Pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy.

Pelvic exenteration is a demanding, yet potentially curative operation, for patients with advanced pelvic cancer. The majority will present with recurrence after prior surgery and radiotherapy. After exenteration, 5-year survival is 40% to 60% in patients with gynecologic cancer as compared to 25% to 40% for patients with colorectal cancer. Physiologic age and absence of co-morbidities appear to be more important when selecting patients for exenteration than chronological age. Careful pre-operative staging, including either computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), usually will identify patients with distant metastases, extrapelvic nodal disease, or disease involving the pelvic sidewall (which generally precludes surgery). The recent application of intra-operative radiotherapy or postoperative high-dose brachytherapy for patients with more advanced pelvic disease, which may include sidewall involvement, may expand the standard indications for exenteration. However, the intent of this procedure, with or without radiotherapy, should be resection of all tumor with the aim of cure since the place of palliative exenteration is controversial at best. The operative details of exenteration are presented, as are two surgical approaches to composite resection of pelvic structures in continuity with sacrectomy. Filling the pelvis with large tissue flaps, usually a rectus abdominus flap, has decreased morbidity rates, particularly with small bowel complications. Peri-operative mortality is usually 5% to 10%, and significant morbidity occurs in over 50% of patients. Restorative techniques for both urinary and gastrointestinal tracts can diminish the need for stomas and, along with vaginal reconstruction, can significantly improve quality of life for many patients after exenteration. These advances in surgery and radiotherapy help make the procedure a viable option for patients with otherwise incurable pelvic malignancy.     

Total pelvic exenteration for primary locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer.

AIMS: To report the role of total pelvic exenteration in a series of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers. METHODS: In the period 1994-2004, TPE was performed in 35 of 296 patients with primary locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer treated in the Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center; 23 of 176 with primary locally advanced and 12 of 120 with recurrent rectal cancer. All but one patient received pre-operative External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT). After 1997, Intra Operative Radiotherapy (IORT) was performed in case of a resection margin less than 2 mm. RESULTS: Overall major complication rates were not significantly different between patients with primary and recurrent rectal cancer (26% vs. 50%, p=0.94). The hospital mortality rate was 3%. The 5-year local control and overall survival of patients with primary locally advanced rectal cancer were 88% and 52%, respectively. In patients with recurrent rectal cancer 3-year local control and survival rates were 60% and 32%, respectively. An incomplete resection, preoperative pain and advanced Wanebo stage for recurrent cancer were negative prognostic factors for both local control and overall survival. CONCLUSION: TPE in primary locally advanced rectal cancer enables good local control and acceptable overall survival, thereby justifying the use of the procedure. Patients with recurrent rectal cancer showed a high rate of major complications, a high distant metastasis rate, and a poor overall survival.     

Minimum radial margin in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer

PurposeThe aim of this study was to clarify the suitable radial margin (RM) for favourable outcomes after pelvic exenteration (PE), focusing on the discrepancy between the concepts of circumferential resection margin (CRM) and traditional R status.MethodsSeventy-three patients with locally advanced (LARC, n = 24) or locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC, n = 49) who underwent PE between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were histologically classified into the following 3 groups; wide RM (≥1 mm, n = 45), narrow RM (0–1 mm, n = 10), and exposed RM (n = 18). The analysis was performed not only in the entire cohort but also in each disease group separately.ResultsThe rates of traditional R0 (RM > 0 mm) and wide RM were 75.3% and 61.6%, respectively, resulting in the discrepancy rate of 13.7% between the two concepts. Preoperative radiotherapy was given in 12.3%. In the entire cohort, the local recurrence and overall survival (OS) rates for narrow RMs were significantly worse than those for wide RMs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002), but were similar to those for exposed RMs. In both LARC and LRRC, RM < 1 mm resulted in significantly worse local recurrence and OS rates compared to the wide RMs. Multivariate analysis showed that RM < 1 mm was an independent risk factor for local recurrence in both LARC (HR 15.850, p = 0.015) and LRRC (HR 4.874, p = 0.005).ConclusionsNarrow and exposed RMs had an almost equal impact on local recurrence and poor OS after PE. Preoperative radiotherapy might have a key role to ensure a wide RM.     

