Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled Anastomosis (TTSS): A comparison of anastomotic leak rates with the double-stapled technique and with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer

Backgroundin the literature on rectal cancer (RC) surgery many studies have focused on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) dissection, while there is a scarcity of comparative data on transection and anastomosis. No anastomosis has so far proved to be superior to any other. The aim of this study was to compare anastomotic leak (AL) rates between conventional laparoscopic double-stapled (DS), transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and Transanal Transection and Single-Stapled anastomosis (TTSS) techniques.Methodsconsecutive mid-low RC patients undergoing elective laparoscopic TME with stapled anastomosis and protective stoma, by either DS, TaTME or TTSS techniques were retrieved from a prospectively collected database.Results127 DS; 100 TaTME and 50 TTSS were included. Demographics, distance of the tumor from anal verge and neoadjuvant therapy were comparable. Operative time was longer in TaTME over DS and TTSS (p < 0.0001). More 90-days complications occurred in DS group vs TTSS (p = 0.029). The AL rate was 17.5% in DS, 6% in TaTME and 2% in TTSS group (p = 0.005). AL grade was: one B (2%) in TTSS; 2 grade B (2%) and 4 grade C (4%) in TaTME; 6 grade A (4.7%), 7 grade B (5.5%) and 9 grade C (7.1%) in DS group. Reintervention rate after AL was higher in DS group over TTSS (12.6% vs 2%; p = 0.003). The rate of stoma closure, pathology data and margin positivity did not differ.ConclusionsTTSS strategy is feasible, safe and leads to very low AL rates after TME for RC.     

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open,laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BackgroundThe optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.AimTo compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).Results30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.ConclusionsWhile OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.     

Long-term outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in Denmark: A prospective multicenter study from the late implementation phase

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term surgical and oncological outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer during an implementation phase on a national level.MethodThis is a retrospective review of prospectively recorded data. Registration was initiated by the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group in order to assess the quality of care during the implementation of TaTME in Denmark. Data from four centers were pooled for simultaneous analysis. Short-term data was available from a prior study, and long-term data regarding recurrences, chemotherapy, and mortality was collected.ResultsFrom August 2016 to April 2019, 115 TaTME procedures were registered. Patients were predominantly male (n = 85, 74%) with mid-rectal (n = 88, 77%) tumors. The overall local recurrence rate was 7.8% (n = 9) of which six patients also had systemic recurrence. Mean long-term follow-up was 59.4 months, and median time to local recurrence was 24.9 months. Local recurrences occurred predominantly among initial implementation cases. The overall mortality rate was 13% (n = 15). Of the 17 patients with recurrence, 35% (n = 6) died and developed either solely distant recurrence (n = 2, 12%) or in combination with local recurrence (n = 4, 24%).ConclusionWe found acceptable long-term oncological results after TaTME during the implementation phase in Denmark. There was an accumulation of local recurrences in the early phase of the study which emphasizes the importance of thorough training and proctoring when starting the approach.     

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus total mesorectal excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinomas with curative intention

Purpose

After total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, pathology is standardized with margin status as a predictor for recurrence. This has yet to be implemented after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and was investigated prospectively for T1 rectal adenocarcinomas.

Patients and methods

Eighty patients after TEM were compared to 75 patients after TME. The study protocol included standardized pathology. TEM patients were eligible when excision margins were negative.

Results

TEM was safer than TME as reflected by operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, morbidity, re-operation rate and stoma formation (all P < 0.001). Mortality after TEM was 0% and after TME 4%. At 5 years after TEM and TME, both overall survival (TEM 75% versus TME 77%, P = 0.9) and cancer-specific survival (TEM 90% versus TME 87%, P = 0.5) were comparable. Local recurrence rate after TEM was 24% and after TME 0% (HR 79.266, 95% CI, 1.208 to 5202, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

For T1 rectal adenocarcinomas TEM is much saver than TME and survival is comparable. After TEM local recurrence rate is substantial, despite negative excision margins.     

