Search

Background: Despite its profound impact on the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer, the most optimal surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) has not been identified yet. All previous meta-analyses on this subject have been based on observational studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic TME (LaTME) compared to trans-anal TME (TaTME), utilizing only randomized controlled trials. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltials.gov) from 2010 onwards, for all published clinical trials comparing TaTME to LaTME. Results are presented as risk ratios, with 95% CI, and pooled using the random effects model. Results: A total of 1691 patients, from 6 eligible randomized controlled trials, were included for analysis. Analyzed data showed no significant difference in morbidity (RR: 0.85, p = 0.15), mortality (RR: 0.50, p = 0.44), conversion to open (RR: 0.40, p = 0.07), or anastomotic leakage (RR: 0.73, p = 0.10) between TaTME and LaTME. There was also no difference in the rate of positive distal resection margin (DRM) (RR: 0.55, p = 0.10) or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR: 0.67, p = 0.30). Patients undergoing TaTME were more likely to have a complete TME (RR: 1.06, p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays (RR: − 0.97, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing TaTME for rectal cancer were more likely to have a complete TME when compared to LaTME, though this did not translate into improved distal or circumferential resection margin. Additionally, TaTME and LaTME had similar surgical outcomes except for shorter length of stay with TaTME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks. Results: Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97–1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96–1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96–1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98–1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98–1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91–1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034–0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12–6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI − 1.1–4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI − 5.2–7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low. Conclusions: In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A narrow pelvis, obesity, and bulky low rectal tumor are perceived as risk factors for intraoperative difficulties during total mesorectal excision (TME), particularly in the laparoscopic approach. A transanal approach has been developed to overcome the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic TME. There is no clear definition of a narrow pelvis that would guide preoperative surgical planning. Aim: To evaluate different MRI-based pelvic measurements in patients undergoing TME to identify factors predictive of intraoperative difficulties in transabdominal compared to the transanal approach. Material and methods: A retrospective analysis of 48 patients treated with laparoscopic TME and 62 with transanal TME for rectal tumors was performed. Multiple logistic regressions analyzed demographic, tumor, and pelvimetry factors that correlate with intraoperative difficulties measured as intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and perioperative complications in both surgical approaches. Results: Multivariate analysis showed that age was associated with higher blood loss (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00-1.18, p = 0.038), male gender (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.86, p = 0.029) and body mass index with longer operating time (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.06-1.64, p = 0.010) in the LAR group. Multivariate analysis showed that age increased the odds of intraoperative blood loss > 100 ml (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15, p = 0.013), and pelvic length > 119 mm increased operating time (OR = 5.76, 95% CI: 1.33-25.01, p = 0.016) in the TaTME group. Conclusions: Pelvic measurements are not associated with intraoperative difficulties in LAR. Longer pelvis was associated with longer operative time in TaTME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The standard treatment of T2-T3ab,N0,M0 rectal cancers is total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the high recurrence rates recorded with local excision. Initial reports of the combination of pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) have shown reductions in local recurrence. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of local recurrence and the improvement in morbidity achieved with CRT-TEM compared with TME. Here we describe morbidity rates and pathological outcomes. This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial including patients with rectal adenocarcinoma staged as T2-T3ab,N0,M0. Patients were randomised to the CRT-TEM or the TME group. Patients included, tolerance of CRT and its adverse effects, surgical complications (Clavien–Dindo and Comprehensive Complication Index classifications) and pathological results (complete response in the CRT-TEM group) were recorded in both groups. Patients attended follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse. Trial registration: NCT01308190. From July 2010 to October 2021, 173 patients from 17 Spanish hospitals were included (CRT-TEM: 86, TME: 87). Eleven were excluded after randomisation (CRT-TEM: 5, TME: 6). Modified intention-to-treat analysis thus included 81 patients in each group. There was no mortality after CRT. In the CRT-TEM group, one patient abandoned CRT, 1/81 (1.2%). The CRT-related