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.

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.

Magnetic resonance imaging-detected lymph nodes close to the mesorectal fascia are rarely a cause of margin involvement after total mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer the management of suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected lymph nodes lying close to the mesorectal fascia poses an ongoing dilemma. Key decisions in treatment planning are commonly based on the prediction of margin status. However, it is unclear whether a lymph node that appears to contain tumour close to the mesorectal fascia will result in a positive margin. METHODS: Some 396 patients with rectal cancer were included. MRI assessment of mesorectal nodes, the pathologically involved circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate and causes of margin involvement were analysed to establish the clinical significance of MRI-detected suspicious lymph nodes at the resection margin. RESULTS: Fifty (12.6 per cent) of 396 patients had a positive CRM on histopathological analysis, five (10 per cent) solely due to an involved lymph node. Four of the five malignant nodes were not predicted on MRI. Thirty-one of the 396 MRI studies had suspicious nodes 1 mm or less from the CRM. None of these patients had a positive CRM owing to nodal involvement. CONCLUSION: Involvement of the CRM by lymph node metastases alone is uncommon.