Initial surgical experience in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for middle and lower third rectal cancer: short-term results

Introduction  Total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum has been advocated as the gold standard surgical treatment of middle and lower third rectal cancer. Laparoscopy has gained acceptance among surgeons in the treatment of colon malignancies, while scepticism exists about laparoscopic TME in terms of safety and its oncological adequacy. Objective  To evaluate the impact of laparoscopic TME on surgical and oncological outcome in a group of consecutive unselected patients. Methods  One hundred and thirty-two patients with middle or inferior rectal cancer were admitted to our unit and underwent TME from December 1998 to February 2008. Eighty-nine patients were approached with laparoscopy. Patients staged cT3/4 cTxN+ or uTxN+ were submitted to neoadjuvant treatment. Postoperative complications and oncological outcomes were registered. Results  In the laparoscopic group 80 anterior resections (including 4 intersphincteric resections and manual colo-anal anastomosis) and 9 abdominal-perineal resections were performed. 33.3% of patients were enrolled in “long-course” neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (partial and complete response rates 88.2% and 11.8%, respectively). Protective lateral ileostomy was performed in 72% of patients. Mean operative time was 254.3±38.3 min and mean blood loss was 215±180 ml. Conversion rate was 12.7%. Morbidity rate was 39.3% without mortality. The rate of anastomotic leaks was 13.48%, reoperation rate 13.48%, recovery rate 3.1±1.4 days and hospital stay 10.4±4.6 days. Concerning adequacy of oncologic resection, mean distance of the tumour from the anal verge was 4.3±2.2 cm. Nodal sampling of 12.4±4.8 were obtained. Six patients (6/89, 6.74%) had a R1 margin: 3 distal and 3 circumferential. Median follow-up was 29 months and local recurrence rate was 5.79%. Four-year cumulative overall survival was 78% and disease-free survival was 63% (Kaplan-Meier method). Conclusions  Laparoscopic approach for rectal tumour is a technically demanding procedure, but it is oncologically safe.     

腹腔镜辅助经肛全直肠系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的临床疗效分析

目的:评价腹腔镜辅助经肛全直肠系膜切除术（transanal total mesorectal excision,TaTME）治疗直肠癌的可行性、安全性、根治性和近期临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2018年12月至2019年12月我院收治的58例中低位直肠癌患者（肿瘤下缘距肛缘的距离≤10 cm）的临床资料。其中28例行腹腔镜辅助经肛全直肠系膜切除术（TaTME组）,30例行腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术（LaTME组）。比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:两组患者在年龄、性别、肿瘤下缘距肛缘的距离、肿瘤浸润深度等一般资料差异无统计学意义,具有可比性（P＞0.05）。TaTME组手术时间为(187.82±38.99)min,LaTME手术时间为(113.00±21.84)min,两组差异有显著意义（P＜0.001）;两组术中出血量［(75.00±18.40)mL vs (73.16±17.88)mL］、术后镇痛时间［（1.93±0.71)d vs(1.83±0.64)d］、肠功能恢复时间［(1.76±0.58)d vs (1.75±0.58)d］及住院时间［(8.43±3.51)d vs (8.07±3.29)d］相比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;术后并发症TaTME组和LaTME组两者无显著差异（P＞0.05）。两组在标本切除长度,肠管远切缘距离方面比较无差异;两组远处切缘所在病理学检查为阴性。两组随访时间到至今,所选入组为T3期以下,患者复查无瘤生存。结论:TaTME在游离低位直肠以及系膜更有优势,改善“困难骨盆”的低位直肠癌病人的手术切除和标本质量;同时手术安全可行,在手术并发症、手术死亡率等近期疗效方面与腹腔镜TME手术相当。     

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: Step by step description of the surgical technique for a two-teams approach

Interest in transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is growing worldwide due to the application of minimally invasive techniques to rectal cancer surgery while maintaining adequate oncologic outcomes.This article presents the standardised and refined technique after performing more than 300 operations at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.     