Clinical outcome of pelvic exenteration in patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cervical cancer

Background

Pelvic exenteration has attained an important role in the treatment of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer for obtaining a complete cure or longer disease-free survival. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients undergoing pelvic exenteration and to determine the clinical features associated with outcome and survival.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 12 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for uterine cervical cancer between July 2002 and August 2011.

Results

Two patients had primary stage IVA cervical adenocarcinoma and 10 patients had recurrent cervical cancer. Eight patients underwent anterior pelvic exenteration, 3 patients underwent total pelvic exenteration, and 1 patient underwent posterior pelvic exenteration. With a median duration of follow-up of 22 months (range 3–116 months), 5 patients were alive without recurrence. Of 5 patients with no evidence of disease, 4 were recurrent or residual tumor, all of whom had common factors, such as a tumor size ≤30 mm, negative surgical margins, complete resection, and no lymph node involvement. The 5-year overall survival rate for 12 patients was 42.2 %. Ileus was the most common complication (42 %) and post-operative intestinal anastomosis leaks developed in 3 patients, but no ureteral anastomosis leaks occurred.

Conclusions

Pelvic exenteration is a feasible surgical procedure in advanced and/or recurrent cervical cancer patients with no associated post-operative mortality, and the only therapeutic option for complete cure or long-term survival; however, post-operative complications frequently occur.     

Total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer in the elderly

Background

Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is a radical approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) in case of tumour invasion into the urogenitary tract. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of TPE for LARC and LRRC in elderly patients compared to younger patients.

根治性全盆脏器切除术治疗局部晚期／复发性直肠癌的临床研究

目的：探讨根治性全盆脏器切除术治疗局部晚期／复发性直肠癌的效果。方法：对44例局部晚期／复发性直肠癌的临床、病理资料进行回顾性分析。结果：根治性全盆腔脏器切除术30例、姑息性切除术14例。结肠造瘘术39例,回肠代膀胱术21例,输尿管腹壁造瘘术23例。盆底腔隙采用膀胱脏层腹膜修复39例、双侧腹膜修复3例、带蒂大网膜填充1例、回肠末段填充1例。围手术期死亡率23％,总体并发症发生率50.0％。根治性和姑息性全盆脏器切除术后5年生存率分别为53.3％和0％。结论：根治性全盆腔器官切除术是提高局部晚期／复发性直肠癌病灶整块切除率、降低局部复发率、延长生存期的理想术式。     

Total pelvic exenteration for advanced carcinoma of the lower colon

Thirteen patients with advanced carcinoma of the lower colon and no evidence of extrapelvic metastasis were submitted to total pelvic exenteration. Nine of the 13 patients had ureteral urinary diversion by the ileal segment conduit. Three had colonic conduit bladder using the terminal portion of the descending colon. One patient had bilateral uretero colonic anastomosis. The operative mortality rate was 7.7%. Determinate 5-year survival rate of 38.5% was achieved. Histological examinations of the surgical specimen revealed associated abscesses adjacent to the tumor in six cases, although the cancer extended to the bowel wall and adhered to the surrounding structures in all specimens. Total pelvic exenteration assures a better quality of life, lessening of symptoms, disease control and, in selected patients, a cure.     