morbidity rate was 29.6% (24/81). Post-operative morbidity was 17/82 (20.7%) in the CRT-TEM group and 41/81 (50.6%) in the TME group (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 42.9% to 16.7%). One patient died in each group (1.2%). Of the 81 patients in the CRT-TEM group who received the allocated treatment, 67 (82.7%) underwent organ preservation. Pathological complete response in the CRT-TEM group was 44.3% (35/79). In the TME group, pN1 were found in 17/81 (21%). CRT-TEM treatment obtains high pathological complete response rates (44.3%) and a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. We await the results of the follow-up regarding cancer outcomes and quality of life. • CRT-TEM treatment achieves high rates of pathological complete response (44.3%). • CRT-TEM treatment achieves a high CRT compliance rate (98.8%). • Post-operative complications and hospitalisation rates were significantly lower than those in the TME group. • The accuracy of the endorectal ultrasound, rectal magnetic resonance imaging in the CRT-TEM group was not as high as expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of anastomotic leakage (AL) on oncological outcomes after restorative rectal cancer surgery.MethodsPatients who underwent anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2011 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected from three colorectal surgery centers. Patients with grade B and C leaks according to the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer classification were identified and compared with the control group. Estimated recurrence and survival rates were compared using the log-rank method and Cox regression analysis.ResultsA total of 367 patients were included in the study, with a mean follow-up of 59.21 months. AL occurred in 64 patients (17.4%). Fifteen patients with AL (23.5%) developed local recurrence (LR) compared to 17 (4.8%) in the control group (p

Background: Although neoadjuvant treatment is thought to provide optimal local control for stage II and III rectal cancers, many patients have been reported cured by total mesorectal excision (TME), alone or with additional chemotherapy (CTX). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated outcomes in 2643 patients with cT3N0-2 rectal cancers undergoing curative TME during 2005–2015. Recurrence and survival outcomes were measured in three propensity-score matched groups, consisting of patients who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with postoperative CTX (NAPOC), postoperative CRT (POCRT), and exclusively postoperative CTX (EPOCT). Results: Near-complete or complete TME was conducted in more than 95.9% of patients and 80% of scheduled dose of postoperative CTX was completed in 99%. Except for higher SR rate in the POCRT group than the NAPOC group (p = 0.008), 5-year cumulative local and systemic recurrence (LR and SR) rates were 4.9% and 15.2% for cT3N0, and 4.2% and 21% for cT3N1-2 patients (LR, p = 0.703; SR, 0.065), respectively, with no significant differences associated with treatment exposure (p = 0.11–1). The 5-year cumulative disease-free (75.6% vs 65.7%, p = 0.018) and overall survival (87.1% vs 79.4%, p = 0.018 each) rates were higher in the NAPOC group than the POCRT group with cT3N1-2. However, any significant survival differences were not identified between the NAPOC and EPOCT groups according to tumor sub-stages or locations (p = 0.395–0.971). Conclusions: We found any treatment modalities including competent TME and postoperative adjuvant CTX efficiently reducing LR generating robust survival outcome in the propensity-matched cohorts, demanding further randomized controlled trials by clinical sub-stages II–III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite mechanical and technical improvements in laparoscopic and robot-assisted (LAR) rectal cancer procedures, the absence of prognostic disparities among various approaches cannot improve the quality of TME. The present study re-evaluated robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) procedures to determine whether these procedures may reveal technical faults that may increase the rate of local recurrence (LR). Methods: This study enrolled 886 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, who underwent curative robot-assisted LAR at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between July 2010 and August 2017 (the first vs second period; n = 399 vs 487). The quality of TME and lateral pelvic mesorectal excision (LPME) were analyzed, as were LR rates and survival outcomes. Results: Complete TME and LPME were achieved in 89.2% and 80.1% of these patients, respectively, with ≤ 1% having incomplete TME excluding intramesorectal excision. LR rates were 13.5 and 14.5 times higher in patients with incomplete TME and LPME, respectively, than in patients with complete TME and LPME (14.8% vs 1.1% and 8.7% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001 each by univariate analyses). Multivariate analyses showed that defective LPME was independently associated with incomplete TME and vice versa (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that defective LPME was independently correlated with reduced 5-year disease-free survival rate (hazard ratio, 1.563; 95% confidence interval, 1.052–2.323; p = 0.027). Conclusions: LR in rectal cancer patients was largely due to incomplete LPME, which was significantly associated with incomplete TME. Complete LPME may enhance the likelihood of complete TME, reducing LR rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite proven clinical benefits in the short term, technical difficulties limit utilization of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) overcomes many technical limitations of laparoscopic RCS. However, the costs of this procedure have not been addressed yet. Our goal was to perform a comparative cost analysis of taTME and laparoscopic TME (lapTME). Consecutive patients undergoing curative TME between 1 February 2014 and 31 October 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database and stratified, according to the type of procedure, into taTME and lapTME groups. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative parameters, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The main outcome measure was intraoperative costs of the two procedures. Secondary outcomes were short-term outcome and the utilization of hospital resources to manage the postoperative course. Hundred and fifty-two patients with rectal cancer (66 lapTME, 86 taTME) were included in the study. Surgical supplies required for taTME procedure exceeded the cost of lapTME of 754,54 €. The duration of surgery was not significantly different between the two approaches (266 ± 92.85 vs 271 ± 83.63, p = 0.50). Short-term outcomes were comparable including postoperative complication rate (17 vs 20%, p = 0.68), reintervention rate, and length of stay. There was no difference in hospital resources utilization to manage postoperative course including blood test, diagnostics, consultations, and medications. TaTME has higher intraoperative costs in terms of supplies with respect to lapTME. Short-term outcomes and hospital resources to manage postoperative course are comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The open surgeries and more recently minimal invasive surgeries aided by laparoscopic or robotic approaches are employed for rectal cancer treatment procedures. The open approach is the most commonly opted technique, but recent studies have also shown that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care. There are certain shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery such as long learning curve, inadequate counter traction, limited dexterity, lack of tactile feedback and limited two-dimensional visions. Robotic surgery also offers several benefits to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic procedures, such as providing better dexterity and a more stable visualization. This study aims to analyse the surgical results in terms of completion of TME, short-term surgical outcomes and hospital stay in after open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal resections respectively. A retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients operated for carcinoma rectum between January 2013 and August 2018 at Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal-Vattikuti Institute of Robotic Surgery, Bangalore, was analysed in this study. The surgical parameters like completion of total mesorectal excision; proximal, distal and circumferential resection margins; number of nodes retrieved; and total post operative hospital stay were analysed in the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. A total of 100 patients were included in the study consisting of 25, 25 and 50 patients each in the open, laparoscopic and robotic arms respectively. In case the desired results were not obtained using the advanced technique the procedure was converted and open technique was adopted. The conversion rate to open procedure was 8% (2of 25) in the laparoscopic-assisted group and 2% (1/50) in the robotic-assisted group. The average post operative hospital stay was 7.4, 7.36 and 6 days in the open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted group (p = 0.01) respectively. Robotic rectal resections show a trend towards better surgical results in the form of improved circumferential resection margins, completeness of TME and lower conversion rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the treatment of rectal cancer is multimodal, above all, a proper oncological resection is critical. The surgical management of rectal cancer has substantially evolved over the past 100 years, and continues to progress as we seek the best treatment. Rectal cancer was historically an unsurvivable disease, with poor understanding of the embryological planes, lymphatic drainage, and lack of standardized technique. Major improvements in recurrence, survival, and quality of life have resulted from advances in preoperative staging, pathologic assessment, the development and timing of multimodal therapies, and surgical technique. The most significant contribution in advancing rectal cancer care may be the standardization and widespread implementation of total mesorectal excision (TME). The TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp, meticulous dissection of the tumor and mesorectum with all associated lymph nodes through the avascular embryologic plane, has shown universal reproducible reductions in local recurrence and improvement in disease-free and overall survival. Widespread education and training of surgeons worldwide in the TME have significantly impact outcomes for rectal cancer surgery, and the procedure has become the gold standard for curative resection of rectal cancer. In this article, we discuss the evolution of the standard abdominal approach to the TME, with emphasis on the history, relevant anatomy, standard procedure steps, oncologic outcomes, and technical evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Colorectal cancer survivors have many problems affecting their quality of life (QOL). Traditional follow-up focuses on the detection of recurrence rather than QOL. Efforts are being made to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROMS) more formally. Such changes may enable patients to consider QOL factors when deciding on