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection,non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

IntroductionOncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate.ResultsOf 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001.ConclusionNRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.     

5 year oncological outcomes of the HIGHLOW randomized clinical trial

IntroductionThe oncological outcomes of low ligation (LL) compared to high ligation (HL) of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) during low-anterior rectal resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision are still debated. The aim of this study is to report the 5 year oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic LAR with either HL vs. LL of the IMAMaterials and methodsBetween June 2014 and December 2016, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic LAR + TME in 6 Italian non-academic hospitals were randomized to HL or LL of IMA after meeting the inclusion criteria (HighLow trial; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02153801). We analyzed the rate of local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall survival, disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival at 5 years of patients previously enrolled.ResultsFive-year follow up data were available for 196 patients. Recurrence happened in 42 (21.4%) of patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the distant recurrence rate (15.8% HL vs. 18.9% LL; P = 0.970) and pelvic recurrence rate (4,9% HL vs 3,2% LL; P = 0.843). No statistically significant difference was found in 5-year OS (p = 0.545), DSS (p = 0.732) or DFS (p = 0.985) between HL and LL. Low vs medium and upper rectum site of tumor, conversion rate, Clavien-Dindo post-operative grade ≥3 complications and tumor stage were found statistically significantly associated to poor oncological outcomes in univariate analysis; in multivariate analysis, however, only conversion rate and stage 3 cancer were found to be independent risk factors for poor DFS at 5 years.ConclusionWe confirmed the results found in the previous 3-year survival analysis, the level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation does not affect OS, DSS and DFS at 5-year follow-up.     

Advances in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgical resection is the cornerstone of curative intent therapy for rectal cancer. The introduction of the concept of total mesorectal excision (TME) led to significant decreases in local recurrence. However, TME carries substantial morbidity. The advent of transanal endoscopic techniques, such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS), has allowed patients with early-stage disease to be managed with local excision and avoid the morbidity of TME. Advances in surgery such as laparoscopy, robotic surgery, and transanal approaches have also broadened the options for achieving TME. However, there is significant debate within the literature regarding the optimal approach and oncologic outcomes of these modalities.     

低位/超低位直肠癌行腹腔镜下经肛拖出式全直肠系膜切除联合应用双吻合器的临床意义

  目的  探讨低位/超低位直肠癌患者接受腹腔镜下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合双吻合器手术的临床意义。  方法  选择于2010年1月至2012年11月间就诊于吉林大学第二医院普通外科疾病诊疗中心的46例低位/超低位直肠癌患者, 施行腹腔镜经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器手术。回顾性分析手术成功率、术后并发症及远期治疗效果。  结果  46例手术均获成功, 无中转开腹, 手术时间平均167 min, 出血量平均42 mL。术后切缘病理检查均未见癌细胞, 无手术死亡病例, 无吻合口瘘及输尿管损伤等严重并发症, 平均随访12.6个月, 无局部或吻合口复发、戳卡种植转移。  结论  施行低位/超低位直肠癌腹腔镜辅助下经肛门拖出全直肠系膜切除结合应用双吻合器具有安全可行的优点, 并且能够保证足够的肿瘤远端切缘。      

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the journey towards a new technique and its current status

Introduction: The surgical approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has undergone a substantial evolution with the adoption of more minimally invasive procedures. Transanal TME (taTME) is the latest advanced technique pioneered to tackle difficult pelvic dissections.

Areas covered: The evolution of TME surgery from open to laparoscopic, robotic and transanal techniques was explored in this review. The outcomes to date on the latest approach, taTME, are reviewed and the future direction of rectal cancer surgery proposed. A literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for articles published between January 2005 to May 2016 using the keywords ‘transanal’, ‘TME’, ‘laparoscopy’, ‘robotics’, ‘minimally invasive’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘training’.

