International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment

Purpose@#Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient. @*Methods@#A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020. @*Results@#One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons’ age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons’ inclination toward open approach. @*Conclusion@#Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Patients With Rectal Tumors: A Single Institution's Experience

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to look at our complication rates and recurrence rates, as well as the need for further radical surgery, in treating patients with benign and early malignant rectal tumors by using transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). METHODS: Our study included 130 patients who had undergone TEM for rectal adenomas and early rectal cancer from December 2009 to December 2015 at the Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Lithuania. Patients underwent digital and endoscopic evaluation with multiple biopsies. For preoperative staging, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging or endorectal ultrasound was performed. We recorded the demographics, operative details, final pathologies, postoperative lengths of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and recurrences. RESULTS: The average tumor size was 2.8 ± 1.5 cm (range, 0.5–8.3 cm). 102 benign (78.5%) and 28 malignant tumors (21.5%) were removed. Of the latter, 23 (82.1%) were pT1 cancers and 5 (17.9%) pT2 cancers. Of the 5 patients with pT2 cancer, 2 underwent adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 1 underwent an abdominoperineal resection, 1 refused further treatment and 1 was lost to follow up. No intraoperative complications occurred. In 7 patients (5.4%), postoperative complications were observed: urinary retention (4 patients, 3.1%), postoperative hemorrhage (2 patients, 1.5%), and wound dehiscence (1 patient, 0.8%). All complications were treated conservatively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.3 days. CONCLUSION: TEM in our experience demonstrated low complication and recurrence rates. This technique is recommended for treating patients with a rectal adenoma and early rectal cancer and has good prognosis.

Usefulness of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Continence Problems After a Low Anterior Resection

PURPOSE: For several decades, the low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) has been the gold standard for treating patients with rectal cancer. Up to 90% of patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery will have changes in bowel habits, so-called 'anterior resection syndrome.' This study examined patients' continence after a LAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: This prospective study was performed between September 2014 and August 2015 at the National Cancer Institute and included 30 patients who underwent anorectal manometry preoperatively and at 3 and 4 months after a LAR, but 10 were excluded from further evaluation for various reasons. Wexner score was recorded preoperatively and 4 months after LAR (1 month after ileostomy repair). RESULTS: Postoperatively, 70% of patients complained of some degree of soiling (incontinence to liquid stool), and 30% experienced urgent defecation. Four months after surgery, these symptoms had somewhat abated. The anal resting pressure and the maximum squeezing pressure did not change significantly. Rectal capacity and compliance were reduced in all patients. The majority of patients demonstrated manometric anorectal changes and clinical anorectal function disorders during the first 4 months after surgery. The Wexner scores and the manometric findings showed no correlation. CONCLUSION: Many patients undergoing a LAR with TME for the treatment of rectal cancer experience some degree of incontinence postoperatively. Anorectal manometry may be used as an additional tool for evaluating problems with continence after a LAR. No correlation between the Wexner score and the manometric findings was observed.