Long-Term Survival and Recurrence Outcomes Following Surgery for Distal Rectal Cancer

Background

Treatment of distal rectal cancer remains clinically challenging and includes proctectomy and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or abdominoperineal resection (APR). The purpose of this study is to evaluate operative and pathologic factors associated with long-term survival and local recurrence outcomes in patients treated for distal rectal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective consecutive cohort study of 304 patients treated for distal rectal cancer with radical resection from 1993 to 2003 was performed. Patients were grouped by procedure (CAA or APR). Demographic, pathologic, recurrence, and survival data were analyzed utilizing chi-square analysis for comparison of proportions. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test for univariate and Cox regression for multivariate comparison.

Results

The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 2 cm [interquartile range (IQR) 0.5–4 cm]. Margins were negative in all but four patients (one distal, 0.3%; three radial, 1%). The 5-year overall survival rate was 82% (88.6% stage pI, 80.5% stage pII, 67.9% stage pIII). Older age, advanced pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion, earlier treatment period, and APR surgery type were associated with worse survival on multivariate analysis. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 5.3% after CAA and 7.9% after APR (p = 0.33).

Conclusions

Low rates of local recurrence and good overall survival can be achieved after treatment of distal rectal cancer with stage-appropriate chemoradiation and proctectomy with CAA or APR. Sphincter preservation can be achieved even with distal margins less than 2 cm.     

Sphincter-Preserving Operations Following Preoperative Chemoradiation: An Alternative to Abdominoperineal Resection for Lower Rectal Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Sphincter-preserving operations (SPO) for lower rectal cancer are on the rise. In the study reported here, we compared the oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent sphincter-preserving operations following preoperative chemoradiation for lower rectal cancer with the outcome for patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: This prospective study included 87 patients who underwent proctectomy with curative intent for locally advanced rectal cancer that was located less than 6 cm from the anal verge. Forty-four patients had APR with no preoperative treatment. Forty-three patients underwent concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) consisting of preoperative 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy and pelvic radiation (4500-5040 cGy); this was followed 6 weeks later by surgery (SPO/CCRT). The oncologic outcomes between the two groups were compared, and factors affecting survival were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 56.2 months. The overall postoperative complication rates did not significantly differ between SPO/CCRT and APR (32.6% versus 34.2%; p = 0.879). Also, there were no significant differences in the overall recurrence rate (20.9% versus 20.5%; p = 0.956) and 5-year overall survival rate (70.8% versus 62.9%; p = 0.189) between the two groups. By multivariate analysis, only the pathologic N stage was significantly associated with overall survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sphincter-preserving operation with CCRT could be another option for the treatment of locally advanced lower rectal cancer in patients who are clinically considered for APR, with no deterioration of oncologic outcomes. For patients undergoing curative resection for lower rectal cancer, the pathologic N stage can provide valuable prognostic information about survival.     

Surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the rectum.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' aim was to determine survival and recurrence rates in patients undergoing resection of rectal cancer achieved by abdominoperineal resection (APR), coloanal anastomosis (CAA), and anterior resection (AR) without adjuvant therapy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The surgery of rectal cancer is controversial; so, too, is its adjuvant management. Questions such as preoperative versus postoperative radiation versus no radiation are key. An approach in which the entire mesorectum is excised has been proposed as yielding low recurrence rates. METHODS: Of 1423 patients with resected rectal cancers, 491 patients were excluded, leaving 932 with a primary adenocarcinoma of the rectum treated at Mayo. Eighty-six percent were resected for cure. Surgery plus adjuvant treatment was performed in 418, surgery alone in 514. These 514 patients are the subject of this review. Among the 514 patients who underwent surgery alone, APR was performed in 169, CAA in 19, AR in 272, and other procedures in 54. Eighty-seven percent of patients were operated on with curative intent. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years; follow-up was complete in 92%. APR and CAA were performed excising the envelope of rectal mesentery posteriorly and the supporting tissues laterally from the sacral promontory to the pelvic floor. AR was performed using an appropriately wide rectal mesentery resection technique if the tumor was high; if the tumor was in the middle or low rectum, all mesentery was resected. The mean distal margin achieved by AR was 3 +/- 2 cm. RESULTS: Mortality was 2% (12 of 514). Anastomotic leaks after AR occurred in 5% (16 of 291) and overall transient urinary retention in 15%. Eleven percent of patients had a wound infection (abdominal and perineal wound, 30-day, purulence, or cellulitis). The local recurrence and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 7% and 78%, respectively, after AR; 6% and 83%, respectively, after CAA; and 4% and 80%, respectively, after APR. Patients with stage III disease, had a 60% disease-free survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Complete resection of the envelope of supporting tissues about the rectum during APR, CAA, and AR when tumors were low in the rectum is associated with low mortality, low morbidity, low local recurrence, and good 5-year survival rates. Appropriate "tumor-specific" mesorectal excision during AR when the tumor is high in the rectum is likewise consistent with a low rate of local recurrence and good long-term survival. However, the overall failure rate of 40% in stage III disease (which is independent of surgical technique) means that surgical approaches alone are not sufficient to achieve better long-term survival rates.     

