Long-term oncological outcomes after local excision of T1 rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of patients with early rectal cancer is treated by local excision only. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term oncological outcomes and the impact of local recurrence on overall survival for surgical local excision in pT1 rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who only underwent local excision for pT1 rectal cancer between 1997 and 2014 in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was the local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were distant recurrence, overall survival and the impact of local recurrence on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients (mean age 68.5 ± 10.7 years, 57.3% males) were included in the study. Median length of follow-up was 58.9 months (range 6-176 months). Local recurrence occurred in 22.7% (n = 34) of the patients, with a median time to local recurrence of 11.1 months (range 2.3-82.6 months). The vast majority of local recurrences were located in the lumen. Five-year overall survival was 82.0%, and landmark analyses showed that local recurrence significantly impacted overall survival at 6 and 36 months of follow-up (6 months, p = 0.034, 36 months, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Local recurrence rates after local excision of early rectal cancer can be substantial and may impact overall survival. Therefore, clinical decision-making should be based on patient- and tumour characteristics and should incorporate patient preferences.

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection: 3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression. RESULTS: The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account. CONCLUSION: The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

The results of this study showed similar and acceptable short-term results for laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision performed in expert centres. In centres with robot-assisted or transanal technique, more primary anastomoses were made.

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients. DISCUSSION: The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02371304 , registration date: February 2015.

Unexpected rectal cancer after TEM: outcome of completion surgery compared with primary TME.

BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has gained wide-spread acceptance as a safe and useful technique for the resection of rectal adenomas and selected T1 malignant lesions. If the lesion appears >T1 rectal cancer after resection with TEM, a completion TME resection is recommended. The aim of this study was to investigate the results of TME surgery after TEM for rectal cancer. METHODS: In four tertiary referral hospitals for TEM, all patients with completion TME surgery after initial TEM were selected. All eligible patients who were treated with 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy followed by TME surgery from the Dutch TME trial were selected as reference group. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to calculate odds ratio's (OR) for colostomies and for colo- and ileostomies combined. Local recurrence and survival rates were compared in hazard ratio's (HR) using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included in the TEM-COMPLETION group and 881 patients from the TME trial. In the TEM-COMPLETION group, 50.8% of the patients had a colostomy compared to 45.9% in the TME trial, OR 2.51 (p < 0.006). There is no significant difference when ileo- and colostomies are analyzed together. In the TEM-COMPLETION group, 10.2% developed a local recurrence compared to 5.2% in the TME trial, HR 6.8 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Completion TME surgery after TEM for unexpected rectal adenocarcinoma results in more colostomies and higher local recurrence rates compared to one stage TME surgery preceded with preoperative 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy. Pre-operative investigations must be optimized to distinguish malignant and benign lesions and prevent avoidable local recurrence and colostomies.

Modern multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer based on staging with magnetic resonance imaging leads to excellent local control, but distant control remains a challenge.

AIM: The purpose of this multicenter cohort study was to evaluate whether a differentiated treatment of primary rectal cancer based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the number of incomplete resections and local recurrences and improve recurrence-free and overall survival. METHODS: From February 2003 until January 2008, 296 patients with rectal cancer underwent preoperative MRI using a lymph node specific contrast agent to predict circumferential resection margin (CRM), T- and N-stage. Based on expert reading of the MRI, patients were stratified in: (a) low risk for local recurrence (CRM>2mm and N0 status), (b) intermediate risk and (c) high risk (close/involved CRM, N2 status or distal tumours). Mainly based on this MRI risk assessment patients were treated with (a) surgery only (TME or local excision), (b) preoperative 5 × 5 Gy+TME and (c) a long course of chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery after a 6-8 week interval. RESULTS: Overall 228 patients underwent treatment with curative intent: 49 with surgery only, 86 with 5 × 5 Gy and surgery and 93 with chemoradiation and surgery. The number of complete resections (margin>1mm) was 218 (95.6%). At a median follow-up of 41 months the three-year local recurrence rate, disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate is 2.2%, 80% and 84.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: With a differentiated multimodality treatment based on dedicated preoperative MR imaging, local recurrence is no longer the main problem in rectal cancer treatment. The new challenges are early diagnosis and treatment, reducing morbidity of treatment and preferably prevention of metastatic disease.

Reversal of Hartmann's procedure after perforated diverticulitis through the stomal side without additional incisions: the SIR procedure.

AIMS: Reversal of Hartmann's procedure (HP) is a complex operation and only performed in 50-60% of the patients. Stomal incision reversal (SIR), a new minimally invasive procedure for HP reversal, was assessed and compared to the standard surgical approach. METHODS: 16 patients who had undergone HP for perforated diverticulitis underwent HP reversal by SIR. The only incision in SIR is the one to release the end colostomy. Intra-abdominal adhesiolysis is done manually. A stapled end-to-end colorectal anastomosis is created. The 16 patients who underwent SIR were compared with 32 control patients who were matched according to gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and Hinchey stage. RESULTS: The operation time was shorter after SIR than after reversal by laparotomy [75 min (58-208) vs. 141 min (85-276); p < 0.001]. Patients after SIR had a shorter hospital stay than patients after laparotomy [4 days (2-22) vs. 9 days (4-64); p < 0.001]. The numbers of total postoperative surgical complications (early and late) were not different (p = 0.13). The anastomotic leakage rate was similar in both groups (6%). The conversion rate in the SIR group was 19% (n = 3). CONCLUSION: SIR compared favorably with HP reversal by laparotomy in terms of operation time and hospital stay, without increasing the number of postoperative complications.