treatment., Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer between 2005 and 2015 at a single institution were identified and sent European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 QOL questionnaires. QOL and the impact of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and formation of end colostomy were assessed., Results: Some 141 patients were identified: 12 died and 118 (83.7%) responded, of whom 101 completed the questionnaires and 17 declined to participate; 11 were lost to follow-up. Mean age was 67 years, median follow-up was 58 months. Median QOL score was 6 (maximum 7) and 4.5% of patients reported a poor QOL score (<4). Significant rectal/perianal pain, sexual dysfunction and urinary symptoms were reported in 3.6%, 10.9% and 2.7% of respondents, respectively. Significant differences between treatment groups were uncommon. All cohorts reported similar QOL, functional and symptom scores., Conclusions: These results compare favourably with the published data. Future studies may benefit from baseline assessment to better assess treatment impact, prescient in an increasingly elderly and comorbid population. This paper establishes that good PROMs are achievable with laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. It identifies limited differences in QOL between treatment modalities. Restoration of intestinal continuity and end colostomy result in similar QOL. This may address common concerns regarding stomata, sexual function and low anterior resection syndrome in this cohort.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard surgical treatment for mid- and low rectal cancer; however, it is associated with specific technical hurdles. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure developed to overcome these difficulties, through an enhanced visualization of the dissection plane. This potentially could result in a more accurate distal dissection with a lower rate of positive circumferential resection margins, increasing the rate of sphincter-saving procedures. The indications for TaTME are currently expanding, despite not being yet standardized, and structured training programs are ongoing to help overcome the steep learning curve related to the technique. The procedure is feasible and safe with similar intraoperative complications and readmission rates when compared with conventional open or laparoscopic TME. Favorable short-term oncologic results have been reported: in particular, TaTME is associated with mesorectal specimen of a better quality and a longer distal resection margin that is established at the beginning of the procedure under direct view. Robotics, when available, will probably overcome the steep learning curve related to the complexity of TaTME. Long-term follow-up and ongoing RCT trials data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate the comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections. The present review is focused on critically analyzing the theoretical benefits and risks of the procedure, its indications, short- and long-term results and future direction in the application of TaTME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in terms of survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had undergone surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Moreover, the existence of correlation between Overall Survival (OS) and Disease Free Survival (DFS) with pathological staging ((y)pTNM and TRG) was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 58 patients with biopsy-proven of LARC were included. All patients underwent conventional diagnostic/staging procedures to characterize the rectal lesion. The first whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed 1 week before the beginning of nCRT (baseline scan). The second 18F-FDG PET/CT was scheduled at 5-6 weeks from nCRT completion (post-nCRT scan). Survival was evaluated in 3 different restaging classification systems, based on focusing only on primary lesion (TRG), loco-regional evaluation (ypTNM) and whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation (VRA). RESULTS: Among the 58 patients at the end of the observation, 46/58 patients (79.3%) were alive and 12/58 (20.7%) were dead. This work demonstrated a higher percentage of patients with TRG complete response (39.7%) compared to literature (24.6%), with longer Overall Survival (OS) and Disease Free Survival (DFS) in responders even if without statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights the predictive and prognostic potential role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assisting physicians on personalized decision in the selective risk-adapted treatment strategy, and to schedule the correct follow-up approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) practice for rectal cancer only relies on small retrospective studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the oncological and functional outcomes of TSME practice. A systematic review protocol was drawn to include all the studies that compared partial versus total mesorectal excision (PME vs TME) practised for rectal adenocarcinoma up to 16 cm from the anal verge. A systematic literature search was conducted on EMBASE-Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Reports were screened for the study's outcomes: oncological radicality, postoperative anastomotic leak risk and functional outcomes. Included studies were appraised for risk-of-bias and meta-analysed. Evidence was rated with the GRADE approach. Twenty-seven studies were included, consisting of 12325 patients (PME n = 4460, 36.2%; TME n = 7865, 63.8%). PME was performed for tumours higher than 10 cm from the anal verge in 54.5% of patients. There was no difference between PME and TME in circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 1.31, 95%CI 0.43–3.95, p = 0.64; I2 = 38%), and local recurrence risk (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.52–2.10, p = 0.90; I2 = 40%). The postoperative leak risk (OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.27–0.67, p < 0.001; I2 = 60%) and the major low anterior resection syndrome risk (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.28–0.40, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were lower after PME surgery. No difference was found in urinary incontinence (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.13–3.67, p = 0.66) and urinary retention after early catheter removal (OR 2.00, 95%CI 0.24–16.51, p = 0.52). Evidence from this meta-analysis shows that TSME for rectal cancer has good oncological results and leads to the best-fitted functional results possible for the patient's condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a technique where rectal dissection is begun transanally in a "bottom-up" fashion. This technique facilitates dissection of the most distal part of the rectum and allows the establishment of the distal margin for rectal cancer. TaTME has proven its utility in facilitating low rectal dissection with significantly lower conversion rates and acceptable perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. However, taTME remains a challenging technique to learn and adopt. This article describes the technique, indications, and outcomes of taTME in rectal cancer during the last decade., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The standard treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma is total mesorectal excision (TME), in many cases requires a temporary or permanent stoma. TME is associated with high morbidity and genitourinary alterations. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows access to tumors up to 20 cm from the anal verge, achieves minimal postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, and does not require an ostomy. The treatment of T2, N0, and M0 cancers remains controversial. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in association with TEM reduces local recurrence and increases survival. The TAU-TEM study aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the oncological outcomes and the improvement in morbidity and quality of life achieved with TEM compared with TME. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial includes patients with rectal adenocarcinoma less than 10 cm from the anal verge and up to 4 cm in size, staged as T2 or T3-superficial N0-M0. Patients will be randomized to two areas: CRT plus TEM or radical surgery (TME). Postoperative morbidity and mortality will be recorded and patients will complete the quality of life questionnaires before the start of treatment, after CRT in the CRT/TEM arm, and 6 months after surgery in both arms. The estimated sample size for the study is 173 patients. Patients will attend follow-up controls for local and systemic relapse. Conclusions: This study aims to demonstrate the preservation of the rectum after preoperative CRT and TEM in rectal cancer stages T2-3s, N0, M0 and to determine the ability of this strategy to avoid the need for radical surgery (TME). Trial registration: identifier: NCT01308190. Número de registro del Comité de Etica e Investigación Clínica (CEIC) del Hospital universitario Parc Taulí: TAU-TEM-2009-01. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Medical Journal / Orvosi Hetilap is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society. Method Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements. Results Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement. Conclusion The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the possibility of using single-port low anterior resection (LAR) in place of conventional laparoscopic LAR. Background: Though single-port LS is gradually evolving, the application of single-port LS techniques in LAR have been viewed with skepticism due to technical difficulties. Methods: Data from patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic LAR ( n = 49) or single-port LAR ( n = 67) for colorectal cancers between March 2006 and March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. Results: In single-port LAR group, oncologic outcomes were satisfactory with respect to attainment of lymph nodes (23.4 ± 15.3) and surgical margins (proximal cut margin: 7.1 ± 4.6 cm, distal cut margin: 7.7 ± 5.7 cm). Single-port LAR showed acceptable clinical outcomes manifested by comparable outcomes of post-operative analgesics requirement and length of hospital stay, and by low incidence of post-operative complications (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 30.6 % vs. single-port LAR group: 14.9 %; P < 0.01). Operative time was comparable between groups (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 309 ± 93 min vs. single-port LAR group: 277 ± 106 min; P = 0.097). Throughout a series of 67 consecutive single-port LARs, no conversion to multiport or open surgery was occurred. Conclusion: This study shows that single-port LAR is both safe and feasible for use in resection of colorectal cancer when performed by surgeons who are trained in conventional laparoscopic technique. If further and more extensive studies support our results, then single-port LAR can be an acceptable alternative to conventional laparoscopic LAR for treatment of colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Open colorectal resection remains the most common form of treatment for colorectal cancer despite the merits of laparoscopic surgery. This article aims to describe the principles involved in elective open colorectal