The Role of General Surgeon in Gynecologic Oncology Surgery

PURPOSE: Resection of the bowel or solid organs may be required for pelvic tumor surgery. The present study was performed to assess combined surgical procedures and determine the role of the general surgeon in gynecologic oncology surgery METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 135 patients with gynecologic malignancy who underwent a combined operation with a general surgeon between January 2000 and December 2005 at Asan Medical Center. The purpose of the combined operation was categorized into 3 groups: a tumor debulking operation, a resolution of intraoperative complications by a gynecologic surgeon, or an intraoperative diagnostic change. RESULTS: The incidence of combined operations for debulking, resolution of intraoperative complications, and intraoperative diagnostic changes were 103 cases (76.3%), 22 cases (16.3%), and 10 cases (7.4%), respectively. Ovarian cancer was the most common gynecologic malignancy (74.1%) and the rate of a combined operation with a general surgeon in ovarian cancer was 18.5% during the time period. Colorectal resection was the most common procedure by a colorectal surgeon (61.5%). Twenty four patients (17.8%) experienced postoperative complications, including ileus, wound infection, pancreas leakage, and stomal necrosis, with no significant differences according to the purpose of combined operation, pathologic diagnosis, or bowel preparation. The rate of a preoperative consultation to a general surgeon by gynecologic surgeons in cases with colorectal or solid organ invasion preoperatively was 53.2%. CONCLUSION: A general surgeon is an important consultant in a debulking operation of gynecologic malignancies, especially ovarian cancer, or treatment of complications. Thorough preoperative evaluation, bowel preparation, and preoperative consultation to a general surgeon is important in gynecologic oncology surgery.

Postoperative Complications and Recurrence in Patients with Crohn's Disease

PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess postoperative complications and recurrence rates and to elucidate the risk factors in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken for patients who had undergone bowel surgery at Asan Medical Center between October 1991 and June 2006. Symptomatic recurrence was defined as the presence of symptoms related to CD that was subsequently verified by radiologic or endoscopic finding. Surgical recurrence was defined as the need for repeated surgery for enteric CD. RESULTS: There were 160 patients with a mean follow up of 34 months (108 men and 52 women; mean age: 29.7+/-10.9). The most common indication for surgery was a complication of CD, such as intra-abdominal abscess (31.9%), intestinal obstruction (21.9%), and internal fistula (19.4%). Another frequent indication was medical intractability (23.8%). The types of surgical procedures were ileocolic resection (50.0%), small bowel resection (25.0%), total/subtotal colectomy (17.5%), and others. The cumulative symptomatic recurrences were 15.9% and 36.4% at 2 and 5 years, and the cumulative surgical recurrence was 13.6% at 5 years. The cumulative surgical recurrence was higher for stricturing-type CD than for penetrating-type CD (P=0.049). No other significant risk factor for recurrence was found in our study. Twenty patients (12.5%) had postoperative complications, such as intra-abdominal abscess, anastomosis leakage, obstruction, and wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative complication and recurrence rates were acceptable. For stricturing-type Crohn's disease surgical recurrence is higher than penetrating type, but long-term follow up is needed to verify the risk factors for recurrence.

Desmoid Tumor in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP)

