Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (TME)-Results of MRI-Guided Multivisceral Resections in T4 Rectal Carcinoma and Local Recurrence.

Rectal cancer invading adjacent organs (T4) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) pose a special challenge for surgical resection. We investigate the diagnostic performance of MRI and the results that can be achieved with MRI-guided surgery. All consecutive patients who underwent MRI-based multivisceral resection for T4 rectal adenocarcinoma or LRRC between 2005 and 2019 were included. Pelvic MRI findings were reviewed according to a seven-compartment staging system and correlated with histopathology. Outcomes were investigated by comparing T4 tumors and LRRC with respect to cause-specific survival in uni- and multivariate analysis. We identified 48 patients with T4 tumors and 28 patients with LRRC. Overall, 529 compartments were assessed with an accuracy of 81.7%, a sensitivity of 88.6%, and a specificity of 79.2%. Understaging was as low as 3.0%, whereas overstaging was 15.3%. The median number of resected compartments was 3 (interquartile range 3-4) for T4 tumors and 4 (interquartile range 3-5) for LRRC (p = 0.017). In 93.8% of patients with T4 tumors, a histopathologically complete (R0(local)-) resection could be achieved compared to 57.1% in LRRC (p < 0.001). Five-year overall survival for patients with T4 tumors was 53.3% vs. 32.1% for LRRC (p = 0.085). R0-resection and M0-category emerged as independent prognostic factors, whereas the number of resected compartments was not associated with prognosis in multivariate analysis. MRI predicts compartment involvement with high accuracy and especially avoids understaging. Surgery based on MRI yields excellent loco-regional results for T4 tumors and good results for LRRC. The number of resected compartments is not independently associated with prognosis, but R0-resection remains the crucial surgical factor.

Tailored concept for the plastic closure of pelvic defects resulting from extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) or pelvic exenteration.

PURPOSE: No standard exists for reconstruction after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and pelvic exenteration. We propose a tailored concept with the use of bilateral gluteal V-Y advancement flaps in non-extended ELAPE and with vertical myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM) flaps in extended procedures. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility of this concept. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved all consecutive patients after ELAPE or pelvic exenteration for rectal, anal, or vulva cancer with flap repair from a prospective database. Perineal wound complications were defined as the primary endpoint. Outcomes for the two different flap reconstructions were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, we identified 107 patients who met the study criteria. Four patients underwent exenteration with VRAM flap repair after previous V-Y flap fashioning. Therefore, we report on 75 V-Y and 36 VRAM flaps. The V-Y group contained more rectal carcinomas, and the VRAM group exhibited more patients with recurrent cancer, more multivisceral resections, and longer operation times. Perineal wound complications occurred in 21.3% in the V-Y group and in 36.1% in the VRAM group (p = 0.097). Adjusted odds ratio for perineal wound complication was not significantly different for the two flap types. CONCLUSION: Concerning perineal wound complications, our concept yields favorable results for V-Y flap closure indicating that this less invasive approach is sufficient for non-extended ELAPE. Advantages are a shorter operation time, less donor site morbidity, and the option of a second repair. VRAM flaps were reserved for larger wounds after pelvic exenteration or vaginal repair.

Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit.

PURPOSE: Centralization of cancer care is expected to yield superior results. In Germany, the national strategy is based on a voluntary certification process. The effect of centre certification is difficult to prove because quality data are rarely available prior to certification. This observational study aims to assess outcomes for rectal cancer patients before and after implementation of a certified cancer centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our certified centre from 2009 to 2017 were retrieved from a prospective database. The dataset was analyzed according to a predefined set of 19 quality indicators comprising 36 quality goals. The results were compared to an identical cohort of patients, treated from 2000 to 2008 just before centre implementation. RESULTS: In total, 1059 patients were included, 481 in the 2009-2017 interval and 578 in the 2000-2008 interval. From 2009 to 2017, 25 of 36 quality goals were achieved (vs. 19/36). The proportion of anastomotic leaks in low anastomoses was improved (13.5% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.018), as was the local 5-year recurrence rate for stage (y)pIII rectal cancers (7.7% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.085), and quality of mesorectal excision (0.3% incomplete resections vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, a decrease of abdominoperineal excisions was noted (47.1% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.037). For the 2009-2017 interval, local 5-year recurrence rate in stages (y)p0-III was 4.6% and 5-year overall survival was 80.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Certification as specialized centre and regular audits were associated with an improvement of various quality parameters. The formal certification process has the potential to enhance quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

To what extent is the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) associated with quality of life as measured using the EORTC C30 and CR38 quality of life questionnaires?