cancer surgery, including patient preparation, operative steps for right hemicolectomy, anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection, anastomotic techniques and common complications and their management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer remains controversial, and large randomized studies on oncologic outcome are lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the short-term results of laparoscopic resection versus conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge). Methods: The institutional colorectal surgery database was reviewed, and 166 consecutive patients operated for low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2011 were included in this analysis which focuses on the first 18 months of follow-up. Results: Eighty patients underwent conventional TME, whereas 86 patients underwent laparoscopic TME. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. Conversion rate was 17 %. Laparoscopic rectal resection resulted in significantly less blood loss (200 versus 475 ml, p = <0.001) and a 3-day shorter hospital stay (median, 7 versus 10 days; p = 0.06). Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable, although significantly more lymph nodes were harvested in laparoscopic resections (median, 13 versus 11; p = 0.005). Disease-free survival after curative resection was better in the laparoscopic group ( p = 0.04), but this was no longer significant after correction for potential confounders. Conclusions: This analysis of short-term results of laparoscopic versus conventional TME for low rectal cancer demonstrates that laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe, resulting in similar oncologic outcomes with less blood loss, a trend towards less postoperative complications and shorter duration of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to attribute to the body of evidence of equivalence or even superiority of laparoscopic resections compared to conventional resections for distal rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of anastomotic leakage (AL) on oncological outcomes after restorative rectal cancer surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2011 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected from three colorectal surgery centers. Patients with grade B and C leaks according to the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer classification were identified and compared with the control group. Estimated recurrence and survival rates were compared using the log-rank method and Cox regression analysis., Results: A total of 367 patients were included in the study, with a mean follow-up of 59.21 months. AL occurred in 64 patients (17.4%). Fifteen patients with AL (23.5%) developed local recurrence (LR) compared to 17 (4.8%) in the control group ( p  < 0.001). However, distant recurrence rates were similar (10.9% vs. 9.6%; p  = 0.914) between the groups. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with AL had a reduced 5-years local recurrence-free survival (96% vs. 78%, log-rank p  < 0.001). AL (OR 4.576; 95% CI, 2.046-10.237; p  < 0.001) and node involvement (OR 2.911; 95% CI, 1.240-6.835; p  = 0.014) were significantly associated with LR in multivariate analysis. AL was significantly associated with DFS only at univariate analysis (HR 1.654; 95% CI: 1.024-2.672; p  = 0.037), with a difference between 5-year DFS of patients with and without AL (71.6% vs. 86.4%, log-rank p  = 0.04). Only male gender, pT3-4 stage, and node involvement were identified as independent prognostic factors for reduced DFS in the multivariate Cox regression analysis., Conclusion: In this cohort of patients, AL was associated with a significant risk of LR after rectal cancer surgery., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2022 Peltrini, Carannante, Costa, Bianco, Garbarino, Canali, Mercantini, Bracale, Corcione, Caricato and Capolupo.)

Abstract: Background: Total mesorectal excisions (TME) with transanal resection and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) represent one of the standard surgical treatments for low rectal cancers. We report our initial experiences with trans-abdominal trans-anal resections (TATAR) with TME, performed using a single-port laparoscopic surgeries (SPLS) approach for low rectal cancers. Methods: Between June 2009 and April 2011, 22 low rectal cancer patients underwent SPLS TATAR with TME. SPLS was performed transumbilically or through predetermined stoma sites. Conventional laparoscopic instruments were used, and the intracorporeal procedures and range of operation did not differ. After a full laparoscopic TME to the pelvic floor muscles, the specimen was pulled through the anus. CAA was completed with transanal hand sewn sutures. Patient and tumor characteristics and operative, pathologic, and postoperative outcomes were studied. Results: SPLS TATAR with TME was successful in all patients. No additional incisions for trocars or conversions to open surgery were performed. The median incision length, operative time, and postoperative length of stay were 2.0 cm (range: 1.5–2.5), 260 min (range: 190–380), and 6 days (range: 4–16), respectively. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22 (range: 9–42). The median distal margin from the tumor was 2.0 cm (range: 0.3–4.0). No intraoperative complications were noted. Conclusions: SPLS TATAR with TME was safe and feasible. In addition to cosmetic advantages, oncologic requirements for specimens, including adequate margins and sufficient lymph node harvesting could be fulfilled entirely. However, the technique and oncologic safety warrant further evaluation and prospective randomized studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: By traditional open surgery, the tumor recurrence rate of total mesorectal excision with sphincter-preserving procedure was lower than that of abdominoperineal resection (APR) for the treatment of low rectal cancer. The present study aimed to rescrutinize whether the same conclusion can be drawn when both surgical procedures are performed laparoscopically. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the prospectively recorded clinicopathologic data of 344 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer, in which 170 patients underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME), whereas 174 patients underwent laparoscopic TME directly without chemoradiotherapy. Such patients were further stratified according to the pathologic tumor, node, metastasis stage (stage II or III disease) and surgical strategy (APR or sphincter-preserving operation [SPO]). The surgical procedures are presented in supplemental videos. The disease-free survival, recurrence patterns, and functional recovery of patient groups stratified as appropriate were compared. Results: In patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the estimated recurrence rate were similar between laparoscopic TME with SPO and laparoscopic APR with 10.6 %, 7 of 66, versus 18.5 %, 5 of 27, in stage II disease ( p = 0.811, log-rank test); and 19.3 %, 11 of 57, versus 20 %, 4 of 20, in stage III disease ( p = 0.980). In patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in laparoscopic APR than in the laparoscopic TME with SPO group of patients with stage III disease (45 %, 9 of 20, vs. 19.3 %, 16 of 83, p = 0.025), whereas the recurrence rate of the two procedures was similar (21.4 %, 3 of 14, vs. 17.5 %, 10 of 57, p = 0.702) in stage II disease. Conclusions: When low rectal cancer was operated on by laparoscopic approach, the poorer prognosis of APR compared to SPO was only observed in stage III patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to compare the operative results and oncological outcomes of patients with total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and distal cancer and partial mesorectal excision (PME) for proximal cancer. Anterior resection has become the preferred treatment option for rectal cancer. TME with sharp dissection has been shown to be associated with a low local recurrence rate. Controversies still exist as to the need for TME in more proximal tumor. Resection of primary rectal and rectosigmoid cancer was performed in 298 patients from January 2003 to November 2010. These 298 patients (163 men and 135 women; median age, 67 years) underwent anterior resection. The curative resection was performed in 269 patients (90.3 %). TME was performed in 202 patients (67.8 %). Significantly longer median operating time, more blood loss, and a longer hospital stay were found in patients with TME. The overall operative mortality and morbidity rates were 1.8 % and 32.6 %, respectively, and there were no significant differences between those of TME and PME. Anastomotic leak occurred in 8.1 % and 1.3 % of patients with TME and PME, respectively ( P < 0.001). Independent factors for a higher anastomotic leakage rate were TME, the malegender, the absence of stoma, and increased blood loss. The advanced stage of the disease and the performance of coloanal anastomosis were independent factors for increased local recurrence. By performing TME in patients with mid and distal rectal cancer, the local control and survival of these patients are similar to those of patients with proximal cancers where adequate clearance can be achieved by PME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of the present study was to determine whether the injection of methylene blue solution into the inferior mesenteric artery could improve the lymph node harvest in rectal specimens of rectal cancer patients treated with rectal resection with total mesorectal excision. Methods: The study group consisted of 20 randomly selected fresh rectal specimens from patients with stages I-III rectal cancer treated at the Surgery Clinic at the Institute of Oncology of Vilnius University during the period from February 2008 to December 2010, and 20 specimens were selected under the same conditions to serve as the control group. The patients underwent conventional rectal resection with total mesorectal excision and coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer performed by the same surgeon, did not receive preoperative radiotherapy and had no distant metastases. After the removal of the specimen, 30 ml of 0.5% methylene blue solution was injected into the inferior mesenteric artery of the specimens in the study group (methylene blue group). The specimens from both the methylene blue and control groups were examined using the standards established by the Lithuanian National Centre of Pathology. The pathologist was not required to make any special macroscopic preparations. A retrospective analysis of clinical and histopathological records was performed. Results: Comparison of the mean lymph node harvest showed a significant difference between methylene blue and control groups with average lymph node numbers per specimen of 18 ± 5 and 14 ± 6, respectively ( p = 0.025). The specimens from 12 of the 20 patients in the methylene blue group and the specimens from 7 of the 20 patients from the control group had positive nodes. Conclusions: Injecting methylene blue solution into the inferior mesenteric artery is an efficient and simple method for improving the lymph node harvest in the histopathological examination of rectal specimens of rectal cancer patients treated with rectal resection with total mesorectal excision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]