Updated systematic review of the approach to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer

ObjectivesTo review the evidence regarding surgical advances in the management of primary locally advanced rectal cancer.BackgroundThe management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in recent decades, with improved (neo)adjuvant treatment strategies and enhanced perioperative protocols. Centralization of care for complex, advanced cases has enabled surgeons in these units to undertake more ambitious surgical procedures.MethodsA Pubmed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane database search was conducted according to the predetermined search strategy. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245582).Results14 studies were identified which reported on the outcomes of 3,188 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer. 50% of patients had neoadjuvant radiotherapy. 24.2% underwent flap reconstruction, 9.4% required a bony resection and 34 patients underwent a major vascular excision. 73.9% achieved R0 resection, with 33.1% experiencing a major complication. Median length of hospital stay ranged from 13 to 19 days. 1.6% of patients died within 30 days of their operation. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged 29%–78%.LimitationsThe studies included in our review were mostly single-centre observational studies published prior to the introduction of modern neoadjuvant treatment regimens. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on the basis that most were non-randomized, non-comparative studies.ConclusionsPelvic exenteration offers patients with locally advanced rectal cancer the chance of long-term survival with acceptable levels of morbidity. Increased experience facilitates more radical procedures, with the introduction of new platforms and/or reconstructive options.     

Preoperative assessment and optimisation for pelvic exenteration in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: A review

The pre-operative phase in planning a pelvic exenteration or extended resections is critical to optimising patient outcomes. This review summarises the key components of preoperative assessment and planning in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LLRC) being considered for potential curative resection. The preoperative period can be considered in 5 key phases: 1) Multidisciplinary meeting (MDT) review and recommendation for neoadjuvant therapy and surgery, 2) Anaesthetic preoperative assessment of fitness for surgery and quantification of risk, 3) Shared decision making with the patient and the process of informed consent, 4) Prehabilitation and physiological optimisation 5) Technical aspects of surgical planning. This review will focus on patients who have been recommended for surgery by the MDT and have completed neoadjuvant therapy. Other important considerations beyond the scope of this review are the various neoadjuvant strategies employed which in this patient group include Total Neo-adjuvant Therapy and reirradiation. Critical to improving perioperative outcomes is the dual aim of achieving a negative resection margin in a patient fit enough for extended surgery. Advanced, realistic communication is required pre-operatively and should be maintained throughout recovery. Optimising patient's physiological and psychological reserve with a preoperative prehabilitation programme is important, with physiotherapy, psychological and nutritional input. From a surgical perspective, image based technical preoperative planning is important to identify risk points and ensure correct surgical strategy. Careful attention to the entire patient journey through these 5 preoperative phases can optimise outcomes with the accumulation of marginal gains at multiple timepoints.     

Total pelvic exenteration with sacrectomy for re-recurrence of rectal cancer

A 58-year-old male had undergone low anterior resection forrectal cancer at a territorial hospital (well-differentiatedadenocarcinoma, Dukes A,     

Total pelvic exenteration for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer

Thirteen patients with advanced carcinoma of the lower colon and no evidence of extrapelvic metastasis were submitted to total pelvic exenteration with urinary diversion. The operative mortality rate was 7.7%. Determinate 5-year survival rate of 40% was achieved. Local recurrence of rectal cancer following abdominoperineal resection is rarely amenable to limited resection. Six patients with deeply invading recurrent lesions had pelvic exenteration combined with sacral resection. This procedure seems a reasonable treatment for palliation and the chance of cure in selected patients. CT examination of the pelvis is very valuable for the early detection and localization of recurrence.     

Pathology reporting of pelvic exenteration specimens for locally recurrent rectal cancer

IntroductionReporting of pelvic exenteration specimens for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) can be challenging for structured pathological analysis and currently, there is a lack of specific guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of pathology reporting in a cohort of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC in a high-volume tertiary unit.Materials and methodsIn a retrospective analysis of histopathology reports of consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC from 1996 to 2018, the quality of pathology reporting was assessed using the Structure Reporting Protocol for Colorectal Cancer. The primary endpoint was the completeness of pathology reporting, secondary endpoints were the association between the reporting style (narrative versus synoptic), reporting period (the first half versus the second half), as well as the activity of the pathologists with the completeness of pathology reporting.Results221 patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for LRRC were included into the study. There was a high variability in completeness of pathology reporting within the cohort, ranging from 9.5% to 100%. Notably, microscopic clearance was reported in only 92.4% of the reports. Overall, a significantly higher rate of completeness was observed in synoptic reports when compared to narrative reports and in more recent compared to earlier reports. There was no significant association between the activity of pathologists and the completeness of reporting.ConclusionsThis study shows a significant variability in the quality of reporting in pelvic exenteration for LRRC. The use of synoptic reporting clearly resulted in more complete reports.     