PURPOSE: Treatment of rectal cancer often results in disturbed anorectal function, which can be quantified by the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score. This study investigates the association of impaired anorectal function as measured with the LARS score with quality of life (QoL) as measured with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and CR38 questionnaires. METHODS: All stoma-free patients who had undergone sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer from 2000 to 2014 in our institution were retrieved from a prospective database. They were contacted by mail and asked to return the questionnaires. QoL was evaluated in relation to LARS and further patient- and treatment factors using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients (n = 331), 261 (78.8%) responded with a complete LARS score. Mean score for global QoL according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire was 63 ± 21 for all patients. If major LARS was present, mean score decreased to 56 ± 19 in contrast to 67 ± 20 in patients with no/minor LARS (p < 0.001). In regression analysis, major LARS was furthermore associated with reduced physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning as well as impaired body image, more micturition problems and poorer future perspective. It was not related to sexual function. The variance explained by major LARS in the differences of QoL was approximately 10%. CONCLUSION: The presence of major LARS after rectal resection for cancer is negatively associated with global health as well as many other aspects of QoL. Preserving anorectal function and treatment of LARS are potential measures to improve QoL in this patient group.

Outcome of bowel function following anterior resection for rectal cancer-an analysis using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score.

PURPOSE: Severity of anorectal dysfunction after low anterior resection is associated with various patient- and treatment-related factors. We aimed to quantify anorectal dysfunction after treatment for rectal cancer using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. METHODS: We retrieved from a prospective database 331 eligible patients on whom anterior resection for rectal cancer had been performed from 2000 to 2014. All patients were sent a LARS score accompanied by a supplementary questionnaire. Response rate was 78.8% (261 patients). The main outcome measure was the relation of the LARS score to potentially associated patient and treatment factors. Secondary endpoints were further measures that reflect anorectal dysfunction, e.g., Vaizey score. RESULTS: Overall, 144 (55.2%) patients exhibited scores > 20 reflecting minor (n = 51 (19.5%)) or major (n = 93 (35.6%)) LARS. A significant difference for scores > 20 was found for intersphincteric resection (IR, 73.2% affected patients) compared to total mesorectal excision (TME, 58.4%) and partial mesorectal excision (PME, 38.0%, p = 0.001). Radio(chemo)therapy resulted in LARS scores > 20 in 64.6% of patients compared to 43.1% in patients without irradiation (p = 0.001). Type of procedure (TME and IR as compared to PME), radio(chemo)therapy, and younger age were independently associated with LARS in logistic regression analysis. However, younger age remained the only independent factor for higher scores after exclusion of PME. CONCLUSIONS: The LARS score identified a substantial proportion of patients after surgery for rectal cancer with anorectal dysfunction. The extent of surgical procedure is independently associated with the severity of symptoms whereas the role of radiotherapy needs further assessment.

Long-term outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) was introduced to improve outcomes for low-lying locally advanced rectal cancers (LARC) not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures. This study investigates prospectively outcomes of patients operated on with ELAPE compared with a similar cohort of patients operated on with conventional APE. METHODS: After the exclusion of patients without neoadjuvant therapy, in-hospital mortality, and incomplete metastatectomy, we identified 72 consecutive patients who had undergone either conventional APE (n = 36) or ELAPE (n = 36) for LARC ≤6 cm from the anal verge. The primary outcome measure was local recurrence at 5 years, and secondary outcome measures were cause-specific and overall survival. RESULTS: Median distance from the anal verge was significantly lower in the ELAPE group (2 vs. 4 cm, p = 0.029). Inadvertent bowel perforation could be completely avoided in the ELAPE group, but amounted to 16.7 % in the conventional APE group (p = 0.025). Cumulative local recurrence rate at 5 years was 18.2 % in the APE group compared to 5.9 % in the ELAPE group (p = 0.153). Local recurrence without distant metastases occurred in 15.5 % in the APE group but was not observed in the ELAPE group (p = 0.039). We did not detect significant differences in cause-specific nor in overall survival. CONCLUSION: ELAPE results in lower local recurrence rates as compared with conventional APE. We conclude that the extralevator approach should be the procedure of choice for advanced low rectal cancer not amenable to sphincter preserving procedures.

Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer--a systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: After introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery, oncologic results appeared to be inferior for abdominoperineal excision (APE) as compared to anterior resection. This has been attributed to the technique of standard APE creating a waist at the level of the tumor-bearing segment. This systematic review investigates outcome of both standard and extended techniques of APE regarding inadvertent bowel perforation, circumferential margin (CRM) involvement, and local recurrence. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all articles reporting on APE after the introduction of TME using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Extended APE was defined as operations that resected the levator ani muscle close to its origin. All other techniques were taken to be standard. Studies so identified were evaluated using a validated instrument for assessing nonrandomized studies. Rates for perforation, CRM involvement, and local recurrence were compared using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: In the extended group, 1,097 patients, and in the standard group, 4,147 patients could be pooled for statistical analysis. The rate of inadvertent bowel perforation and the rate of CRM involvement for extended vs. standard APE was 4.1% vs. 10.4% (relative risk reduction 60.6%, p = 0.004) and 9.6% vs. 15.4% (relative risk reduction 37.7%, p = 0.022), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 6.6% vs. 11.9% (relative risk reduction 44.5%, p < 0.001) for the two groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that extended techniques of APE result in superior oncologic outcome as compared to standard techniques.