Expert commentary: Surgical experience in taTME is growing and randomised controlled trials have been planned and initiated worldwide. However, the learning curve for this procedure remains to be established and a structured training programme is necessary to ensure safe introduction and dissemination of the technique in the clinical setting. Further innovation including stereotactic navigation and more specialised transanal equipment are currently being explored and are likely to enhance the technique further.     

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

Background

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has gained wide-spread acceptance as a safe and useful technique for the resection of rectal adenomas and selected T1 malignant lesions. If the lesion appears >T1 rectal cancer after resection with TEM, a completion TME resection is recommended. The aim of this study was to investigate the results of TME surgery after TEM for rectal cancer.

Methods

In four tertiary referral hospitals for TEM, all patients with completion TME surgery after initial TEM were selected. All eligible patients who were treated with 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy followed by TME surgery from the Dutch TME trial were selected as reference group.A multivariate logistic regression model was used to calculate odds ratio's (OR) for colostomies and for colo- and ileostomies combined. Local recurrence and survival rates were compared in hazard ratio's (HR) using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model.

Results

Fifty-nine patients were included in the TEM-COMPLETION group and 881 patients from the TME trial. In the TEM-COMPLETION group, 50.8% of the patients had a colostomy compared to 45.9% in the TME trial, OR 2.51 (p < 0.006). There is no significant difference when ileo- and colostomies are analyzed together. In the TEM-COMPLETION group, 10.2% developed a local recurrence compared to 5.2% in the TME trial, HR 6.8 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Completion TME surgery after TEM for unexpected rectal adenocarcinoma results in more colostomies and higher local recurrence rates compared to one stage TME surgery preceded with preoperative 5 × 5 Gy radiotherapy. Pre-operative investigations must be optimized to distinguish malignant and benign lesions and prevent avoidable local recurrence and colostomies.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term oncological outcomes of lateral lymph node dissection for metastatic nodes after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer

BackgroundStandard Western management of rectal cancers with pre-treatment metastatic lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) is neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). In recent years, there is growing interest in performing an additional lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate long-term oncological outcomes of nCRT followed by TME with or without LLND in patients with pre-treatment metastatic LLNs.MethodsPubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify comparative studies reporting long-term oncological outcomes in pre-treatment metastatic LLNs of nCRT followed by TME and LLND (LLND+) vs. nCRT followed by TME only (LLND-). Newcastle-Ottawa risk-of-bias scale was used. Outcomes of interest included local recurrence (LR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Summary meta-analysis of aggregate outcomes was performed.ResultsSeven studies, including 946 patients, were analysed. One (1/7) study was of good-quality after risk-of-bias analysis. Five-year LR rates after LLND+ were reduced (range 3–15%) compared to LLND- (11–27%; RR = 0.40, 95%CI [0.25–0.62], p < 0.0001). Five-year DFS was not significantly different after LLND+ (range 61–78% vs. 46–79% for LLND-; RR = 0.72, 95%CI [0.51–1.02], p = 0.143), and neither was five-year OS (range 69–91% vs. 72–80%; RR = 0.72, 95%CI [0.45–1.14], p = 0.163).ConclusionIn rectal cancers with pre-treatment metastatic LLNs, nCRT followed by an additional LLND during TME reduces local recurrence risk, but does not impact disease-free or overall survival. Due to the low quality of current data, large prospective studies will be required to further determine the value of LLND.     