Rectum resection with colo-anal anastomosis. Results of continence with radical surgery

The long-term clinical and functional results of coloanal anastomosis (CAA) in the management of low and midrectal cancer were analyzed and compared with an age matched group of patients with abdomino-perineal resection (APR). Between 1977 and 1990 85 patients underwent CAA following resection for carcinomas of the mid and low rectum (67 male and 18 female, mean age 57.3 years). In 62 patients the tumor was in the lower and in 23 patients in the middle third of the rectum. A hand-sewn anastomosis was performed in 20 patients, in the 65 most recent patients the anastomosis was performed using a circular stapling instrument. No patient died as a result of pelvic sepsis. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7% (handsewn 20%, stapled 3%), anastomotic strictures in 2.4%. 9 months after CAA complete or near complete continence was achieved by 85% of the patients. One patient was totally incontinent. More than 3 years postoperatively (1977-1987) 57 patients with curative resection could be analyzed. 39% of the patients had Dukes' A, 31% Dukes' B and 30% Dukes' C lesions. After a mean (+/- SD) length of follow-up of 6.7 years (3-13.6 years) local recurrence cumulative rates were 11% after CAA and 17% after APR, distant recurrence rates were 33% and 34% respectively. According to Dukes' stage the cancer-related 5-years survival of patients after CAA was in Dukes' A stage 88%, in Dukes' B 56%, in Dukes' C 29% and after APR 100, 53, and 22% respectively (p greater than 0.05). From these results we conclude that intersphincteric resection with CAA is a safe and efficient alternative to APR in many distal rectal carcinomas.     

Results of intersphincteric resection of the rectum with direct coloanal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma.

Between 1977 and 1987, 519 patients underwent operation for rectal carcinoma. Sixty-three patients underwent intersphincteric resection with direct coloanal anastomosis (CAA), and 77 had an abdominoperineal resection (APR). Curative surgery was achieved in 57 and 65 patients, respectively. Both groups were comparable regarding age, stage of tumors, and localization of tumors. During the mean period of 6.7 years (range: 3 to 13.6 years), all patients were examined according to a predefined follow-up plan. From those patients with curative surgery, 11% presented with pelvic recurrence and 33% with distant metastases after coloanal anastomosis; the rates of recurrence and distant metastases after APR were 17% and 35%, respectively. The corrected 5-year survival rates were 62% following CAA and 53% following APR. Eighty-five percent of the patients with CAA reported good functional results regarding anal continence. Our study demonstrates that the intersphincteric resection with CAA is a valuable surgical technique for rectal carcinoma with the benefit of preservation of continence. It is suitable for neoplasms with high- and medium-grade differentiation (G1 to G2) and a localization that allows a minimum distal clearence of 3 cm.     

Does one size fit all? Risks and benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with clinical stage IIA rectal cancer requiring abdominoperineal resection

BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) has become the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer, decreasing locoregional recurrence, yet with an unclear survival advantage. We aimed to assess the benefit of nCRT on oncologic and perioperative outcomes of patients with clinical stage IIA rectal adenocarcinoma treated with abdominoperineal resection (APR).MethodsPatients with clinical T3N0 rectal adenocarcinoma that underwent APR between 1995 and 2014 were included. Patients who received nCRT were compared with patients who did not. Multivariate analysis was conducted to compare oncological and perioperative outcomes between the groups.Results127 patients were included, of which 94 received nCRT. Median follow-up was 11.9 years. There was no difference in circumferential margins, postoperative morbidity, and complication rates between the groups. There was no difference in 5-year oncological outcomes between the groups.ConclusionsNo difference was found in 5-year oncological outcomes between patients with clinical T3N0 rectal adenocarcinoma necessitating an APR who received nCRT and those not receiving nCRT, with similar overall complication rates.     

Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor oncological outcome

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the operative results and oncological outcomes of patients who had mid or distal rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal resection (APR) with those treated without sphincter ablation (non-APR). METHODS: Five hundred and four consecutive patients (308 men and 196 women) with rectal cancer within 12 cm from the anal verge underwent radical resection with curative intent. Sharp mesorectal dissection was used. Operative results and long-term outcomes were compared between those treated by APR and those by non-APR. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients had APR and 435 patients were treated with radical resection without perineal resection (anterior resection, 419; Hartmann's operation, 16). The overall operative mortality and morbidity rates were 1.6 and 31.0 per cent respectively. Age, sex, duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, operative mortality and overall morbidity were similar in the two groups. Local recurrence was more frequent after curative APR than after non-APR (23 versus 10.2 per cent at 5 years; P = 0.010). Five-year cancer-specific survival rates after APR and non-APR were 60 and 74.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.006). APR was an independent factor for poor cancer-specific survival in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Although postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were similar in patients with or without sphincter ablation, local control and survival were worse in those treated by APR.     

低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术后生存和复发多因素分析

目的 探讨低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术对病人术后生存和肿瘤复发影响。方法 随访1995年1月至2005年6月期间,汕头大学医学院肿瘤医院外科手术治疗286例低位直肠癌,对保肛手术（SPO）与经腹会阴联合切除术（APR）两组病人的临床病理指标、存活率和局部复发状况进行统计学分析。结果 保肛手术组160例,术后局部复发率10％,生存期24．4个月,5年存活率为61.6％;经腹会阴切除术（APR）组126例,术后局部复发率13．5％,生存期33,2个月,5年存活率为68.8％,两组存活率比较差异无显著意义（P=0．22）。两组术后局部复发率比较差异也无统计学意义（P=0．23）。结论 低位直肠癌保肛术与腹会阴联合切除术并不影响低位直肠癌病人术后的生存和肿瘤复发。     

Hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for distal rectal cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes

As the oncologic safety of coloanal anastomosis (CAA) has been proved by many other authors, the incidence of CAA following ultralow anterior resection has increased. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcome and complications of patients who underwent ultralow anterior resection and CAA for distal rectal cancer. Fifty-seven patients underwent CAA following ultralow anterior resection between July 1997 and November 2003. Forty-four patients, who were followed up more than 6 months after diverting ileostomy closure, were evaluated for recurrence, complications, and functional outcomes. The mean follow-up period was 36.3 +/- 22.8 months (range, 8-83 months). The complications were multiple fistula (n = 3), fistula with anal stenosis (n=1), local recurrence with anal stenosis (n = 1), and anal stenosis (n = 7). Anal incontinence (Kirwan grade III) was noted in 14 patients, and bowel movements were observed more than six times per day in 16 patients. Overall recurrence occurred in six patients (13.6%). The 5-year survival rate was 85.3%, and the disease-free 5-year survival rate was 73.3%. Although CAA in patients with rectal cancer provides excellent long-term survival, a low risk of recurrence, and tolerable function, complications and poor functional outcomes of CAA do occur. Therefore, the choice of this method should be considered carefully.     

Comparison of the mortality, morbidity and incidence of local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer treated by either stapled anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection

One hundred patients with rectal cancer treated by one surgeon over a 7 year period are reviewed. Fifty-five patients were treated by stapled anterior resection (SAR) and 45 by abdominoperineal resection (APR). Dukes' classification, degree of differentiation and local spread were similar in both groups. Operative mortality was 7.2 per cent for SAR and 2.2 per cent for APR. Anastomotic leakage following SAR occurred clinically in two patients (3.6 per cent), one of which proved fatal, and radiologically in five patients. Morbidity after SAR and APR was otherwise similar. There was no significant difference in local recurrence rates after SAR (14.7 per cent) and APR groups (25.0 per cent). The results of this study suggest that for patients with rectal cancer radical excision with sphincter presentation using the circular stapler has a mortality, morbidity and risk of local recurrence comparable with radical excision with a permanent colostomy.     