PURPOSE: This research was conducted to assess the incidence, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes for desmoid tumors in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). METHODS: At Medical Center, we recruited 47 patients who had been diagnosed as having intraabdominal or abdominal wall desmoid tumor between Aug. 1995 and Dec. 2005. We compared FAP-associated desmoid tumors with non-FAP-associated desmoid tumors according to clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Desmoid tumors developed 12/46 (26.1%) in FAP, 1/14 (7.1%) in attenuated FAP and 34 in non-FAP associated. Unlike non-FAP-associated desmoid tumors, the occurrence of FAP-associated desmoid tumors in tended to be higher in the earlier age groups (< or =40 yrs, 92.3% vs 67.6%, P=0.082) and no sexual predominancy was observed (male:female ratio of 1.2:1 vs a tumor ratio 1:3.9, P=0.033). Intraabdominal-type desmoid tumors associated for the majority of FAP-associated desmoid tumors (92.3% vs 38.2%, P=0.002), and 70% of the desmoid tumors occurred within 3 years after total proctocolectomy. In the treatment of FAP-associated intraabdominal desmoid tumors, surgery was performed in 7 cases (58.3%), and complete resections were done in only 3 cases (25%), with one recurrence. In non-FAP-associated desmoid tumors, complete resection was possible in 10 cases (76.9%), and there was no recurrence (P=0.036). The medical treatment for unresectable or incompletely resectable cases in cases of non-FAP-associated desmoid tumor was good, but for FAP-associated desmoid tumors, the effectiveness was not good, and further investigation was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Intraabdominal desmoid tumors in FAP patients occurred frequently in the early (< or =3 yrs) postoperative period, and the treatment, outcome including surgery and medication, outcome was not good in patients with FAP-associated desmoid tumors.

Distant Metastasis Identified Immediately after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE: This study was designed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients with immediate distant metastasis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer and to help select patients for preoperative chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred eight patients, who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer, were included. Patients were excluded from the study if they had tumor types other than an adenocarcinoma, prior chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. The clinicopathological characteristics of patients with distant metastasis immediately after preoperative chemoradioterapy were compared with those of patients without distant metastasis. RESULTS: Distant metastases immediately after preoperative chemoradiotherapy were identified in 15 patients (7.2%). The liver was the most common site of metastasis (8/15), followed by peritoneal seeding (4), the lung (2), bone (1), and the aortocaval lymph node (1). Age, sex, chemotherapy regimen used, and primary tumor response for patients with distant metastases were similar to those for patients without distant metastasis. In patients with immediate distant metastasis, pre-chemoradiotherapy CEA was significantly higher (11.1 vs. 7.4 ng/ml; P= 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate distant metastasis after preoperative chemoradiotherapy is associated with pre-chemoradiotherapy CEA level. A careful work-up is necessary when pre-chemoradiotherapy CEA is higher than the normal range.

The Long-term Oncological Outcome of a Sphincter-saving Resection and an Abdominoperineal Resection for Lower Rectal Cancer

Purpose: The oncological safety of a sphincter-saving resection (SSR) in lower rectal cancer is widely accepted, and both an abdominoperineal resection (APR) and a SSR are used in potentially curative surgery. This retrospective study was performed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes after an APR and a SSR in patients with lower rectal cancer (within 5 cm from the anal verge). Methods: We recruited 441 lower rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resections (APR: 305, SSR: 136) between 1995 and 2000. A total mesorectal excision and autonomic nerve preservation were routinely performed. The median follow- up period was 65 months. Results: Most demographic findings were comparable between the groups; however, the APR groups revealed more advanced pathological characteristics (tumor depth, size, cell differentiation, and metastatic LN number). The local recurrence rates after an APR and a SSR were 12.8% and 7.4%, respectively (P= 0.09). An independent risk factor of local recurrence was LN metastasis only. Distant recurrence was higher in the APR group (26.4%) than in the SSR group (13.2%), but on multivariate analysis the difference was not significant (P=0.17). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates after an APR and a SSR were 73.2% and 87.6%, respectively (P<0.05). Particularly, there was a significant survival difference for stage III patients (APR: 59.0% vs. SSR: 83.0%, P<0.05). However, an APR was not an independent prognostic factor for cancer-specific survival in the multivariate analysis (P=0.07). Conclusions: An APR per se did not influence local recurrence after a curative resection for lower rectal cancer. The poor cancer-specific survival in the stage III APR group might be attributed to increased distant metastasis due to its more distal location.