Individualizing surgical treatment based on tumour response following neoadjuvant therapy in T4 primary rectal cancer

BackgroundRectal cancer involving at least one adjacent organ (mrT4b) requires multi-visceral resection to achieve clear resection margin (R0). Performing pelvic compartment preservation according to the tumour response has not been considered. This study assesses the impact of changing the surgical strategy according to tumour response in rectal cancer mrT4b.MethodsPatients with non-metastatic T4b rectal cancer at two tertiary referral centres between 2008 and 2013 were grouped as “Responders” ypT0-3abNx versus “Non-responders” ypT3cd-4Nx and divided into three surgical procedures: total mesorectal excision (TME), extended-TME (eTME) and beyond-TME (b-TME). End-points were circumferential resection margin, postoperative morbidity, definitive stoma formation, 3-years local recurrence (3y-LR) and 3-years disease-free survival (3y-DFS) according to both tumours' response and surgical procedures.ResultsAmong 883 patients with rectal cancer, 101 were included. Responders had a higher rate of induction chemotherapy (59.7% vs. 38.2%; p = 0.04). Morbidity and definitive stoma formation were significantly higher in Non-responders. R0 was not impacted by either the tumour response or the surgical procedures. The 3y-LR was lower in Responders (14%) compared to Non Responders (32%) (HR 1.6; 95% CI: 1.02–2.59; p = 0.041), and was two-fold higher in e-TME compared to b-TME in Non-responders, whereas no difference was found in Responders. The 3y-DFS was higher in Responders irrespective to the surgery (71% vs. 47%; p = 0.07).ConclusionIn Responders, TME or e-TME are technically and oncollogically feasible and should be considered in preferrence to b-TME. In Non-responders, allowing for high rates of morbidity and local recurrence in patients with e-TME, b-TME procedures should be preferred.     

40例中下段直肠癌行直肠全系膜切除术(TME)的临床观察

目的:回顾性分析比较传统术式与TME在直肠癌术后对局部复发、排尿功能和性功能的影响。方法:2005-2009年我院40例行TME治疗中下段直肠癌,其中男性16例,女性24例,同期观察40例行传统术式治疗中下段直肠癌,跟踪随访3年,局部复发以CT和肠镜结果为准,排尿功能以拔尿管时间和尿残留为指标,性功能以问卷形式进行调查。结果:病人术后随诊3年,局部复发率为5.0%,3年生存率92.5%,排尿障碍17.5%,勃起障碍25%。结论:TME治疗中下段直肠癌对降低局部复发,减少对排尿功能和性功能影响明显优于传统术式。     

Preoperative chemoradiation may not always be needed for patients with T3 and T2N+ rectal cancer

BACKGROUND:

Preoperative chemoradiation is becoming the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, since the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME), local recurrence rates have been reduced significantly, and some patients can be spared from potentially toxic over treatment. The current study was designed to assess the factors that predict recurrence in an institutional series of patients with rectal cancer who had clinical T2 lymph node‐positive (cT2N+) tumors or cT3N0/N+ tumors and underwent radical surgery without receiving preoperative chemoradiation.

METHODS:

Between November 1997 and November 2008, the authors' multidisciplinary group preoperatively staged 398 patients with rectal cancer by using endorectal ultrasonography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. The analysis included 152 consecutive patients with cT2N+, cT3N0, or cT3N+ rectal cancer who underwent TME without receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Macroscopic assessment of the mesorectal excision and circumferential resection margins were determined. Factors potentially related to local recurrence (LR), disease‐free survival (DFS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) were analyzed.

RESULTS:

After a median follow‐up of 39 months, the 5‐year actuarial LR, DFS, and CSS rates were 9.5%, 65.4%, and 77.8%, respectively, for the whole group. Threatened mesorectal fascia at preoperative staging was the only independent preoperative factor that predicted a higher risk for LR (P = .007), shorter DFS (P = .007), and shorter CSS (P = .05). In particular, the 5‐year LR rates for patients with and without preoperative threatened circumferential resection margins were 19.4% and 5.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current results suggested that patients with rectal cancer clinically staged as T3N0/N+ or T2N+ with a free margin >2 mm from mesorectal fascia may undergo TME alone, avoiding over treatment with preoperative chemoradiation. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

Local recurrences in western low rectal cancer patients treated with or without lateral lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy: An international multi-centre comparative study