Local recurrence after abdomino-perineal resection

Objective  Local recurrence of rectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following curative resection. The published rates vary after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) from 5% to 47%. The aim of this study was to evaluate local recurrence following curative APR for low rectal cancer in our unit.
Method  The medical notes of patients treated between 1st January 1996 and 31st December 2000 were retrieved. Local recurrence was defined as the presence of tumour within the pelvis confirmed by clinical findings, pathological specimen or radiological reports. A curative resection was defined as excision of tumour in the absence of macroscopic metastatic disease and whose resection margins were greater than 1 mm circumferentially and 10 mm distally. Outcomes and survival were compared using Fisher's exact test and Kaplan–Meier method.
Results  Two hundred consecutive cases with a diagnosis of rectal cancer were identified of which 139 underwent a curative resection (69.5%). Of these 40 patients (28%) underwent APR with curative intent. Two patients (5%) developed local recurrence at 18 and 24 months respectively. The overall local recurrence rate for all curative rectal cancer surgery, in the same period was 2.6%. Eleven patients have died in the follow-up period of which nine were cancer-related deaths.
Conclusion  The local recurrence rates achieved with APR were not significantly different from those achieved with restorative operations. Tumours at the ano-rectal junction should not be dissected off the pelvic floor, but radically excised en bloc with the surrounding levator ani, as a cylinder, as originally described by Miles.     

Anterior versus abdominoperineal resections in the management of mid-rectal tumours

In order to assess if results after anterior resections (AR) compared with abdominoperineal resections (APR) for mid rectal tumours have changed since the circular stapler was introduced into clinical practice, two consecutive series of patients were reviewed. The first series comprises 81 patients treated between 1974-79. Sixteen were treated with AR and 65 with APR. Except for the later part of 1979, the stapling instrument was not available during this period. The second series comprises 156 patients (51 AR and 105 APR) operated on during the period 1980-85, when the circular stapler was in extensive use. All patients had curative operations for tumours 6-11 cm from the anal verge. In the first series the local recurrence rate was 5/13 (39%) after an AR and 25/61 (41%) after an APR, and in the second series 8/50 (16%) and 17/100 (17%) after AR and APR, respectively. Cancer specific survival did not differ between operations in any of the series. Thus no deterioration in results could be detected since the stapling technique became part of surgical routine.     

B003Electrical Stimulation of the S3 Sacral Root Increased the Frequency of Both Colonic High Amplitude Propagating Pressure Waves and Defaecation in Patients with Slow Transit Constipation

Objective  This randomized study compared two neoadjuvant treatments in patients with a low rectal cancer less than 2 cm from the anal verge that would have required APR before radiotherapy.
Method  A total of 207 patients (71% uT3) with a rectal carcinoma at 0.5 cm from the anal verge were randomized in two groups. The group HDR received a high dose of radiotherapy (45 Gy + boost 18 Gy). The group RCT received 45 Gy with concomitant chemotherapy (5FU). Surgery was performed 6 weeks after treatment, surgeons were trained with TME, APR and intersphincteric resection.
Results  The rate of sphincter preserving surgery was 83% after HDR and 86% after RCT ( P  = 0.69). There was no difference in morbidity, clinical tumour regression (80% vs. 87%) and complete pathological response (8% vs. 15%) between HDR and RCT. Overall, the rate of R0 resection was 78%. After a follow-up of 23 months, the rates of local and distant recurrence were 6% and 19% respectively and the disease-free survival was 77%. Survival was better after sphincter preservation than after APR.
Conclusion  Sphincter preservation was achieved in 85% of ultra-low rectal carcinomas without compromising oncological prinicples. No difference was observed between HDR and RCT. Further follow-up is necessary to confirm this conservative approach.     

B001Multicentre Randomized Trial of Sphincter Preserving Surgery for Ultra‐Low Rectal Carcinoma

