International validation of a risk prediction algorithm for patients with malignant colorectal polyps.

AIM: The optimal management strategy for patients with endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCP) has yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to validate a published decision-making tool, termed the Scottish Polyp Cancer Study (SPOCS) algorithm, on a large international population. METHODS: The SPOCS algorithm allocates patients to risk groups based on just two variables: the polyp resection margin and the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI). The risk groups are termed low (clear margin, LVI absent), medium (clear margin, LVI present) or high (involved/non-assessable margin). The International Polyp Cancer Collaborative was formed to validate the algorithm on data from Australia, Denmark, UK and New Zealand. RESULTS: In total, 1423 patients were included in the final dataset. 680/1423 (47.8%) underwent surgical resection and 108/680 (15.9%) had residual disease (luminal disease 8.8%, lymph node metastases 8.8%). The SPOCS algorithm classified 602 patients as low risk (in which 1.5% had residual disease), 198 patients as medium risk (in which 7.1% had residual disease) and 484 as high risk (in which 14.5% had residual disease) (P < 0.001, χ2 test). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated good accuracy of the algorithm in predicting residual disease (area under the curve 0.732, 95% CI 0.687-0.778, P < 0.001). When patients were designated as low risk, the negative predictive value was 98.5%. CONCLUSION: The SPOCS algorithm can be used to predict the risk of residual disease in patients with endoscopically resected MCPs. Surgery can be safely avoided in patients who have a clear margin of excision and no evidence of LVI.

A randomized pilot study on single-port versus conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery: effects on postoperative pain and the stress response to surgery.

BACKGROUND: Potential benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery may include improved cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, surgical trauma and faster recovery. Results of randomized prospective studies with a focus on single-port rectal surgery have not yet been presented. The aim of the present study was to compare single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in terms of short-term outcomes including postoperative pain and trauma-induced changes in certain bioactive substances. METHODS: Patients with non-metastasized rectal cancer were prospectively randomized to single-port (n = 20) or conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery (n = 20). Postoperative pain was assessed at rest, at coughing and during mobilization, with a numeric pain ranking score and was recorded at 6 h after the operation and subsequently every morning daily for 4 days. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1) were determined. Blood samples were collected preoperatively (baseline), and 6, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after skin incision. RESULTS: Pain scores were significantly reduced in the single-port group on postoperative days 2, 3 and 4 during coughing and mobilization. In addition, the patients in the single-port group suffered significantly less pain at rest at 6 h after surgery and on postoperative days 1, 3 and 4. The levels of the three markers increased significantly after surgery. The increase was similar between groups for plasma IL-6 and TIMP-1 at all time points, while the CRP levels were significantly lower in the single-port group at 6 (p < 0.001) and 24 h (p < 0.05) after skin incision. Abdominal incisions lengths were significantly shorter in the single-port group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups in operating time and blood loss, morbidity or mortality rate. The short-term oncological outcome in the two groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port rectal surgery may reduce postoperative pain. Although CRP levels were lower at some time points, results of the present randomized, pilot study suggest that the trauma-induced inflammatory response of single-port operations may be similar to the trauma-induced inflammatory response of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant polyps of the rectum.

BACKGROUND: The potential for malignancy in rectal polyps increases with the size of the polyp, and unexpected malignancy is reported in up to 39 % of large rectal adenomas. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) offers the possibility of an en bloc full-thickness excision for lesions in the rectum. We present our results with TEM in the removal of giant polyps equal or greater than 4 cm in diameter. METHODS: In the period between 1998 and 2012, TEM was performed in 39 patients with rectal polyps measuring at least 4 cm in diameter. Transrectal ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging of the rectum was used when cancer was suspected. RESULTS: The polyp was removed with en bloc full-thickness excision in 77 % (n = 30). The preoperative diagnosis was benign rectal adenoma in 89.7 % (n = 35). The median size of the polyps was 30 cm(2) (range 16-100 cm(2)). Postoperative complications included bleeding in 4 patients (10.3 %). Histological examination showed unexpected cancer in 4 patients (10.3 %). TEM was curative in 2 of these patients, and the other 2 underwent further surgery. Recurrences occurred in 10 patients (25.6 %) and consisted of 5 adenomas and 5 adenocarcinomas. In 5 patients, these recurrences were treated with endoscopic removal or re-TEM. The remaining 5 underwent total mesorectal excision and/or chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Full-thickness TEM provides a safe and efficient treatment for excision of giant polyps. In case of unexpected cancer, TEM can be curative. Local recurrence can be often treated with a second TEM procedure.

The outcome of rectal cancer after early salvage TME following TEM compared with primary TME: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows locally complete resection of early rectal cancer as an alternative to conventional radical surgery. In case of unfavourable histology after TEM, or positive resection margins, salvage surgery can be performed. However, it is unclear if the results are equivalent to primary treatment with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome between patients who underwent early salvage resection with TME after TEM, and those who underwent primary TME for rectal cancer. METHODS: From 1997 to 2011, early salvage surgery with TME after TEM was performed in 25 patients in our institution. These patients were compared with 25 patients who underwent primary TME, matched according to gender, age (±2 years), cancer stage and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed retrospectively. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and oncological outcome were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the results between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in median operating time (P = 0.39), median blood loss (P = 0.19) or intraoperative complications (P = 1.00). The 30-day mortality was 8 % (n = 2) among patients who underwent salvage TME after TEM, and no patients died in the primary TME group (P = 0.49). There was no significant difference between two groups of patients in the median number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.34), median circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P = 0.99) or the completeness of the mesorectal fascia plane. No local recurrences occurred among the patients with salvage TME, and there were 2 patients (8 %) with local recurrences among the patients with primary TME (P = 0.49). Distant metastasis occurred in one patient (4 %) after salvage TME and in 3 patients (12 %) with primary TME (P = 0.61). The median follow-up time was 25 months (3-126) for patients who underwent salvage TME and 19 months (3-73) for patients after primary TME. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in outcome between patients with rectal cancer undergoing salvage TME after TEM, those undergoing primary TME. In selected patients, TEM can therefore be chosen as a primary treatment, since failure of treatment and subsequent conventional resection appears not to compromise the outcome.