BackgroundIn the West, low rectal cancer patients with abnormal lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are commonly treated with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Additionally, some perform a lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). To date, no comparative data (nCRT vs. nCRT + LLND) are available in Western patients.MethodsAn international multi-centre cohort study was conducted at six centres from the Netherlands, US and Australia. Patients with low rectal cancers from the Netherlands and Australia with abnormal LLNs (≥5 mm short-axis in the obturator, internal iliac, external iliac and/or common iliac basin) who underwent nCRT and TME (LLND-group) were compared to similarly staged patients from the US who underwent a LLND in addition to nCRT and TME (LLND + group).ResultsLLND + patients (n = 44) were younger with higher ASA-classifications and ypN-stages compared to LLND-patients (n = 115). LLND + patients had larger median LLNs short-axes and received more adjuvant chemotherapy (100 vs. 30%; p < 0.0001). Between groups, the local recurrence rate (LRR) was 3% for LLND + vs. 11% for LLND- (p = 0.13). Disease-free survival (DFS, p = 0.94) and overall survival (OS, p = 0.42) were similar. On multivariable analysis, LLND was an independent significant factor for local recurrences (p = 0.01). Sub-analysis of patients who underwent long-course nCRT and had adjuvant chemotherapy (LLND-n = 30, LLND + n = 44) demonstrated a lower LRR for LLND + patients (3% vs. 16% for LLND-; p = 0.04). DFS (p = 0.10) and OS (p = 0.11) were similar between groups.ConclusionA LLND in addition to nCRT may improve loco-regional control in Western patients with low rectal cancer and abnormal LLNs. Larger studies in Western patients are required to evaluate its contribution.     

Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: An individual patient data meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsThe role of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection remains controversial. Thus, we aimed to conduct a one-stage meta-analysis with reconstructed patient-level data using randomized trial data to compare long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgical resection for rectal cancer.MethodsMedline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS) while secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). One-stage meta-analysis was conducted using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with Web Plot Digitizer. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints.ResultsSeven randomized trials involving 1767 laparoscopic and 1293 open resections for rectal cancer were included. There were no significant differences between both groups for DFS and OS with respective hazard ratio estimates of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78–1.06, p = 0.241) and 0.86 (95% CI:0.73–1.02, p = 0.090). Sensitivity analysis for non-metastatic patients and patients with mid and lower rectal cancer showed no significant differences in OS and DFS between both surgical approaches. In the laparoscopic arm, improved DFS was noted for stage II (HR: 0.73, 95% CI:0.54–0.98, p = 0.036) and stage III rectal cancers (HR: 0.74, 95% CI:0.55–0.99, p = 0.041).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis concludes that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection does not compromise long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery with potential survival benefits for a minimal access approach in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.     

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Current Trends

Purpose of the Review

The literature regarding minimally invasive surgical approaches to rectal adenocarcinoma is reviewed, and techniques introduced over recent decades are assessed for oncological and patient-centered outcomes.

Recent Findings

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard for surgical treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma, and while laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible, with acceptable oncologic outcomes, its non-inferiority with regard to completeness of TME specimen when compared to open surgery could not be established in two recent randomized trials. Long-term follow-up for these trials is pending with regard to ultimate oncologic outcomes. Robotic TME is also safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons, but has high costs, and results of the only randomized trial comparing the technique to laparoscopy are yet to be published. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches appear to offer short-term benefits in patient recovery and quality of life. The latest innovation is transanal TME (TaTME). This is performed at select centers, and early on, has been associated with acceptable resection quality and short-term outcomes. Organ-preserving transanal and endoscopic resections for early-stage disease have acceptable results, and a non-operative/watch-and-wait strategy may be appropriate in selected patients with a complete clinical response.

Summary

There are multiple surgical options for rectal adenocarcinoma, depending on patient and disease characteristics. In the appropriate setting, minimally invasive approaches to TME offer short-term benefits to patients and acceptable oncologic results. Organ-preserving strategies in selected patients may avoid morbidity associated with radical resection.