Objective This randomized study compared two neoadjuvant treatments in patients with a low rectal cancer less than 2 cm from the anal verge that would have required APR before radiotherapy. Method A total of 207 patients (71% uT3) with a rectal carcinoma at 0.5 cm from the anal verge were randomized in two groups. The group HDR received a high dose of radiotherapy (45 Gy + boost 18 Gy). The group RCT received 45 Gy with concomitant chemotherapy (5FU). Surgery was performed 6 weeks after treatment, surgeons were trained with TME, APR and intersphincteric resection. Results The rate of sphincter preserving surgery was 83% after HDR and 86% after RCT (P = 0.69). There was no difference in morbidity, clinical tumour regression (80% vs. 87%) and complete pathological response (8% vs. 15%) between HDR and RCT. Overall, the rate of R0 resection was 78%. After a follow‐up of 23 months, the rates of local and distant recurrence were 6% and 19% respectively and the disease‐free survival was 77%. Survival was better after sphincter preservation than after APR. Conclusion Sphincter preservation was achieved in 85% of ultra‐low rectal carcinomas without compromising oncological prinicples. No difference was observed between HDR and RCT. Further follow‐up is necessary to confirm this conservative approach.     

Oncologic Outcomes After Radical Surgery Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer: Abdominoperineal Resection Versus Sphincter-Preserving Procedure

Background  Over the past several years, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has contributed remarkably to make more sphincter-preserving procedure (SPP) possible for lower rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between abdominoperineal resection (APR) and SPP after preoperative CRT in patients with locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Methods  A retrospective investigation was conducted with a total of 122 patients who underwent radical surgery combined with preoperative CRT for locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Of these, 50 patients underwent APR and 72 received SPP. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after completion of preoperative CRT. Oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the clinicopathologic factors affecting the treatment outcomes were evaluated. Results  Circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement (P = 0.037) and postoperative complication rate (P = 0.032) were significantly different between APR and SPP. Patients who underwent APR had a higher 5-year local recurrence (22.0% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.028) and lower 5-year cancer-specific survival (52.9% vs. 71.1%, P = 0.03) rate than those who underwent SPP. Pathologic N stage was the most critical predictor for local recurrence and survival. Conclusions  Our study shows that APR following preoperative CRT exhibited more adverse oncologic outcomes compared with SPP. This result may be due to higher rates of CRM involvement in APR even with preoperative CRT. We suggest that sharp perineal dissection and wider cylindrical excision at the level of the anorectal junction are required to avoid CRM involvement and improve oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo APR following preoperative CRT.     

Abdominosacral Resection for Carcinoma of the Midrectum: Ten Years Experience

Abdominosacral resection allows curative resection of midrectal cancer with excellent preservation of sphincter function. In the last ten years 427 patients underwent resection for rectal carcinoma at University Hospital by one surgeon. (SAL) The operation, selected by preoperative sigmoidoscopic measurement, was anterior resection (AR) in 239, abdominosacral resection (ASR) in 100, and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in 88. Operative mortality was 1.7% for AR, 2% for ASR and 2.3% for APR. All patients were completely continent of stool and flatus after AR and ASR. Follow-up is complete in 194 of 195 patients treated five to ten years ago. Five year survival for curative resection (no distant metastases) was 67.3% after AR (66/98), 58.3% after ASR (21/36), and 50% after APR (15/30). For patients without tumor in lymph nodes, survival rates were 78.3% for AR, 64.3% for ASR and 63.2% for APR. With involvement of regional nodes, survival fell to 41.4% for AR, 37.5% for ASR and 27.3% for APR. For lesions at 5-8.5 cm, five year survival was 61.1% for ASR and 58.3% for APR. No statistical difference in survival time was noted when patients were matched for age, sex, level of lesion and extent of spread. Pelvic recurrences were detected in 16.7% after ASR, 15.3% after AR and 33.3% after APR. All of the pelvic recurrences after ASR and the majority of those after AR and APR occurred in patients with tumor invasion of perirectal fat. These data strongly support the applicability of ASR as an important advance in the treatment of midrectal cancer. Although technically demanding, ASR has permitted preservation of anal continence without sacrifice of long-term cure in approximately 50% of patients who would otherwise have required APR.     

Pelvic recurrence rate after abdominoperineal resection and low anterior resection for rectal cancer before and after introduction of the stapling technique

Pelvic recurrence rates after abdominoperineal resection (APR) and low anterior resection with the EEA stapler (LAR) for rectal cancer were compared. Since a controlled trial is not possible, we have compared the pelvic recurrence rate over a 2-year period before and after introduction of the EEA stapler. Before introduction of the stapler, standard treatment for midrectal tumors was APR while LAR has been the standard treatment of these cancers after introduction of the EEA stapler. A total of 164 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in this 4-year period, 85 in the first 2-year period and 79 in the last 2-year period. No difference could be demonstrated in pelvic recurrence rate after APR and LAR in the 2 periods [22.7% (95% confidence limits: 10.1–39.1%) and 22.2% (11.5–37.8%), respectively]. The recurrence rate was highest among Dukes' C tumors, but was unrelated to the type of operation. It is concluded that the increased use of low anterior resection for rectal cancer after introduction of the EEA stapler has not been followed by a higher pelvic recurrence rate.     

