rate was 30.57% in colorectal cancers, 25.5% in gynecological cancers and 12.42% in Miscellaneous. The highest rate of mortality is related to the overall mortality rate of colorectal cancers. The MR in open surgeries was higher than in minimally invasive surgeries, and also in primary advanced cancers, it was higher than in recurrent cancers. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it can be said that performing TPE in a specialized surgical center with careful patient eligibility evaluation is a viable option for advanced malignancies of the pelvic organs.

R0 Resection in Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancy: Pelvic Exenteration and Beyond.

OPINION STATEMENT: Pelvic exenteration is a radical surgery, but oftentimes, it is the last curative option for patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies who have exhausted more conservative therapies. Mortality and morbidity outcomes have improved over time, but there are still significant peri-operative risks. Considerations before pursing pelvic exenteration must include the likelihood of oncologic cure and patients' fitness to undergo such a procedure, particularly given the high rate of surgical morbidity. Pelvic sidewall tumors have been a traditional contraindication for pelvic exenteration due to the difficulty in obtaining negative margins, but the use of laterally extended endopelvic resection and intra-operative radiation therapy allows for more radical resection of recurrent disease. We believe that these procedures to achieve R0 resection can expand the use of curative-intent surgery in recurrent gynecologic cancer, but require the surgical expertise of colleagues in orthopedic and vascular surgery and collaboration with plastic surgery for complex reconstruction and optimization of post-operative healing. Surgery of recurrent gynecologic cancer including pelvic exenteration, requires careful patient selection, pre-operative medical optimization and prehabilitation, and thorough counseling to optimize outcomes, both oncologic and peri-operative. We believe the creation of a well-developed team, including surgical teams and supportive care services, can lead to the best patient outcomes and improved professional satisfaction amongst providers.

Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix based on population analyses.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the impact of the treatment modality on the outcome of small cell neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma (SCNEC) using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. METHODS: Patients from the SEER program between 1981 and 2014 were identified. Significant factors for cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression methods. RESULTS: A total of 503 SCNEC patients were identified. The 5-year CSS and OS were 36.6% and 30.6%, respectively. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I to IV distributions was 189 (37.6%), 108 (21.5%), 95 (18.9%), and 111 patients (22.0%), respectively. Within the patients with known treatment strategies, 177 (45.9%) were treated with radical surgery and 209 (54.1%) underwent primary radiotherapy. Local treatment strategies were independent prognostic factor for CSS and OS. The 5-year CSS for radical surgery and primary radiotherapy was 50.0% and 27.9%, respectively (P < .001). The 5-year OS for those who received radical surgery and primary radiotherapy was 57.8%, and 29.6%, respectively (P < .001). In FIGO stage I SCNEC, patients treated with radical surgery had superior CSS (P = .001) and OS (P = .003) than those with primary radiotherapy. However, in FIGO stage II and III SCNEC, there were no differences in CSS and OS with respect to different local treatment strategies. Our results also found that the addition of brachytherapy impacted OS in the FIGO stage III SENCE (P = .002). The 5-year CSS and OS of patients with FIGO IV were only 11.7% and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SCNEC is a rare disease with aggressive clinical behavior. The findings indicate that radical surgery should be suggested for early-stage SCNEC and combining radiation therapy with brachytherapy should be suitable for patients with advanced stage.

Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Nonrectal Pelvic Malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced nonrectal pelvic malignancy. BACKGROUND: The PelvEx Collaborative provides large volume data from specialist centers to ascertain factors associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for nonrectal pelvic malignancy between 2006 and 2017 were identified from 22 tertiary centers. Patient demographics, neoadjuvant therapy, histopathological assessment, length of stay, 30-day major complication/mortality rate were recorded.The primary endpoints were factors associated with survival. The secondary endpoints included the difference in margin rates across the cohorts, impact of neoadjuvant treatment on survival, associated morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were identified. 40.4% (n = 523) had gynecological malignancies (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vaginal), 35.7% (n = 462) urological (bladder), 18.1% (n = 234) anal, and 5.7% had sarcoma (n = 74).The median age across the cohort was 63 years (range, 23-85). The median 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%, with the highest rates occurring following exenteration for recurrent sarcoma or locally advanced cervical cancer (3.3% each). The median length of hospital stay was 17.5 days. 34.5% of patients experienced a major complication, with highest rate occurring in those having salvage surgery for anal cancer.Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection was the main factor associated with long-term survival. The 3-year overall-survival rate for R0 resection was 48% for endometrial malignancy, 40.6% for ovarian, 49.4% for cervical, 43.8% for vaginal, 59% for bladder, 48.3% for anal, and 48.1% for sarcoma. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration remains an important treatment in selected patients with advanced or recurrent nonrectal pelvic malignancy. The range in 3-year overall survival following R0 resection (40%-59%) reflects the diversity of tumor types.

Changing outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer.

Background: Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is technically challenging but increasingly performed in specialist centres. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of exenteration over time. Methods: This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients who underwent exenteration for LARC and LRRC between 2004 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, including rate of bone resection, flap reconstruction, margin status and transfusion rates, were examined. Outcomes between higher- and lower-volume centres were also evaluated. Results: Some 2472 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC across 26 institutions. For LARC, rates of bone resection or flap reconstruction increased from 2004 to 2015, from 3·5 to 12·8 per cent, and from 12·0 to 29·4 per cent respectively. Fewer units of intraoperative blood were transfused over this interval (median 4 to 2 units; P = 0·040). Subgroup analysis showed that bone resection and flap reconstruction rates increased in lower- and higher-volume centres. R0 resection rates significantly increased in low-volume centres but not in high-volume centres over time (low-volume: from 62·5 to 80·0 per cent, P = 0·001; high-volume: from 83·5 to 88·4 per cent, P = 0·660). For LRRC, no significant trends over time were observed for bone resection or flap reconstruction rates. The median number of units of intraoperative blood transfused decreased from 5 to 2·5 units (P < 0·001). R0 resection rates did not increase in either low-volume (from 51·7 to 60·4 per cent; P = 0·610) or higher-volume (from 48·6 to 65·5 per cent; P = 0·100) centres. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, 30-day complication, reintervention or mortality rates were observed over time. Conclusion: Radical resection, bone resection and flap reconstruction rates were performed more frequently over time, while transfusion requirements decreased.

Evolution of pelvic exenteration surgery- resectional trends and survival outcomes over three decades.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the changes in exenterative surgery over three decades analysing oncological outcomes and whether changes in surgical approach have led to improved patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: Advances in surgical technology, perioperative care and pattern of disease recurrence have coincided with an evolutionary change in exenterative surgery. METHODS: A review of a prospectively maintained databases of pelvic exenteration surgery from 1988 to 2018  at two high volume specialised institutions. The total cohort was divided into three major time points (1988-2004, 2005-2010 and 2011 to 2018) to allow comparative analysis. Primary endpoints were overall survival in primary and recurrent disease at each time point. Secondary endpoints included anastomotic leak, blood transfusion, ileus, wound infection rates and evolution of case complexity. Data were analysed using R with a p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy patients underwent exenterative surgery. In 2011-2018 there was an increase in resection of recurrent malignancy with a continuous increase in GI malignancies resected over each time period(p < 0.001,<0.01) and a reduction in gynaecological malignancy(p < 0.001). A significant increase in sacrectomy, pelvic sidewall resection and ileal conduit reconstruction was observed (p < 0.01,<0.001).In 2005-2010 patients had increased rates of ileus and anastomotic leak(p < 0.05). Patients undergoing resection for primary disease had improved overall survival at time points 1988-2004 and 2011-2018 compared to those with recurrent disease(p = 0.007,<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients with primary versus recurrent disease(p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: There has been a significant improvement in survival in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery from primary disease. Case complexity has increased without significant morbidity.