Long-term Oncological Outcomes of T1 Rectal Cancer according to the Therapeutic Modalities

PURPOSE: Recent studies have showed a 7~15% lymph node metastasis rate in T1 rectal cancer. Surgical options for T1 rectal cancer are radical resections, local excisions, and local excisions with adjuvant radiotherapy. Outcomes according to the type of surgery are variable. The present study was performed to assess outcomes of T1 rectal cancer according to therapeutic modalities and to provide guidelines for appropriate treatment of T1 rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study of 117 patients with T1 rectal cancer who underwent surgery between June 1989 and December 2002 at Asan Medical Center was conducted. Radical resections, local excisions, and local excisions with adjuvant radiotherapy were performed as therapeutic modalities. Adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision was performed in patients with sm2 or sm3 cancers, lympho-vascular invasion (+), poorly differentiated cancer, and resection margin (+) or because of a patient's refusal to undergo a radical resection. RESULTS: Twenty-five (21.3%) patients were treated by local excision, 14 (12.0%) by adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision, and 78 (66.7%) by radical resection. The distance from the anal verge was significantly longer in the radical resection group than in the local excision group (7.8+/-3.4 vs. 4.9+/-2.1 cm; P<0.001). There was no significant difference by age, sex, or pathologic findings between the three groups. There was one local recurrence in the local excision group, one distant metastasis in the local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy group, and two distant metastases in the radical resection group. The 5-year cancer-specific survival and disease-free survival rates were as follows; local excision group, 94.1 and 95.8%, respectively; local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy group, 100 and 92.8%, respectively; radical resection group, 98.3 and 98.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in survival between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oncological outcomes of T1 rectal cancer patients were comparable among the surgical options. Adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended after local excision in patients with risk factors, such as sm2 or sm3 cancer, poorly differentiated cancer, and positive lympho-vascular invasion.

Risk Factors and Oncologic Impact of Anastomotic Leakage after Rectal Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious and life-threatening complication following rectal cancer surgery. The impact on long-term oncologic outcome in patients with AL is not clear. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors of AL and its impact on long-term prognosis after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We investigated 1,391 patients who underwent primary resection and anastomosis for rectal cancer between January 1997 and August 2003. Operations were performed as follows: AR (n=164), LAR (n=898), uLAR (n=329). Standard procedures in our clinic were mesorectal excision according to tumor location and autonomic nerve preservation. Median follow-up period was 40.1 months (2~96 months). RESULTS: AL rate was 2.5% (n=35). Gender (male), age (>60 years) and uLAR were independent risk factors in multivariate analysis (HR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.18~7.22; HR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.12~7.83; HR: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.08~7.09, respectively). Local recurrence in the AL group was significantly higher than that in the non-AL group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in multivariate analysis (P=0.14). Systemic recurrence between both groups was not statistically different. The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly lower in the AL group than in the non-AL group (55.1% vs 74.1%, P<0.05) and the cancer- specific survival rate was lower in the AL group than in the non-AL group (63.0% vs 78.3%, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Age, gender, and anastomotic level were risk factors for AL after rectal cancer surgery and anastomotic leakage was associated with a poor survival.

The Significance of Diverting Ileostomy during Restorative Proctocolectomy

PURPOSE: Restorative proctocolectomy (RP) is a standard surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Usually, diverting ileostomy is performed to protect an ileoanal anastomosis with RP. However, there are many controversies whether diverting ileostomy might urgently be needed. This study was performed to compare postoperative complications after RP with or without diverting ileostomy. METHODS: Between July 1994 and June 2001, 77 (M : F= 45 : 32) patients underwent RP. The indication criteria for diverting ileostomy included tension at the anastomosis, positive leakage test, compromised blood flow in the ileal pouch, long-term and high-dose steroid use, and severe rectal inflammation in ulcerative colitis patients. RESULTS: Histopathologic diagnoses revealed 45 ulcerative colitis, 23 familial adenomatous polyposis, 5 rectal cancer, and 4 hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Diverting ileostomies were performed in 40 patients (51.9%) and closed approximately 4 months later. Fourty eight complications were present in 32 patients. There was no perioperative death. There was no difference in perioperative outcome, morbidity or functional status between patients with and without ileostomy. However, in ulcerative colitis patients, anastomosis leakage was more frequent in patients without ileostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative proctocolectomy can be safely performed without diverting ileostomy in most cases of RP. However, diverting ileostomy may reduce anastomosis leakage in patients with ulcerative colitis.