低位Ⅰ期直肠癌患者的外科治疗与预后分析

目的探讨低位Ⅰ期直肠癌的外科治疗效果及影响复发和预后的因素。方法回顾性分析166例低位Ⅰ期直肠癌患者的临床资料。结果本组根治性手术138例，均按直肠全系膜切除（TME）手术原则进行；其中93例行腹会阴联合根治术，45例行保肛手术；肿瘤局部切除术28例。局部复发率根治性手术者为5．1％（7／138），其中腹会阴联合根治术组为6．5％（6／93），保肛术组为2．2％（1／45）；局部切除术组为17．9％（5／28）。X^2检验显示，肿瘤分化程度（P=0．009）和手术方式（P=0．039）与局部复发相关。腹会阴联合根治术组5年生存率为90．4％，保肛术组为95．5％。局部切除术组为82．6％。单因素分析显示，肿瘤分化程度（P=0．000）和局部复发（P=0．000）与预后相关；多因素分析显示，局部复发是影响预后的主要因素（P=0．000）。结论低位Ⅰ期直肠癌根治性手术切除复发率低、预后好。局部切除术的选择应严格把握指征。     

The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision

OBJECTIVES: Examine the cause of local recurrence (LR) and patient survival (S) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) and anterior resection (AR) for rectal carcinoma and the effect of introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) on APR. METHODS: A total of 608 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds from 1986 to 1997. CRM status and follow-up data of local recurrence and patient survival were available for 561 patients, of whom 190 underwent APR (32.4%) and 371 AR (63.3%). Also, a retrospective study of pathologic images of 93 specimens of rectal carcinoma. RESULTS: Patients undergoing APR had a higher LR and lower survival (LR, 22.3% versus 13.5%, P = 0.002; S, 52.3% versus 65.8%, P = 0.003) than AR. LR free rates were lower in the APR group and cancer specific survival was lowered (LR, 66% versus 77%, log rank P = 0.03; S, 48% versus 59%, log rank P = 0.02). Morphometry: total area of surgically removed tissue outside the muscularis propria was smaller in APR specimens (n = 27) than AR specimens (n = 66) (P < 0.0001). Linear dimensions of transverse slices of tissue containing tumor, median posterior, and lateral measurements were smaller (P < 0.05) in the APR than the AR group. APR specimens with histologically positive CRM (n = 11) had a smaller area of tissue outside the muscularis propria (P = 0.04) compared with the CRM-negative APR specimens (n = 16). Incidence of CRM involvement in the APR group (41%) was higher than in the AR group (12%) (P = 0.006) in the 1997 to 2000 cohort. Similar results (36% and 22%) were found in the 1986 to 1997 cohort (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated by APR have a higher rate of CRM involvement, a higher LR, and poorer prognosis than AR. The frequency of CRM involvement for APR has not diminished with TME. CRM involvement in the APR specimens is related to the removal of less tissue at the level of the tumor in an APR. Where possible, a more radical operation should be considered for all low rectal cancer tumors.     

直肠下段癌的手术治疗

目的探讨直肠下段癌手术治疗的方式和效果。方法对１９７７～１９９２年我院收治的７５４例直肠下段癌的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果７５４例中,切除５７４例,切除率７６１２％。其中根治性切除４６４例,根切率６１５３％。围手术期并发症共计９种,１４４例次,总并发症为２５０８％,本组围手术期无死亡。根治性切除组中,经腹会阴切除３３５例,占７２１９％,局部复发率１３７３％;保肛手术１２９例,占２７８０％,局部复发率１３１８％。１９８５年前保肛率１３２５％,１９８６年后为３２８２％。１９８５年前根治切除组５年生存率５４３４％,１９８６年后为６０７３％（Ｐ＜０．０１）。结论在低位直肠癌的治疗中,如果病例选择适当,保肛手术与腹会阴联合切除术相比较,并不影响远期疗效,但其生存质量明显优于腹会阴联合切除术。