Pushing the boundaries of pelvic exenteration by maintaining survival at the cost of morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) provides a potentially curative option for advanced or recurrent malignancy confined to the pelvis. A clear (R0) resection margin is the strongest prognostic factor predicting long-term survival, driving most technical advances in PE surgery. The aim of this cohort study was to describe changing trends in extent of resection, postoperative complications, mortality and overall survival after PE surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent PE for advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy at a single institution in Sydney, Australia, were identified. The cohort was divided into three groups based on time periods reflecting annual surgical volume: 1994-2006 (20 or fewer procedures per year), 2007-2013 (21-50 procedures per year) and 2014-2017 (over 50 procedures per year). Primary outcomes were extent of resection, postoperative complications, 60-day mortality and 3-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were patient characteristics, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were increases over time in rates of lateral and posterior compartment resections (P < 0·001), and bony pelvis (P = 0·002) and neurovascular (P < 0·001) excision. For patients undergoing reconstruction, the proportion receiving vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flaps increased significantly (P = 0·005). Rates of wound infection, dehiscence, and abdominal and pelvic collections increased over the study interval. Short-term mortality decreased, and 1- and 3-year survival rates improved. CONCLUSION: Technical and surgical advancements have led to more complex PE resections, with R0 and mortality rates improving with higher annual volume. There were associated increases in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity.

ANTECEDENTES: La exenteración pélvica (pelvic exenteration, PE) ofrece una opción potencialmente curativa para el cáncer localmente avanzado o la recidiva de la neoplasia limitada a la pelvis. Un margen de resección libre (R0) es el factor pronóstico más importante que predice la supervivencia a largo plazo, lo que ha impulsado la mayoría de los avances técnicos en la cirugía de la PE. El objetivo de este estudio de cohortes fue describir el cambio en la tendencia relativa a la extensión de la resección, las complicaciones postoperatorias, la mortalidad y la supervivencia global después de la cirugía de la PE. MÉTODOS: Se identificaron pacientes intervenidos de forma consecutiva a los que se practicó una PE por neoplasia pélvica avanzada o recidivante en una sola institución en Sydney, Australia. La cohorte se dividió en tres grupos según períodos de tiempo que reflejan el volumen quirúrgico anual: 1994-2006 (≤ 20 casos por año), 2007-2013 (21-50 casos por año) y 2014-2017 (> 50 casos por año). Los criterios de valoración principal fueron la extensión de la resección, las complicaciones postoperatorias, la mortalidad a los 60 días y la supervivencia a los tres años. Los criterios de valoración secundarios fueron las características del paciente, la administración de tratamiento neoadyuvante y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Las tendencias se evaluaron mediante pruebas de χ2 o ANOVA de una vía. RESULTADOS: Los porcentajes de resección de los compartimentos lateral y posterior, pelvis ósea así como de escisión neurovascular aumentaron con el tiempo (P < 0,01). Entre los pacientes en los que se hizo una reconstrucción, el porcentaje de colgajos miocutáneos verticales del recto del abdomen aumentó significativamente (P = 0,005). Las tasas de infección de herida, dehiscencia y colecciones abdominales y pélvicas aumentaron durante el período de estudio. La mortalidad a corto plazo disminuyó y la supervivencia a 1 y 3 años mejoró durante el período de estudio. CONCLUSIÓN: Los avances técnicos y quirúrgicos han permitido realizar resecciones de PE más complejas, mejorando las tasas de resección R0 y de mortalidad al aumentar el volumen anual de intervenciones. Al mismo tiempo se han observado incrementos en las pérdidas intraoperatorias de sangre, en las reconstrucciones y en la morbilidad postoperatoria.

Transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap reconstruction is feasible after pelvic exenteration: 12-year surgical and oncological results.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the only curative treatment for certain locally advanced intrapelvic malignancies. PE has high morbidity, and optimal reconstruction of the pelvic floor remains undetermined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a tertiary university center to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of 39 PE procedures over a 12-year period. The majority of patients (n = 25) underwent transverse musculocutaneous gracilis (TMG) flap reconstruction for pelvic floor reconstruction. RESULTS: The 1- and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 72% (95%CI 58%-86%) and 48% (95%CI 31%-65%), respectively. In multivariate analysis, lymph node metastasis (HR 3.070, p = 0.024) and positive surgical margins (HR 3.928, p = 0.009) were risk factors for OS. In this population, 71.8% of the patients had at least one complication. The complication rate was 65.4% and 84.6% for patients with versus without flap reconstruction, respectively (p = 0.191). The length of stay was longer for patients with a major complication 16,0 ±â€¯5,9 days vs. 29,4 ±â€¯14,8 days, p = 0,001, but complications did not affect OS. CONCLUSION: For selected patients, PE is a curative option for locally advanced, residual, or recurrent intrapelvic tumors. Pelvic floor and vulvovaginal defects can reliably be reconstructed using TMG flaps. TMG flaps are favored in our institution over abdominal-based flaps because the donor site morbidity is reasonable and TMG does not interfere with enterostomy.

Population-based study of surgical treatment with and without tumour resection in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies of treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are lacking. The aim was to investigate the surgical treatment of patients with LRRC at a national population-based level. METHODS: All patients undergoing abdominal resection for primary rectal cancer between 1995 and 2002 in Sweden with LRRC as a first event were included. Detailed information about treatment, complications and outcomes was collected from the medical records. The patients were analysed in three groups: patients who had resection of the LRRC, those treated without tumour resection and patients who received best supportive care only. RESULTS: In all, 426 patients were included in the study. Of these, 149 (35·0 per cent) underwent tumour resection, 193 (45·3 per cent) had treatment without tumour resection and 84 (19·7 per cent) received best supportive care. Abdominoperineal resection was the most frequent surgical procedure, performed in 65 patients (43·6 per cent of those who had tumour resection). Thirteen patients had total pelvic exenteration. In total, 63·8 per cent of those whose tumour was resected had potentially curative surgery. After tumour resection, 62 patients (41·6 per cent) had a complication within 30 days. Patients who received surgical treatment without tumour resection had a lower complication rate but a significantly higher 30-day mortality rate than those who underwent tumour resection (10 versus 1·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·002). Of all patients included in the study, 22·3 per cent had potentially curative treatment and the 3-year survival rate for these patients was 56 per cent. CONCLUSION: LRRC is a serious condition with overall poor outcome. Patients undergoing curative surgery have an acceptable survival rate but substantial morbidity. There is room for improvement in the management of patients with LRRC.

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting. METHODS: This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.

Systematic review of outcomes following pelvic exenteration for the treatment of primary and recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration represents the best treatment option for cure of locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. This systematic review sought to evaluate current literature regarding short and long term treatment outcomes and long term survival following pelvic exenteration. METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed and Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2001 and 2016. The article search was performed in line with Cochrane methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, incorporating 1016 patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were male and median patient age was 59 years. Median operating time was 7.2 h with median blood loss of 1.9 l. Median postoperative stay was 17 days with a median 30-day mortality of 0. Complication rates were 31.6-86% with a return to theatre rate of 14.6%. Median R0 resection rate was 74% and was higher for primary cancer (82.6% versus 58% for recurrent cancer). Mean overall survival was 31 months and median 5-year survival was 32%. Recurrently identified indicators of adverse outcome included R1/2 resection, preoperative pelvic pain and previous abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration remains a major operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in preoperative assessment and staging, R1 resection rates remain high. There is also a high degree of variability of reporting outcomes and standardisation of this process would aid comparison of results between centres and drive forward research in this area.

Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is a radical approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) in case of tumour invasion into the urogenitary tract. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of TPE for LARC and LRRC in elderly patients compared to younger patients. METHODS: All patients who underwent TPE for LARC and LRRC between January 1990 and March 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients aged <70 years were classified as younger and ≥70 years as elderly patients. RESULTS: In total 126 patients underwent TPE, of whom 88 younger and 38 elderly patients. Elderly patients had a significantly higher number of ASA > II patients (p = 0.01). Indication for surgery LARC (n = 73) and LRRC (n = 53) did not differ significantly. The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher (p = 0.01) in elderly (13%) compared to younger patients (3%). Elderly patients experienced more anastomotic leakage (p = 0.02). Median overall survival (OS) was 75 months [95%CI 37.1; 112.9] for elderly and 45 months [95%CI 22.4; 67.8] for younger patients (p = 0.77). The 5-year OS rate was 44% in both groups. Median disease specific survival (DSS) was 78 months [95%CI 69.1; 86.9] for elderly and 60 months [95%CI 36.6; 83.4] for younger patients (p = 0.34). The 5-year DSS rate was 57% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION: TPE is an invasive treatment for rectal cancer with high 30-day mortality in elderly patients. Oncological outcomes are similar in elderly and younger patients. Therefore, TPE should not be withheld because of high age only, but careful patient selection is needed.

Persistent involvement of anterior mesorectal fascia in carcinoma rectum - extended resection of rectum vs total pelvic exenteration: results from a single-centre retrospective study.

AIM: Involvement of the anterior mesorectal fascia (iAMRF) after neoadjuvant treatment leads to either resection of the involved organ alone [extended resection of the rectum (ERR)] or total pelvic exenteration (TPE). The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of recurrence and survival of patients undergoing ERR or TPE for iAMRF after neoadjuvant treatment. The outcome of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision after downstaging was also compared. METHOD: This was a retrospective study of primary rectal cancer patients. RESULTS: Of 237 patients, 61 (21.5%) patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma rectum had iAMRF at baseline. Ten patients defaulted before completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 22 patients (43.1%) developed systemic metastases, seven patients (13.8%) were downstaged to free anterior mesorectal fascia and underwent total mesorectal excision (anterior resection/abdominoperineal resection) and the remaining 22 patients (43.1%) had persistent iAMRF. Thirteen patients with persistent iAMRF underwent ERR, whereas nine patients underwent TPE. The median duration of hospital stay in the TPE group was 13 days (10-26), whereas it was 7 days (5-21) in the ERR group. A clear circumferential resection margin, R0 resection, was achieved in all patients with TPE and ERR. After a median follow-up of 31.6 months, five patients with TPE (55.6%), four patients with ERR (30.7%) and three patients in the downstaged group (42.9%) developed systemic recurrence. None of the patients with TPE and the downstaged group developed local recurrence, whereas three patients with ERR (23.1%) developed local recurrence. Median disease-free survival was 12.3 months in the TPE group, 18.9 months in the ERR group and 10.6 months in the downstaged group, whereas mean overall survival was 36.2, 32.8 and 27.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although there is no significant difference in the overall survival and disease-free survival, ERR is associated with a high risk of local recurrence compared to TPE and the downstaged group.

Urological outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic cancer are not inferior to those following radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced pelvic malignancy requires a multi-disciplinary approach and is associated with significant morbidity. Urinary reconstruction forms a major component of this procedure. The aim of the study is to review the urological outcomes following PE in a newly established pelvic oncology unit, to compare with those following radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients were identified from prospectively maintained PE and bladder cancer databases, inclusive of all cases performed between January 2012 and December 2016. Those without urinary reconstructions and follow-up durations of less than 3 months were excluded. The outcomes of PE and RC cases were compared, stratifying surgical complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 22 PE cases and 27 RC cases. The median age at surgery was 56 and 65 years, with a median follow-up of 11.7 and 19.8 months, in the PE and RC groups, respectively. Urinary reconstructions comprised n = 20 (91%) conduit diversions and n = 2 (9%) ureteral reimplantations in the PE group, and n = 5 (19%) orthotopic bladder substitutes and n = 22 (81%) ileal conduits in the RC group. The 30-day urological complication rate was 23% in the PE group (n = 4 Clavien-Dindo Grade 1-2, and n = 1 Grade 3) versus 11% in the RC group (n = 1 Grade 1-2, and n = 2 Grade 3), P = 0.801. There were no Grade 4-5 complications in this series. CONCLUSION: The urological outcomes following PE in complex pelvic oncology are reasonable and not inferior to those after primary RC alone.

Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is associated with variable outcomes, with the majority of data from single-centre series. This study analysed data from an international collaboration to determine robust parameters that could inform clinical decision-making. METHODS: Anonymized data on patients who had pelvic exenteration for LRRC between 2004 and 2014 were accrued from 27 specialist centres. The primary endpoint was survival. The impact of resection margin, bone resection, node status and use of neoadjuvant therapy (before exenteration) was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1184 patients, 614 (51·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant therapy. A clear resection margin (R0 resection) was achieved in 55·4 per cent of operations. Twenty-one patients (1·8 per cent) died within 30 days and 380 (32·1 per cent) experienced a major complication. Median overall survival was 36 months following R0 resection, 27 months after R1 resection and 16 months following R2 resection (P < 0·001). Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had more postoperative complications (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·53), readmissions (unadjusted OR 2·33) and radiological reinterventions (unadjusted OR 2·12). Three-year survival rates were 48·1 per cent, 33·9 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Bone resection (when required) was associated with a longer median survival (36 versus 29 months; P < 0·001). Node-positive patients had a shorter median overall survival than those with node-negative disease (22 versus 29 months respectively). Multivariable analysis identified margin status and bone resection as significant determinants of long-term survival. CONCLUSION: Negative margins and bone resection (where needed) were identified as the most important factors influencing overall survival. Neoadjuvant therapy before pelvic exenteration did not affect survival, but was associated with higher rates of readmission, complications and radiological reintervention.

Pelvic local recurrence from colorectal cancer: surgical challenge with changing preconditions.

AIM: Although the rate of local recurrence (LR) after colorectal cancer surgery has decreased, it still poses major surgical and oncological challenges. The aims of this study, based on an audit from a tertiary referral centre, was to evaluate determinants associated with outcomes after surgery for pelvic LR and how these have changed over time. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of all resections for pelvic LR of colorectal cancer performed at the Karolinska University Hospital from January 2003 until August 2009 (period 1) and from September 2009 until November 2013 (period 2) . RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with pelvic LR were operated on with a curative intent. An R0 resection was achieved in 77% and an R1 resection in 23%. Lateral compartments were invaded in 48% and this proportion increased in resections performed in period 2 (37% vs 60%, P = 0.05). R1 resections were associated with a higher risk of local re-recurrence than R0 resections (64% vs 16%; OR = 8.90, 95% CI: 2.71-29.78). Lateral recurrences were associated with a lower R0-resection rate than nonlateral recurrences (63% vs 90%; OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.64) and a higher risk of treatment failure in terms of local re-recurrence or distant metastases, or death, as first event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.06-2.75). However, in a multivariate analysis only R1 resections remained a significant prognostic factor for treatment failure (HR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.32-4.27). CONCLUSION: The proportion of lateral pelvic recurrences has increased over time. In comparison with non-lateral LRs, lateral LRs are more difficult to resect radically and are associated with worse overall and disease-free survival. However, with radical surgery many patients with pelvic locally recurrent colorectal cancer may be offered curative treatment.

Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for recurrent and primary locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is the only radical treatment for locally advanced (ARC) or recurrent (RRC) rectal cancers. The long-term results of the procedure are variably reported in the literature, with recent series suggesting similar survival between ARC and RRC. The study aimed to analyze and compare the long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for ARC and RRC in a tertiary center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison of variables was performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate. The Kaplan Meier method was used to analyze the disease-free survival (DFS) and the log-rank test to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Since 2002, 46 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for ARC (28, 60.9%) and RRC (18, 39.1%). The groups had comparable characteristics, perioperative results, including postoperative complications, and rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. A R0 resection was obtained in 71.4% and 55.6% (p 0.41) and a T4 stage was diagnosed in 75% and 94.4% (p 0.22) of ARC and RRC patients, respectively. After a median follow-up time of 32.5 and 56.6 months (p 0.01), the 5-year DFS was significantly lower in the RRC group (23.6 vs 46.2%, p 0.006), even after exclusion of R1 cases (30 vs 54.5%, p 0.044). CONCLUSION: The long-term disease free survival of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is significantly worse when the procedure is performed for RRC, regardless of the tumor involvement of the resection margins.

Short- and long-term outcomes following pelvic exenteration for gynae-oncological and colorectal cancers: A 9 year consecutive single-centre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Radical pelvic exenteration can be undertaken for locally invasive or recurrent disease in both colorectal and gynaecological malignancies. In the UK this procedure is usually undertaken by the respective surgical specialties who have undergone divergent surgical training. This study describes and compares outcomes between colorectal and gynae-oncological teams following pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent gynaecological and colorectal cancers in a single-centre multi-disciplinary team. METHOD: A retrospective review of consecutive pelvic exenteration patients undertaken over a nine-year period in a tertiary referral centre. Analyses comparing short- and long-term morbidity and mortality outcomes were undertaken by chi-square test for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Cumulative survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and factors associated with recurrence and survival determined using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Thirty-four exenterations were undertaken; fourteen colorectal and twenty gynae-oncological. Morbidity was seen in 50% of colorectal and 75% of gynae-oncological patients. Recurrence was seen earlier and with greater frequency in the gynaeoncology group (44.4% and median time 11 months) than the colorectal group (21.4%, median time 41 months; p > 0.05). Survival in the gynae-oncology group was also lower than the colorectal group at 1-year (69.6% vs. 92.9%) and 5-years (58.0% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.115). The majority of gynae-oncological mortality occurred within 3-years of surgery, whilst the majority of mortality in the colorectal group was after 5-years. CONCLUSION: Long-term patient outcome measures, including disease recurrence and 5-year survival, for colorectal exenteration appear better than for gynaeoncology patients, however, no statistical significant difference exists between short-term outcome measures between specialties. This is likely to be caused by different baseline pathologies and disease pattern influencing longer term prognosis but may also be a function of differing surgical thresholds and patient selection bias between specialties. Peri-operative and short-term morbidity appear equivalent despite divergent surgical backgrounds and training.

Survival After Pelvic Exenteration for Cervical Cancer: A National Cancer Database Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine overall survival (OS) and factors associated with OS after pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer. METHODS: Women with cervical cancer who underwent exenteration (n = 517) were identified from the 1998 to 2011 National Cancer Database. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses were performed to test for associations of potential explanatory variables with OS. Analyzed confounders included age, insurance status, income, distance from home to treatment center, stage, exenteration type, surgical margin status, and treatment with adjuvant radiation and/or chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort with clinical follow-up (n = 313), median OS was 24 months. Stage (P = 2.5 × 10), lymph node status (P = 1.3 × 10), insurance status (P = 1.5 × 10), and histologic type (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with OS by the log-rank test. Unadjusted median OS was 24.2 and 61.8 months for women with squamous and adenocarcinoma histologies, respectively. By multivariate Cox regression, age, insurance status, stage, margin status, and adjuvant radiation were associated with OS. Histology was not independently associated with OS on multivariate regression. Among women with node-negative disease, median OS was 73.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Exenteration may be curative for more than half of women with node-negative cervical cancer. Stage, insurance status, lymph node status, and surgical margin are independently associated with differential OS after exenteration.