Posterior pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes

ObjectivePosterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) can be required to achieve complete resection in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with large pelvic disease. This study aimed to analyze morbidity, complete resection rate, and survival of PPE.MethodsNinety patients who underwent PPE in our Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2010 and February 2021 were retrospectively identified. To analyze practice evolution, 2 periods were determined: P1 from 2010 to 2017 and P2 from 2018 to 2021.ResultsA 82.2% complete resection rate after PPE was obtained, with rectal anastomosis in 96.7% of patients. Complication rate was at 30% (grade 3 in 9 patients), without significant difference according to periods or quality of resection. In a binary logistic regression adjusted on age and stoma, only age of 51–74 years old was associated with a lower rate of complication (odds ratio=0.223; p=0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals (OS and DFS) from initial diagnosis were 75.21 and 29.84 months, respectively. A negative impact on OS and DFS was observed in case of incomplete resection, and on DFS in case of final cytoreductive surgery (FCS: after ≥6 chemotherapy cycles). Age ≥75-years had a negative impact on DFS for new OC surgery. For patients with complete resection, OS and DFS were decreased in case of interval cytoreductive surgery and FCS in comparison with primary cytoreductive surgery.ConclusionPPE is an effective surgical measure to achieve complete resection for a majority of patients. High rate of colorectal anastomosis was achieved without any mortality, with acceptable morbidity and high protective stoma rate.     

Development and evolution of pelvic exenteration: historical notes.

Fifty years after the development of pelvic exenteration, the operation remains a gold standard in the surgical management of advanced pelvic malignancy. The operation has evolved through several predictable phases including technical improvements, lowered morbidity and mortality, and improved patient selection. Despite progress in supportive peri-operative care, pelvic exenteration is a major undertaking that should be performed in centers with proven interest and expertise in the field. We trace the early developments of the operation, the period of maturation, and the current place of this procedure in the armamentarium of the oncologic surgeon.     

改良后盆腔脏器切除在卵巢癌初次肿瘤细胞减灭术中的应用

背景与目的:在卵巢癌的手术中,将盆腔肿瘤与受累的结直肠一并切除,同时行肠吻合的改良后盆腔脏器切除术,有助于提高肿瘤细胞减灭效果,同时减小对患者生活质量的影响。本研究旨在评价晚期卵巢癌初次手术中行改良后盆腔脏器切除的可行性、安全性和疗效。方法:回顾性分析2006年1月—2010年12月我院妇瘤科在卵巢癌初次肿瘤细胞减灭术中经腹膜外整块切除子宫附件、盆腔腹膜和部分结直肠并行结肠直肠吻合的改良盆腔脏器切除50例患者临床病理资料。结果:患者平均年龄57岁(37～85岁),FIGO分期为Ⅱc期1例(2.0%)、Ⅲc期40例(80.0%)、Ⅳ期9例(18.0%)。26例(52.0%)患者还进行了除大网膜切除外的1个或多个其他腹部手术,用吻合器行结肠直肠吻合30例(60.0%),手工吻合20例(40.0%),无一例行预防性肠造瘘。平均手术时间224 min(150～320 min),平均术中出血量1 268 mL(100～3 000 mL),平均输红细胞900 mL(0～2 200 mL)。84.0%患者术后残余肿瘤最大径≤1 cm。88.0%患者术后病理证实肿瘤累及肠管。术后并发症发生率为26%,吻合口漏和直肠阴道瘘各1例(4.0%),术后无造瘘率达98.0%,无围手术期死亡。48例患者术后接受紫杉醇联合铂类化疗,中位生存时间33.8个月。结论:卵巢癌初次减灭术中行改良后盆腔脏器切除有助于提高盆腔内肿瘤减灭效果,行结肠直肠吻合安全可行,无须预防性回肠造瘘。